Alonzo Liverman was arrested on Monday morning during a reverse sting that netted nine other men for soliciting a prostitute. The prostitutes in question were actually undercover Daytona Beach Police Department officers. While negotiating a liaison with a female officer, Liverman, who was “operating a bicycle”, revealed that he did not have any money.
“I’m hungry, you got food?” the undercover officer asked. Liverman replied, “I got a salad,” according to a booking affidavit. “I’ll give you a blow job for a salad,” the undercover officer declared. Liverman replied, “You ready to go?” The document does not detail the location of Liverman’s salad (or its street value).
Liverman was arrested because he and the officer “agreed upon the sexual act in exchange for food,” investigators reported. During a court appearance on Tuesday, Liverman, a Daytona Beach resident, pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge (for which he was found guilty by a Circuit Court judge). Liverman was sentenced to two days in jail and fined $500.
7 comments:
That's a crime? The prostitute initiated it.
Entrapment appears to be quite a common tactic in the US, Brixter.
It also happens in the UK, albeit to a much lesser extent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
Yeah, I was going to say, the officer initiated the exchange. That's entrapment. I don't think that's gonna fly.
Lurker111
I remember bringing up the same argument in an undergrad criminal justice class some years ago. Here's what I remember learning. Many people have the notion that entrapment means that law enforcement offer someone an illegal exchange and therefor entraps them when he/she agrees. However, a person offered an illegal activity has the freedom to refuse it. The legal system presupposes only people who are otherwise prone to engaging in or already seeking out illegal activities will cooperate. Actually the laws on entrapment in the US vary by state. Most entrapment defenses are valid only when the accused can prove they were cajoled, harassed or somehow forced into accepting the illegal exchange.
Thanks for that Lurker111 and Fred.
As I understand, it in the UK, it's possible for an undercover officer to achieve a conviction provided they don't instigate the alleged offence.
I think in this particular case, because of what the officer said/offered, it would be almost impossible for the alleged offender to be found guilty.
Don't some people find this to be the premise of their dates?
If you read the end of the article, it shows that the man already entered a plea and was convicted.
Post a Comment