Miller v. State
121 Nev. 92, 121 Nev. Adv. Rep. 10, 110 P.3d 53 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police decoy operation does not constitute entrapment when it provides a realistic opportunity for crime to a person predisposed to commit it. Entrapment occurs only when police create an irresistible temptation for an otherwise innocent person, such as by using a decoy who appears completely helpless and unconscious.
Facts:
- To combat street-level robberies, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department initiated an undercover decoy program.
- Detective Jason Leavitt disguised himself as an intoxicated vagrant by rubbing charcoal on his face, wiping beer on his neck, walking with a limp, and carrying a beer can.
- Leavitt placed twenty one-dollar bills in the breast pocket of his shirt so that only the tips of the bills were visible.
- Leavitt positioned himself against a fence near a Greyhound Bus Station.
- Richard Miller approached Detective Leavitt and asked for money.
- When Leavitt refused, Miller put his arm around Leavitt's shoulders, pulled him closer, and quickly took the twenty dollars from Leavitt's pocket.
- After taking the money, Miller loosened his grip and again asked Leavitt for money.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Nevada charged Richard Miller with larceny from the person.
- Following a two-day trial in the district court (trial court), a jury found Miller guilty.
- The district court sentenced Miller to a term of 12 to 32 months in prison.
- Miller appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entrapped by the police.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police decoy operation, where an officer poses as an intoxicated but conscious person with a small portion of money visible in his pocket, constitute entrapment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A police decoy operation does not constitute entrapment when the defendant is predisposed to commit the crime and the police conduct does not involve improper inducement. The court distinguished this case from prior rulings where entrapment was found because those involved decoys who were feigning unconsciousness and appeared completely helpless, presenting a level of temptation that could induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime. Here, Detective Leavitt was conscious and did not make the money readily accessible; he merely posed as a realistic, alternative victim. The court applied a five-factor test and determined Miller was predisposed to commit the crime because he initiated the contact, was not reluctant, acted for profit, and was not improperly induced by the government. Since Miller was predisposed and the police opportunity was not improper, there was no entrapment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the line between permissible police decoy operations and impermissible entrapment under Nevada law. It solidifies the state's use of a subjective entrapment standard, which focuses on the defendant's predisposition rather than solely on the objective nature of the police conduct. By distinguishing between a 'realistic decoy' and a 'helpless, unconscious' one, the court provides law enforcement with clearer guidelines on conducting sting operations without crossing the line into entrapment. The ruling affirms that presenting an opportunity to a willing criminal is a valid law enforcement tool, so long as the inducement is not so great as to overwhelm the will of a non-predisposed individual.
