People v. Jamieson
461 N.W.2d 884 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan's objective test for entrapment, police conduct is evaluated based on whether it would likely induce or instigate the commission of a crime by a hypothetical person not ready and willing to commit it, rather than on the defendant's predisposition. Supplying contraband in an undercover operation and using an informant to select targets does not per se constitute entrapment, especially in a controlled environment like a prison where the targets are law enforcement officers.
Facts:
- A juvenile inmate at Wayne County Jail, Quinton Varner, informed the Sheriff's Department that deputy sheriffs were smuggling narcotics to inmates.
- In exchange for a thirty-day reduction in his sentence, Varner agreed to cooperate in an undercover investigation.
- The Sheriff's Department devised a plan where Varner would select and approach jail guards to transport cocaine into the jail for him.
- Law enforcement officials obtained cocaine from the Drug Enforcement Administration to be used in the operation.
- An undercover police officer, posing as Varner's outside contact, would meet the targeted guards and provide them with the police-supplied cocaine.
- The defendants, who were Wayne County Jail guards, met the undercover officer, obtained the cocaine, and then delivered it to Varner inside the jail.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendants, who were Wayne County Jail guards, were charged with delivery of cocaine in the Detroit Recorder's Court, a trial-level court.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of entrapment.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court judge found that the defendants were entrapped as a matter of law and dismissed the charges.
- The prosecution appealed the dismissal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the decision was not clearly erroneous.
- The prosecution was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
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 police conduct constitute entrapment under Michigan's objective test when law enforcement, acting on a tip about guards smuggling drugs into a jail, uses a juvenile inmate informant to select targets, supplies the cocaine for the transaction, and arranges for the guards to deliver it to the informant inside the jail?
Opinions:
Majority - Brickley, J.
No, the police conduct does not constitute entrapment. Under Michigan's objective test, the focus is on the police conduct and whether it would induce a hypothetical person, not ready and willing to commit the crime, to engage in criminal activity. The police activity in this case served only to provide an opportunity for the defendants to engage in criminal activity, not to manufacture crime. The government's furnishing of contraband is insufficient by itself to constitute entrapment. Furthermore, the use of an informant to select targets, the lack of alternative plans, and the design of the operation are not reprehensible given the context. The defendants were law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the law, in a controlled prison environment, and the police did not use pressure, friendship, or sympathy to induce the crime. The conduct was an investigation of reported criminal activity, not an instigation of it.
Dissenting - Archer, J.
Yes, the police conduct constitutes entrapment. The government manufactured a crime where none likely existed before by supplying the scheme, the means, the opportunity, and the controlled substance. The police conduct was reprehensible because it involved several improper elements: 1) the government acted as both supplier and recipient of the narcotics in a 'take-back' sale, a practice condemned by many courts; 2) they allowed a sixteen-year-old felon 'unfettered power' to select the targets, creating a risk of selective enforcement and abuse; and 3) they introduced actual narcotics into the jail when a facsimile would have sufficed. This conduct falls below the standards for the proper use of governmental power and should be condemned as a matter of public policy.
Concurring - Cavanagh, J.
No, the police conduct does not constitute entrapment. While some of the police actions might be questionable in other contexts, they are permissible within the unique setting of a jail. Given that drug smuggling opportunities are likely presented to guards regularly, merely furnishing the opportunity does not constitute entrapment. The controlled environment of the jail mitigates the dangers of using a young, unsupervised informant. Therefore, on these specific facts, the police action was not 'reprehensible' and does not meet the standard for entrapment under the objective test.
Concurring - Levin, J.
No, the police conduct does not constitute entrapment. This concurrence agrees with the reversal, noting that methods that would be unacceptable in other settings are tolerable to root out corruption in a prison setting, given the unique power dynamics and vulnerabilities of inmates.
Concurring - Griffin, J.
No, the police conduct does not constitute entrapment, though the court should not be using the objective test. This opinion concurs in the result but dissents from the Court's continued use of the objective test for entrapment. The subjective standard, used by federal courts and most states, is preferable. Short of that, the entrapment defense, which has no constitutional basis, should be eliminated. However, since the majority insists on using the objective test, this opinion concurs with its application and conclusion that entrapment did not occur.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Michigan's minority position of adhering to the objective test for entrapment, focusing on police conduct rather than the defendant's predisposition. The court clarifies that significant government involvement in a 'reverse sting' operation, including supplying contraband, does not automatically constitute entrapment. The analysis establishes that the context of the crime and the status of the defendant (here, law enforcement officers) are relevant factors in determining whether police conduct would induce a hypothetical, law-abiding person to commit a crime. This ruling provides law enforcement with significant latitude in conducting undercover operations targeting corruption within controlled environments like prisons.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Jamieson