Are there circumstances in which the source of drugs used by police provides a defense to those accused of crimes involving the drugs? Can the source of illegal drugs used by law enforcement constitutionally shield those illicitly involved with those drugs from liability? For example, if law enforcement uses a pharmacy's drugs to sell someone a trafficking amount, is that someone liable of trafficking?
The Florida Supreme Court has held in State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 Fla. that if a law enforcement agency manufactures drugs for use in a reverse-sting operation, then this constitutes governmental misconduct and is a violation of the Florida Constitution due process clause and that a conviction in these circumstances should be reversed. That is, the manufacturing of a controlled substance may be grounds for reversing a conviction which relies on that substance. However, based on this judgement, the circumstance you describe would not be a violation of due process. From the judgement, at 466: Section 893.02(12)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), defines &quot;manufacture&quot; as: the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance either directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container.... Further, the judgement distinguishes State v Bass 451 So.2d 986 (1984) wherein law enforcement officials delivered marijuana obtained from federal agents to defendants as part of a reverse-sting operation. At Appeal, it was held that law enforcement officials do not need statutory authority to &quot;engage in reverse-sting deliveries of controlled substances&quot;. That is, simply using drugs from a pharmacy without modification, repackaging or otherwise relabelling, does not constitute conduct so outrageous as to violate Florida's due process clause, and on the facts that you have presented, there is no evidence that a due process defence would be held.
A police officer (or any other random person) would not be guilty of a crime or subject to civil liability for standing by and watching a suicide occur when it could be prevented, unless the person attempting to commit suicide was in his custody and he failed to take reasonable care to prevent a suicide in which case the officer could be subject to civil liability. It would not be a violation of the law, however, for a police officer (or in most cases, even a private citizen) to intervene to attempt to stop an attempted suicide. Likewise, prisons and prison guards can have civil liability for failing to prevent the suicide of someone in their custody. Of course, a police officer might still receive a negative employment evaluation from his supervisor for such conduct, or might even be fired for it depending on the rules of a particular department, as it would reflect poorly on the police department and show bad judgment on the officers part. In general, an affirmative duty enforceable by a lawsuit to take reasonable efforts to prevent someone from committing suicide applies in circumstances where the person attempting to commit suicide is in someone else's care and custody and has their liberty constrained. So, there could be liability on the part of a hospital or treating medical personnel (I've actually brought such a case that was dismissed due to malpractice in missing a deadline by local co-counsel who was then disciplined for ethical violations by the State of Illinois for his conduct.) In the absence of such a relationship, a legal duty to take affirmative action to prevent a suicide generally does not arise. Certain medical facilities and providers are required to make anonymized incident reports for the purpose of creating national public health statistics on a periodic basis. In certain extreme circumstances, there are duties to report someone who is a threat to others which may also include a risk of suicide, to authorities, but those are quite narrowly interpreted, and actual legal consequences from failing to warn are very rare. There may be other reporting requirements in educational institutions and for mental health professionals, but I am not personally aware of them and I do not believe that they are national in scope. Usually, for criminal liability, there would have to be actual affirmative acts to aid or to attempt to cause a suicide.
All laws (federal, state and local) apply to everybody, unless you have diplomatic immunity. That is, unless e.g. the federal government decides as a matter of policy to ignore certain federal laws. California does not have a law generally prohibiting the use of marijuana, though public consumption is illegal, minor consumption is illegal, and possession over 28.5 grams is illegal. So that is one less law to be concerned with violating. The federal law still exists, and has not been repealed for anyone. However, the federal government by policy is not pursuing marijuana cases in legal contexts in those states that have legalized marijuana. The complication for foreign students is that there are also immigration laws whereby you may be deported for a drug offense (that link is full of technical details on immigration and drug laws, worth reading). The immigration laws basically make it easy to penalize a foreigner (for example you might be deemed "inadmissible" so you cannot be re-admitted to the US if you leave; it just depends on what their grounds are for action). For example, "a noncitizen is inadmissible as of the moment that immigration authorities gain substantial and probative 'reason to believe' the noncitizen has ever participated in drug trafficking," which does not mean a conviction. It is reported that in California, DHS officers have treated minor infractions as "convictions," which means to be safe you have to avoid even infractions. It appears (and hire an immigration attorney if you want to test this) that trouble only arises if there is reason to believe you are trafficking, if you are a drug addict or abuser, if you are "convicted" (not necessarily "tried and found guilty," it also includes certain legal maneuverings), or if you admit to drug use (even in the case of home use under doctor's orders, i.e. a California-legal context). This incidentally includes non-use but working for the marijuana industry. It is possible that you could get stopped on the street by a random immigration search, and if you are in possession, then... it is not guaranteed that possession of a small amount of marijuana, when caught by federal authorities, cannot lead to immigration problems.
An obvious example would be a contract that gives possession of something to someone else. It's normally legal to use some reasonable amount of force to protect or prevent trespasses against property you own, but if you give possession of that property to someone else you can lose that right. For example, you can use force remove a guest who refuses to leave real property you own, but can't use force to remove a tenant even if they broke the terms of your contract. In most jurisdictions you'd need to get a court order and have the police use force if necessary remove the tenant.
So, lets say for argument's sake the search is illegal (we'll discuss scenario later). Is the murder weapon inadmissible? No. Evidence seized in an illegal search is inadmissible for use in court, as to allow it would reward the state for breaking the law. At time of arrest it's still evidence and depending on what other evidence comes out might not be inadmissible (More on this later). If the knife is the only thing linking the driver to the murder, then it's inadmissible. What would happen to the driver, who was most likely the murderer? At this stage, the driver might be arrested and charged... inadmissibility is a matter for pre-trial motions, which takes place after the cop made the search. Whether the guy is a murder or not, he is a suspect who has been accused. Can the police arrest him, and investigate him with the hope of finding other evidence that would be enough to sentence him for the murder, despite the inadmissibility of the actual weapon? This all takes place before the inadmissibility of evidence is declared, so they certainly could investigate the guy, cuff him, read him his rights, book him, Danno, and put him in jail to help build their case. HOWEVER, if the knife is the only thing linking the man to the crime, then all of this becomes what's called &quot;Fruit of the Poisonous Tree&quot;. Because the knife was used as the sole evidence to secure search warrants against the suspect, and should the knife become inadmissible, anything that resulted from the execution of the warrants is itself inadmissible. is the murderer in practice immune from being charged for this case, since the weapon cannot be tied to him? Not entirely. Rarely is a murder weapon needed to secure a conviction. Not only that, but while the search is illegal, there is an exception called &quot;Inevitable Discovery&quot; which holds that evidence seized illegally initially may still be admissible if the cops can show that the legally obtained evidence would have led to the knife. Suppose they had CCTV footage and captured the man entering the area of the scene and found out he had a connection to the victim, and got a warrant that would have included his car... that would mean the knife is admissible even if the search was illegal. If the weapon is considered inadmissible, is it returned to the suspect? If yes, would it also be returned even if it is of a type that the suspect is not legally allowed to own? Yes to both, though when it would be returned is subject to possible use in other investigations. Additionally, while I don't know of any knife ban laws in the U.S., there are examples of contraband seized by arrest for a different offense was not returned when the initial offense was overturned on appeal, meaning the contraband evidence was no longer validly seized and thus that half of the case was overturned... but the defendant wasn't returned his drugs. Is the weapon permanently inadmissible for all future, or could it be used in a later court proceeding? No. I'm starting to suspect I know the TV show and episode that inspired this question, but the search violated suspect 1's rights and thus was inadmissible for his trial. However, if a second suspect was discovered as the evidence was developed, and the investigation lead to the knife (say... suspect 2 had access to suspect 1's car... like say... through his job at a car wash that suspect 1 was patronizing... and planted the knife in suspect 1's car to frame him) then the knife is admissible because of inevitable discovery rule. Now, the TV Show I alluded too, and you'll forgive me as it's been a while, the events were that the cop pulled over suspect 1 for a valid reason (busted tail light, intentionally done by suspect 2 to get attention) and saw the knife on the backseat of the car, which is not a violation of search and seizure rules. The bloody knife was in plain view and gave probable cause to arrest and search the entirety of the car. If you leave evidence in a place where the officer can see it, they can seize it in a car at least. Places like the glove box, under the seats, or the trunk would properly hide it and not allow the officer to search the car, but through the windows is just fine.
The police are never permitted to break the law. However, the law that gives them their powers may make other laws not applicable to them in the course of their duties. If a law is not applicable to them; how can they break it?
What Crimes Were Committed? The acts would constitute solicitation to manufacturer a controlled substance by Alice, attempted manufacture of a controlled substance by Bob, and conspiracy to commit a controlled substance by both of them. All of these are serious felony offenses. The payment of money by Alice and acceptance of money by Bob to carry out the production of a controlled substance would be a sufficient overt act to support the charges of solicitation, conspiracy and attempt, even though the crime was not carried out. All of these offenses are what are known in the criminal law as &quot;inchoate offenses&quot;. Affirmative Defenses Would Bob or Alice have any affirmative defenses if prosecuted for these crimes? The two main offenses are impossibility and abandonment. We can assume, given Bob's good faith, that it was not impossible for him to manufacture the controlled substances, but he simply decided not to do it. A defendant may plead and prove, as an affirmative defense, of abandonment (typically under typical U.S. criminal statutes) by showing that he: Stopped all actions in furtherance of the crime or conspiracy Tried to stop the crime as it was ongoing Tried to convince the co-conspirators to halt such actions, or reported the crime to the police or other authorities. Bob did shop all actions in furtherance of the crime and tried (successfully) to stop the crime as it was ongoing. But, by not returning the funds and not making clear to Alice that he wanted nothing to do with the plan, Bob may not have met the third prong of an abandonment defense. Alice certainly does not have an abandonment defense. She took no overt acts abandoning the plan. Civil And Criminal Liability For Non-Drug Offenses Also, Bob might have criminal liability for theft, and civil liability to Alice on charges of civil theft or on a claim for restitution. First, a small technicality. Bob did breach a verbal contract. He has an affirmative defense of illegality to civil liability for breaching the verbal contract, but that doesn't change the fact that he did breach the contract. Anyway, while a contract to carry out an illegal act is unenforceable, and Bob would have no right to sue Alice in court if he performed the contract and then Alice failed to pay, it is less clear in this fact pattern where the illegality that bars the contract doesn't actually happen. Retaining property obtained on the basis of a contract that is disavowed that is not carried out, or when the funds are obtained on the basis of a criminal act, might constitute theft for which there might be criminal and civil penalties available, even though it was not fraud. Restitution to put the parties back where they would have been had a contract not be entered into might be available as a remedy. Restitution is often available even when the underlying contract itself fails when people have taken affirmative acts based upon a contract that cannot be legally performed. This wouldn't be a strong case for restitution, and state case law would answer the question, but it wouldn't be a frivolous one either. Of course, since Alice would be admitting to committing a crime is she brought suit (waiving her 5th Amendment right to be silent by doing so) she might be well advised not to sue. And, Bob would still have a strong &quot;unclean hands&quot; defense in an restitution or civil theft lawsuit. The Low Chance Of Charges Being Brought Considered It is true that if no one told anyone that the likelihood of criminal charges being brought is small. But, one can easily imagine hypothetically, that a third party saw what went down in person, or via surveillance video and audio, or that one of the parties told someone what happened and was reported (ex-lovers and mistreated trusted professional aids are notorious for doing things like this), or that someone confessed (often people do things like this when joining a twelve step program or a converting to a new religion), or one of them might testify truthfully at trial despite having a 5th Amendment right not to do so. What If The Jury Doesn't Believe Bob? If the criminal jury thinks that Bob was lying in the first place about good faith, he would have criminal liability for theft and Alice would have liability for solicitation of and conspiracy to commit the manufacture of controlled substances. Alice would be on the hook for the same felonies. Bob would be guilty of a crime the severity of which would depend upon how much money he took from Alice. If Bob doesn't think he can show the facts necessary to establish an abandonment defense, he might be smart to lie and say he was just stealing from Alice if the dollar amount was reasonably small, since the consequences would probably be less severe if he was convicted. It would be very hard to prove that he was truly agreeing to the verbal contract in good faith when he never performed it, but did take the money and not try to return it.
Legal Context This kind of argument is often called a "defense of others" defense which is available in every jurisdiction of which I am aware. Almost every state has a specific description of when this is permitted as part of their criminal code, usually in a general principles section at the beginning, or in the sections pertaining to crimes of violence. Some details vary from one state to another, but none of the facts presented in this hypothetical really push the envelope in terms of distinctions between one state's law and another. Most of the differences involve situations when the use of deadly force is allowed. For example, states differ regarding when deadly force allowed to prevent a burglary of your home or business which is in progress, particularly if it is possible to avoid a use of deadly force at all by retreating in a manner that puts you at no one at any significant risk of bodily injury. But, the scenario presented does not appear to involve the use of deadly force (although the definition of "deadly force" can be slippery and lead to some subtle variations in what is permitted from state to state). Another common nuance of variation between states involves the circumstances under which physical force or deadly physical force is authorized to make a citizens arrest, but this situation is also not implicated by your hypothetical. Once Thug is beat up, the scenario ends without any effort to detain Thug until the police arrive. Generally speaking, a defense of others defense that justifies a use of force under criminal law will also not give rise to civil liability in a lawsuit for assault and battery as opposed to a criminal prosecution for it. A Sample Defense Of Others Statute The pertinent section of the Colorado Revised Statutes (2016), strongly influenced by the language of the Model Penal Code (which never adopted in full by any state but highly influential stylistically in how U.S. criminal codes are drafted) is very typical of the majority rule regarding the defense of others and reads as follows (emphasizing the language relevant to the scenario in the question): § 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ; or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: (a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or (b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. (4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes. Analysis of the Hypothetical Facts Is Paul guilty of assault and battery for attacking Thug, or would self-defense or some other standard defense apply? Paul is probably not guilty of assault and battery for attacking Thug because a defense of others defense justifies his actions. Paul is using physical force to defend a third person (and presumably himself as well once once he is involved in the fray) from what he reasonably believes to be the use of unlawful physical force by Thug, and generally, under those circumstances Paul may use a degree of force which Paul reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. Paul is most vulnerable in this scenario on the question of whether he reasonably believed that the degree of force he used was reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending Emily and himself from Thug's unlawful use of physical force, or whether he went further than what was reasonably necessary for a few minutes that left Thug "incapacitated and thoroughly bloodied". For example, suppose that Paul had already caused Thug to try to flee the scene after the first minute at which point Thug was slightly bruised and afraid of Paul, but was not at all incapacitated. But, suppose that despite this fact that Paul, awash with adrenaline from the fight, continued to pummel Thug for a couple more minutes as Thug repeatedly tried to flee the scene only to be dragged back by Paul. Suppose that Paul continued the fight after it was no longer necessary because Paul wanted to punish Thug for his mistreatment of Emily and to discourage other people from trying to attack Emily in the future, even after Paul knew that there was already no real risk that Thug himself would continue to use unlawful physical force against Emily no or in the near future. Under these circumstances, which aren't inconsistent with the hypothetical facts, if this extra couple of minutes caused Thug to be much more badly injured than he otherwise would have been if Thug had been allowed to flee after the first minute, then Paul could still be guilty of assault and battery, even though his actions were legally justified for the first minute of the fight. There is no indication that either Paul or Emily provoked the attack on Emily, or that either Paul or Emily was the initial aggressor, or that this was actually a pre-agreed dueling situation. So each of these circumstances which would be exceptions to the general rule that the defense of others is justified do not apply to this case. There is likewise no indication that Paul used "deadly force" as opposed to mere "physical force" in handling the situation. It is likely that Paul would have committed a crime if he had shot and killed Thug instead of beating him up, if Paul knew perfectly well at the time that he was capable of beating up Thug and making Thug go away for good as a result without resorting to a firearm, unless the attack on Emily was severe enough for Paul to reasonably believe that the attack was putting Emily at a real risk of serious bodily injury.