Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Police Arrest 141 New York City Merchants in Stolen iPhone Sting
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I gave you a plus. My reasoning is cops can lie so who knows what they asked the store owner. How many cops are witnesses does not matter unless everything was taped. How can I know what was said.
I had a friend he owned a deli in nyc in the 1980's. Some people would come in and offer packs of batteries for sale. They would say I have batteries for sale half price. He would buy them. No words were ever said like hot batteries. Most store owners are clever enough to never buy a piece of gear from a strange guy that admits the gear is hot. I find it hard to believe a deli owner or bodega owner in nyc would buy a piece of gear from a strange person that said I have hot iPads/iphones half price. So it is more likely the cops lied rather then made clean busts.
Anyone that disagrees look up the past scandals of nyc cops google NYPD and testifying. testalying auto correct strikes again!
NOTE : IN the late 1990's or very early 2000's before 911. NYC cops killed quite a few people some were shaky shootings.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani said we reduced murders from 2000 plus each year to under 700.
A fact
He then said even if some of the cop shootings were shaky there were 1300 murders removed so 10 or 20 "bad" shootings by cops would be a net gain of life of 1280 or so.
This is a fact although I paraphrased the quote. I don't remember it exactly.
So if some of the 141 deli /bogdea busts were shaky but iPhone theft goes down maybe it is not so bad of a thing.
I own no mobile apple gear for fear of being attacked for it.
Last edited:
It's not entrapment if the person is predisposed to committing that crime.
In Texas, for example, entrapment is defined in the statutes as:
§ 8.06. ENTRAPMENT.
(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.
(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.
(Source: I'm a criminal defense lawyer)
----------
No, but finding something in a bar is very different than robbing someone at gunpoint for their iPhone. It's not okay by any means, but it is still very different. It's a different crime (if any).
----------
That's why APPLE needs to start blacklisting the stolen devices. Blacklist them so they can't activate, sync, or have any connection with iTunes.
----------
The second scenario still isn't entrapment if the guy is predisposed to committing the crime. The courts will look at his past to see if he has committed the crime before. If so, entrapment, which is a legal defense, probably won't help him.
Entrapment is more along the lines of a scenario like this:
Innocent person who has never committed a theft crime: "That guy has a nice watch"
Undercover cop: "Let's steal it"
Innocent person who has never committed a theft crime: "I don't think so"
Undercover cop: "Come on, no one will catch us"
Innocent person who has never committed a theft crime: "I'm not a criminal"
Undercover cop: "I'll help you. It's only a watch"
Innocent person who has never committed a theft crime: "Okay"
The distinction is the person in my scenario above is not predisposed to committing the offense, and the cop pushed him to do it.
This might be the case in some of the Apple arrests mentioned in the article. We don't know, because we don't know the REAL specifics of any of the arrests.
.
Last edited:
Now why the heck would Apple do this? And if they do, who do you think will pay for the time and resources to do it? Not to mention the litigation Apple would face should their records be in error.
If your second scenario above is considered entrapment, then I think there is a strong argument of entrapment here since they are walking into the store and approaching the store owners out of the blue with a contrived offer.
But I think there's another concern and that is that hopefully the police allow enough time after the store owner buys the item to make certain they were not going to turn around and call the police to report the incident.
Seems to me that it's important to consider that this store owner is being approached by someone who is basically announcing that they "stole" something (and therefore may be accustomed to committing violent crimes) In this case, their desire may be to get the guy out of the store as quickly as possible ... in fact, they may actually be fast-thinking and remember their security cameras are running and simply buy the phone to get the guy the hell out of the store and then when the coast is clear, call the police and provide video and the returned merchandise. Not really a smart move, but it would be a matter of panicking not criminal intent.
No body wants this these thefts to continue, but I'm just hoping that the police are waiting to make certain of the intent of the store owner.
They are allowed to lie in order to catch criminals. No problem there.
That's exactly the line between "entrapment" and "no entrapment". Assuming that they knew what they were doing, not very persuasive.
The goal is to reduce the crime. Why would you attack the problem where it is very difficult to tackle, when there is a much easier way? They were using a much more efficient approach then you suggest. 141 merchants who aren't going to buy stolen goods anymore, I'd call that "real" police work.
I would assume that they can't arrest you unless you actually follow through with it, like handing over the cash, so the guy who would have backed out actually _did_ back out and wasn't arrested. And frankly, you are either willing to buy dodgy goods from a stranger or you're not.
Good luck with that.
What if the fake thug (actually police) shows up at my store looks like someone I don't want to mess with? What if he weighs 200lb and I seriously worried about repercussion if I don't comply? What if I simply want to buy it (pretend to comply), THEN report this incident to police?
This is entirely a scenario I could imagine myself doing.
This is entirely a scenario I could imagine myself doing.
Last edited:
i'm sure when they go to court there will be mountains of evidence of suspicion that these stores were dealing in stolen iphones and other electronics
That wouldn't be entrapment, that would be a lot worse.
In a case of entrapment, someone who would normally not have committed a crime was persuaded by a police officer to do so, but still does the crime voluntarily.
If the officer convinced the merchant that the products were legit then no crime was committed, so he can't be arrested. If the officer threatened the merchant, then I think it would be the officer who has a problem.
This is dump!
It is AT&T and Apple's fault! They want to make money on stolen phones or other iDevices.
ACTIVATION and USAGE both works on Apple and AT&T servers, so they can block the IMEI numbers. The phone will not work unless it is returned.
It is AT&T and Apple's fault! They want to make money on stolen phones or other iDevices.
ACTIVATION and USAGE both works on Apple and AT&T servers, so they can block the IMEI numbers. The phone will not work unless it is returned.
Entrapment?
It's a reasonable question, so I check wikipedia and got this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
<<In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.>>
So there's a thin line... "ready and willing"... but if the cop kept pestering the guy into buying it and he finally gave in... entrapment might be a good defense.
Think Bait Car. The thief is certainly "ready and willing".
It's a reasonable question, so I check wikipedia and got this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
<<In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.>>
So there's a thin line... "ready and willing"... but if the cop kept pestering the guy into buying it and he finally gave in... entrapment might be a good defense.
Think Bait Car. The thief is certainly "ready and willing".
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem I see here is that the police are initiating the interaction and performing actions that may corrupt someone who never would have sought out to buy stolen property on their own. In essence, they are creating criminals out of people who may or may not become criminals.
I don't think the police should be in the business of testing people to see if their character is good or not, but in bringing to justice people who have made that choice on their own. It may be less efficient in this case, but what about the efficiency of adding to the burdens on the justice system by increasing the number of people who would have lived their entire lives without ever buying stolen property until a very enticing opportunity came their way? Principles can come before efficiency in my opinion.
To look at it from the perspective of fake hooker stings, I think it's fine if the John solicits the prostitute, but I think it's wrong if the prostitutes are approaching guys on the street and initiating the interaction.
Last edited:
This most certainly is entrapment and the NYPD should be sued.
These businesses would not have had the opporunity to buy stolen iphones had the undercover officers not walked in their stores. They were not actively searching for stolen merchandise. They didn't even know stolen iphones existed until they were presented to them by the undercover officers. My argument would be that I misunderstood what the cop said and didn't know what I was buying.
These businesses would not have had the opporunity to buy stolen iphones had the undercover officers not walked in their stores. They were not actively searching for stolen merchandise. They didn't even know stolen iphones existed until they were presented to them by the undercover officers. My argument would be that I misunderstood what the cop said and didn't know what I was buying.
This says you are exactly wrong:
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
And acting stupid is not a valid legal defense.
My mistake, but what state did you pass the bar exam in?
Everyone in this thread pretending they have their law degree or know how to properly execute police stings should go out and accomplish both before making complete asses of themselves. The NYPD knows what they're doing, and executed the job well. I don't claim to be a lawyer, but it doesn't take one to understand that this wasn't entrapment. This sounds like equivalent of a dope dealer getting pissed while getting arrested for selling to a cop even though they asked whether they were a cop or not. It's the same level of maturity.
People are becoming more idiotic every day.
Apple could fix this problem with little effort. They need to build in something like a fuse in one of the chips. then my sending a command they blow the fuse. In effect a remote controlled self-destruct. Then after the phone is reported stolen, the next time it connects to any network it becomes a brick with no possible repair. There would be no market for stolen IOS devices.
But Apple, I'm sure makes money by selling replacement phones so I don't expect them to work to hard
----------
We don't know what the cops did. Likely they have lawyers who work for the police department and the lawyers wrote a kind of "script" for the cops to use so they could be sure to get a conviction.
So the cops comes in and asks. "I need to sell my phone, know anyone who wants one?" Then merchant says "I can use one". Then maybe the cops tries to let him out of the deal and says. No you don't want this phone it's stolen. You can get into some trouble. --- You see the point is that they have to get him the opportunity but not pressure him and get him an easy way to back out. It is a fine line but I'm SURE some lawyers who know many past court cases have gone wrote a better script than I did.
But Apple, I'm sure makes money by selling replacement phones so I don't expect them to work to hard
----------
We don't know what the cops did. Likely they have lawyers who work for the police department and the lawyers wrote a kind of "script" for the cops to use so they could be sure to get a conviction.
So the cops comes in and asks. "I need to sell my phone, know anyone who wants one?" Then merchant says "I can use one". Then maybe the cops tries to let him out of the deal and says. No you don't want this phone it's stolen. You can get into some trouble. --- You see the point is that they have to get him the opportunity but not pressure him and get him an easy way to back out. It is a fine line but I'm SURE some lawyers who know many past court cases have gone wrote a better script than I did.