State of Florida v. Jamal Rashad Laing
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 258, 182 So. 3d 812 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal principle at issue is the application of both objective and subjective standards of entrapment, focusing on law enforcement conduct and the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. Objective entrapment requires law enforcement conduct so outrageous that it violates due process, while subjective entrapment involves inducement by law enforcement and lack of predisposition by the defendant.
Facts:
- On October 9, 2013, a school resource officer observed Jamal Rashad La-ing, 19, in a parked car with a minor, S.G., 15, in a compromising position.
- S.G. told the officer that during the consensual encounter, La-ing attempted to touch her hip, breast, and groin areas.
- La-ing and S.G. had exchanged nude pictures and explicit messages about sexual activities via Facebook.
- A detective, using S.G.'s phone, initiated contact with La-ing a week later by texting 'hey', which led to arrangements for a meeting where La-ing was arrested.
- La-ing admitted knowing S.G. was 15 and that he had gone to the restaurant to see her, though he claimed his aunt had dissuaded him from having sex with S.G.
- La-ing moved to dismiss his charges based on entrapment, and the trial court granted the motion, which the State appealed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the law enforcement's conduct in this case constitute entrapment under either the objective or subjective standards as defined by Florida law?
Opinions:
Majority - Klingen Smith (J.)
No. The court found that the detective's actions of initiating contact with La-ing and discussing a potential meeting did not rise to the level of inducement necessary for subjective entrapment. I reasoned that texting the word 'hey' to La-ing after a week of no contact with the victim is wholly insufficient to constitute inducement. Furthermore, the actions did not reach the egregiousness required for objective entrapment to apply. I emphasized that creating nothing more than an opportunity to commit a crime is not prohibited. The trial court's decision to dismiss based on entrapment was reversed because the law enforcement's conduct did not so offend decency or a sense of justice as to constitute a denial of due process. I concluded that neither objective nor subjective entrapment existed as a matter of law in this case.
Concurrence - Warner (J.)
I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse and remand because the police conduct—limited to a mere text message—is too minimal to substantiate a claim of entrapment. However, I differ from the majority in that I stress the defendant’s own proactive role in furthering the encounter; his initiative in arranging the subsequent meeting indicates an independent predisposition to commit the offense. This nuance, which the majority does not fully explore, requires attention on remand because it may bear on our understanding of voluntariness and inducement in similar cases.
Concurrence - Levine (J.)
I join in the reversal and remand because the government’s conduct, highlighted solely by a non-intrusive text message, does not meet the standard for inducement under our entrapment doctrine. However, I diverge from the majority by drawing attention to the detective’s comment about a secluded meeting place, which introduces an element of persuasive language that might suggest an understated level of coercion. I believe this subtlety deserves further inquiry on remand because it could affect how we view the balance between police methods and the defendant’s own choices.
Analysis:
This case underscores the stringent requirements for establishing entrapment under Florida law, particularly the high threshold for proving objective entrapment based on law enforcement conduct. It highlights the balance courts must maintain between upholding individual rights and enabling law enforcement to effectively combat crime. The court's decision reinforces that merely providing an opportunity for a crime does not constitute entrapment, and that law enforcement has considerable leeway in its investigative techniques, especially when dealing with suspects who have already shown a willingness to engage in criminal behavior.
