Frequently, police take actions that constitute criminal entrapment; normally, entrapment occurs in Michigan through a narcotic’s unit by a criminal informant.

Entrapment is an absolute defense, and it does not matter whether the crime was committed or not.  People v Rowell, 153 Mich App 99, 103 (1986); People v White, 411 Mich 366, 387  (1981)   The court must decide the entrapment defense at a pre-trial hearing on the motion of the defendant — it is not a question for the jury.   People v Pierce, 272 Mich App 394, 400-401 (2006)

The purpose of the entrapment defense is to curb unacceptable police tactics and conduct.

Michigan uses an “objective test” to determine if police entrapment occurred.

The court can consider the following list of non-exclusive factors:

1.         whether there existed any appeals to the defendant’s sympathy as a friend,

2.         whether the defendant had been known to commit the crime with which he was charged,

3.         whether there were any long time lapses between the investigation and the arrest.

4.         any inducements that would make the commission of a crime unusually attractive  to a hypothetical law-abiding citizen,

5.         offers of excessive consideration or other enticement,

6.         a guarantee that the acts alleged as crimes were not illegal.

7.         whether and to what extent any government pressure existed,

8.         the existence of sexual favors,

9.         whether there were any threats of arrest made by the governmental agents,

10.       the existence of any government procedures that tend to escalate the criminal culpability of the defendant. Id.

11.       the police control over any informant,

12.       whether the investigation is targeted or untargeted,






Comments are closed.