People often ask us, “Isn’t that entrapment?” This comes up a lot when we hear about ‘bait cars,’ those vehicles left unlocked on the side of the road just *begging* to be stolen. Of course, once they are stolen, police officers shut down the engine and lock the doors from the outside, trapping the thief in the car. HOW COULD A TRAP NOT BE ENTRAPMENT? Well, it just ain’t, at least not in Kentucky.
Entrapment is a delicate flower of a defense, available in the rarest of circumstances, but available nonetheless. Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 505.010 provides that:
(1) A person is not guilty of an offense arising out of a proscribed conduct when:
(a) he was induced or encouraged to engage in that conduct by a public servant or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant seeking to obtain evidence against him for the purpose of criminal prosecution; and
(b) At the time of the inducement or encouragement, he was not otherwise disposed to engage in such conduct.
See, they always get you in part (b).
This issue arose recently in the case of QUIST V. COM, 338 S.W.3d 778, in which the Kentucky Court of Appeals basically said, “Hey, dummy – we didn’t give you the idea of trying to hook up with a 13 year-old, so you lose.” That’s a summary and not what the *actual* opinion said, which was, “In this case, evidence was presented to show that Quist made initial contact with ‘want_2_be_me13,’ whose profile identified her as 13 years-old, he initiated sexually explicit chats with her, he suggested meeting in-person, he spoke on the telephone with who he believed to be ‘want_2_be_me13,’ and he drove to what he believed to be her house to meet her. Though the record reflects that during a telephone conversation immediately prior to Quist’s arrival at the house, ‘want_2_be_me13′ invited him to come inside the house, as the trial court noted, at that point Quist was already on his way to her house and was calling to verify. The fact that ‘want_2_be_me13′ invited him to come inside does nor provide sufficient evidence of inducement or encouragement, in light of all the evidence, because going inside was not required to complete the crime.” The court points to Young v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 670 at 674, to make its point that actually entering the home of the minor is not required to prove the crime of Unlawful Transaction with a Minor. Also, the irony of the name of that case is not lost on this author.
So, when Mr. Quist said to this undercover police officer (who I really, really, really hope was a big, manly guy, but who Quist really, really hoped was a 13 year-old girl) that he wanted to “touch [her] until [she was] craving so bad we would mate,” (uh, yeah, that’s from an actual message from Quist to the undercover officer), he wasn’t just spewing the next great poetic sonnet, he was also helping the state prove that he WAS otherwise disposed to engage in such conduct, and thus was not entrapped. The fact that he didn’t come into the home until after she had invited him does not protect him from conviction. Or from criticism. I mean really, dude, that’s the best you got? “[C]raving so bad we would mate?” What are you, a koala bear? This is why you deserve to have a lawyer in Louisville, KY, using you as an example on her blog.
Now, let’s say Mr. Quist had been minding his own business, surfing the chat rooms looking for, say, the adult, consensual variety of sex, when out of nowhere a 13 year-old messages him and says, “hEy SeXy WuTuP?” Let’s say he responds, “Sorry, not interested in 13 year-olds.” Let’s say she then responds, “Are you sure? I can make you rich!” and he merely writes back, “I don’t know…” and let’s say she then goes on to say, “Really? Are you sure? I’m at your door and ready to go,” and he says, “okay, come on in,” and only then is he arrested. Now that, my friends, might very well be entrapment. And it also would be REALLY WEIRD, and you should definitely refuse if you ever find yourself in that situation. Don’t answer the door in that case. And you should call a lawyer right away, too.
So… here’s the lesson learned: good luck proving you weren’t “otherwise disposed to engage in such conduct,” whether it be with hot-wiring a bait car or chillin’ with Chris Hansen.
If you or someone you know is charged with a crime, it’s important to have good counsel who can tell you what’s up. Give us a call to see if we can help. Faulkner Kaelin Law Office — Honest. Dedicated. Experienced.
* This post brought to you by Julie Kaelin, who still gets a kick out of seeing the expression on those guys’ faces when Hansen walks out of the pantry.