Entrapped on the Web? Applying the Entrapment Defense to Cases Involving Online Sting Operations

Abstract

Many law enforcement agencies are currently responding to the problem of online crime by establishing proactive investigative units that track criminals on the Internet. Not only do these specialized teams face problems in the area of emerging technology, they are also faced with handling emerging legal issues. The current research examined the issue of the entrapment defense, and how previously established physical realm doctrine could be applied to the investigation of online crimes such as child pornography. Relying on previous case law it would appear that entrapment claims related to online sting operations involve consideration of: a) did the law enforcement officer continuously contact the suspect with the intention of trying to convince the individual to engage in a particular type of behavior, b) how long was the relationship between the undercover officer and the suspect, and c) how much, if any, reluctance to commit the criminal act did the suspect provide evidence of?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Alexy, E., Burgess, A., & Baker, T. (2005). Internet offenders: traders, travelers, and combination trader-travelers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(7), 804–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Book, C. (2004). Do you really know who is on the other side of your computer screen? stopping internet crimes against children. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 14, 749–774.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boyle, K. (2000). The pornography debates: beyond cause and effect. Women’s Studies International Forum, 23(2), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chase, E., & Statham, J. (2005). Commercial and sexual exploitation of children and young people in the UK - a review. Child Abuse Review, 14, 4–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cobb, J. (2001). Evidentiary issues concerning online ‘sting’ operations: a hypothetical-based analysis regarding authentication, identification, and admissibility of online conversations-a novel test for the application of old rules to new crimes. Brandeis Law Journal, 39, 785–846.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davidson, J., & Martellozzo, E. (2005). Policing the internet and protecting children from sex offenders online: when strangers become “virtual friends.” Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/julia_davidson.pdf.

  7. Dobson, J. (Interviewer). (1989). Fatal addiction: Ted Bundy’s final interview [Video Tape]. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Films.

  8. Graham, R. (2000). Uncovering and eliminating child pornography rings on the internet: issues regarding and avenues facilitating law enforcement’s access to ‘wonderland’. Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law, 2000, 457–484.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gregg, J. (1996). Caught in the web: entrapment in cyberspace. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 19, 157–197.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hanson, J. (1996). Entrapment in cyberspace: a renewed call for reasonable suspicion. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996, 535–551.

  11. Kaplan, D. (1997). New cybercop tricks to fight child porn. U.S. News and World Report, 122, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lord, K. (1998). Entrapment and due process: moving toward a dual system of defenses. Florida State University Law Review, 1998, 463–485.

  13. Lynch, M. (2002). Pedophiles and cyber-predators as contaminating forces: the language of disgust, pollution, and boundary invasions in federal debates on sex offender legislation. Law and Social Inquiry, 27, 529–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayo, C. (2003). Sign of the times: Massachusetts’ need to amend the state law against online predators. Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy, 8, 167–177.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers, A. (2004). New technology, old defenses: Internet sting operations and attempt liability. University of Richmond Law Review, 38, 477–523.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco, CA: Albion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sheetz, M. (2000). Cyberpredators: police internet investigations under florida statute 847.0135. University of Miami Law Review, 54, 405–449.

    Google Scholar 

  18. The entrapment defense: an interview with Paul Marcus. (2004). Ohio Northern University Law Review, 30, 211 – 233.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Walden, I., & Flanagan, A. (2003). Honeypots: a sticky legal landscape. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 29, 317–370.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wang, W. (2001). Steal this computer 2: what they won’t tell you about the internet. San Franciso: No Starch Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ward, M. (2003). Online dragnet to thwart paedophiles. Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3330929.htm.

  22. Weber, G. (2002). Grooming children for sexual molestation. Retrieved April 15, 2006 from http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/grooming.html.

  23. Weinstock, J. (1998). Online stings: high-tech entrapment or innovative law enforcement. Retrieved on May 21, 2003, from http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/seminalr/papers/weinstock.htm.

  24. Wolf, J. (2001). Grooming: the process of victimization. Retrieved on May 24, 2003, from http:///www.cachouston.org/pressroom/library/feature%20articles/grooming.pdf.

  25. Yamagami, D. (2001). Prosecuting cyber-pedophiles: how can intent be shown in a virtual world in light of the fantasy defense. Santa Clara Law Review, 41, 547–579.

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

  1. Goode v. United States, 159 U.S. 663 (1895).

  2. Grimm v. United States, 156 U.S. 604 (1895).

  3. Jacobsen v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992).

  4. Padgett v. United States, 302 F. Supp.2d 593 (South Car. 2004).

  5. People v. Arndt, 351 Ill.App.3d 505, 814 N.E.2d 980 (Illinois. 2004).

  6. Price v. United States, 165 U.S. 311 (1897).

  7. Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896).

  8. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932).

  9. United States v. Cherian, 2003 WL 261839 (5th Cir. 2003).

  10. United States v. Curtin, 443 F.3d 1084 (C.A.9 Nev. 2006).

  11. United States v. Dion, 762 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985).

  12. United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (C.A. 8 Mo. 2006).

  13. United States v. Kaye, 2006 WL 2583405 (E.D. Va. 2006).

  14. United States v. O’Brien, 2001 WL 1609763 (9th Cir. 2001).

  15. United States v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2000).

  16. United States v. Schatt, 210 F.3d 391 (10th Cir. 2000).

  17. United States v. Venson, 82 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2003).

  18. United States v. Walther, 867 F.2d 1334 (Fla 1989).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Moore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moore, R., Lee, T. & Hunt, R. Entrapped on the Web? Applying the Entrapment Defense to Cases Involving Online Sting Operations. Am J Crim Just 32, 87–98 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-007-9012-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Chat Room
  • Child Pornography
  • Physical Meeting
  • Affirmative Defense
  • Potential Suspect