Can a cop direct a pharmacist to fill a known fraudulent prescription in order to convict a subject of a higher crime? If a cop is responding to a known fraudulent prescription, ask the pharmacist to stall the subject until they arrive so he can arrest the subject, but, instead of making the arrest for attempt to obtain by fraud, directs the pharmacist to fill the known fraudulent prescription in order to arrest the subject for the higher crime of trafficking, is the subject guilty of possession/trafficking? If the subject is not guilty of possession then the subject can get up to 5 years in prison for an attempt or qualify for drug court: Florida Statutes 893.13 (7)(a)9 Acquire or obtain, or attempt to acquire or obtain, possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge. If the subject is guilty of possession, most hydrocodone prescriptions will consist of an aggregate trafficking amount, then the subject is disqualified for drug court and faces an extremely severe penalty: Florida Statutes 893.135 1(c)1c Is 28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 years and shall be ordered to pay a fine of $500,000. It seems the same as a cop planting drugs on someone to convict them of possession or trafficking.
The circuits all over the place on this one but I don't see these facts fitting according to the strictest rule. It is within the discretion of the police to decide whether delaying the arrest of the suspect will help ensnare co-conspirators, as exemplified by this case, will give the police greater understanding of the nature of the criminal enterprise, or merely will allow the suspect enough "rope to hang himself." U.S. V. Garcia 79 F.3d 74 (7th Cir. 1996) See also Hoffa v. United States 385 U.S. 293 (1966) A suspect has no constitutional right to be arrested when the police have probable cause. The police are not required to guess, at their peril, the precise moment at which they have probable cause to arrest a suspect, risking a violation of the Fourth Amendment if they act too soon, and a violation of the Sixth Amendment if they wait too long. Law enforcement officers are under no constitutional duty to call a halt to a criminal investigation the moment they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause, a quantum of evidence which may fall far short of the amount necessary to support a criminal conviction. EDITING THE ANSWER in light of some comments. Florida recognizes sentence manipulation and outrageous government conduct as defenses. United States v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007) Outrageous government conduct and sentencing factor manipulation focus on the government's behavior. Outrageous government conduct occurs when law enforcement obtains a conviction for conduct beyond the defendant's predisposition by employing methods that fail to comport with due process guarantees. Under this standard, the conduct must be so outrageous that it is fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Ofshe, 817 F.2d 1508, 1516 (11th Cir.1987) In the Ciszkowski case, the defendant was charged with murder for hire as part of a sting. As part of the sting, the government provided Ciszkowski with the gun. The gun had a silencer, the silencer converted his crime to a more serious offense. Ciszkowski argued that he did not know the gun had a silencer and accused the government of sentence manipulation. He lost. The court tells us that the standard for establishing that the government's conduct is sufficiently reprehensible to constitute sentencing factor manipulation is high as gives us some cases where the court declined the finding. See United States v. Bohannon, 476 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir.2007 (government's selection of age of "minor" victim for sting operation was not manipulation even though the selected age resulted in enhancement under guideline); United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1370-71 (11th Cir.2006) government's purchase of crack cocaine rather than powder cocaine was not manipulation despite sentencing differential); United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410, 1412-13 (11th Cir.1998) (government informant's selection of a fictitious amount of drugs to be stolen by defendants was not manipulation of the quantity) Now, about this doctor. The reason this is might be troubling is that this doctor might have entrapped the suspect. For example, if the suspect went to the dr and just wanted some aspirin but the dr convinced him to ask for vicodin and pain killers in some excessive amount (I don't know, I do not want to make up facts). This could be entrapment by a citizen acting purely on his own; if this is the case there is no entrapment. See Worley v. State, 848 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) However, when the person making the inducement is acting as an agent of the government, courts may allow an entrapment defense. The government is responsible for the actions of its agents. But keep in mind that you still need to establish both elements of entrapment. Per United States v. Isnadin, No. 12-13474 (Feb. 12, 2014): The entrapment defense involves two separate elements : (1) Government inducement of the crime, and (2) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant. The defendant bears an initial burden of production to show that the first element, Government inducement, is met. Once the defendant makes this initial showing, the burden shifts to the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. For any of these defenses to work, the guy who was filling the prescription can not have been predisposed to commit the crime except for the actions of the government and its agents inducing him.
Depends where you are At common law, theft (or more generally, larceny) requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. However, many jurisdictions have removed this element from the crime. For example, s118 of the new-south-wales Crimes Act 1900 says: 118 Intent to return property no defence Where, on the trial of a person for larceny, it appears that the accused appropriated the property in question to the accused's own use, or for the accused's own benefit, or that of another, but intended eventually to restore the same, or in the case of money to return an equivalent amount, such person shall not by reason only thereof be entitled to acquittal.
Yes. See Florida Man's Version of Dine and Dash Involving A Pizza Delivery James Chandler was arrested after allegedly ordering a pizza and cinnamon sticks and partially eating them without paying. The basis for arrest was defrauding an innkeeper. Any person who obtains food, lodging, or other accommodations having a value of less than $1,000 at any public food service establishment, or at any transient establishment, with intent to defraud the operator thereof, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 (Emphasis added; this is the current text of the law, but &quot;less than $1000&quot; was &quot;less than $300&quot; at the time of the incident.) For anyone doubting this or looking for more detail, the case number is 2016MM002854A before the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, and not only was he arrested, but he was convicted and sentenced to 60 days in county jail. The above example was pizza by delivery. For an example involving dine-in pizza see Crime briefs: Father's Day fight, copper theft, unpaid pizza bill a woman was arrested at Blue Line Pizza in California on suspicion of &quot;defrauding an innkeeper&quot; after refusing to pay the bill. Another Florida example is Off The Beat: Price of pepperoni pizza and vodka? A trip to jail: Brown’s bill was $30.36, consisting of three Ketel One vodka drinks ($19.50), a pepperoni pizza ($9) plus tax ($1.86). ... Told by a deputy that the restaurant wanted her to settle up her tab, Brown said she brought no money ... Deputies arrested Brown on charges of defrauding an innkeeper and obstruction without violence. The above case is 19001773MMAXMX of Marion County, Florida. She entered a plea agreement, whereby she pled no-contest to the non-violently resisting in exchange for the defrauding an innkeeper not being prosecuted, and was sentenced to time served (about 3 days in jail) and $735 in fees and fines. Also, see Selma [North Carolinia] police: Arrested man glad to go to jail: Police were called to the Pizza Inn at 1441 South Pollock St. after the man allegedly filled his plate with food then walked out the door. Police found 49-year-old Alan Miscavage, of New Jersey across the street. Miscavage allegedly told officers he was homeless and was happy to be going to jail. He told them the jail offered free food, running water, and a place to stay until his court date. Miscavage was charged with defrauding an innkeeper for not paying for the food, and misdemeanor larceny for leaving with the food plate valued at $10. Bond was set at $3,500. His court date was set for August 22. Also, see Police: Man didn't pay for pizza, tried to flee from officers: A Lemoore man was arrested Sunday for allegedly defrauding a pizza delivery driver and trying to flee from police. The Hanford [California] Police Department was called to the 900 block of West Sixth Street at 10:37 p.m. for a report of a man refusing to pay for a pizza delivered by a Pizza Hut delivery driver. Officers found Peter Delano, 59, sitting in his car eating the pizza. So, in conclusion, if you order pizza and don't pay you could be arrested for defrauding an innkeeper.
From a US perspective, in a word, "no". Firstly, "presumption of innocence" is in a trial, not in police interactions. Being arrested does not violate the presumption of innocence. Police do not need any reason to interact with you or ask you questions. Police can arrest you if they have probable cause to suspect you have committed a crime, but this is not always necessary. More on this later(in the fourth section). Secondly, I wouldn't describe requesting to see your ticket, or any document as a "violent communication", in general. It may be rude or insulting, but not violent. (Also "violent communication" is not a legal term. The closest legal terms, verbal assault and threatening communication, are also not this.) More over, there is no indication of am implication of lying in this request. Thirdly, there are many situations in which possessing a document or credential is not sufficient; one must legally display or present them upon request. For example, multiple occupational licenses such as liquor licenses and barber/cosmetology licenses require that the licenses be prominently displayed; whereas, in California at least, a vehicle driver on a public road must not only possess their driver's license and proof of insurance, they must produce them upon the request of any law enforcement officer (Source: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18). Fourthly, there are situations in which you can be legally searched and questioned without reasonable suspicion. Examples of this include boarder searches and sobriety checkpoints. Sources: (US Supreme Court rulings): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz A note on sources: bdb484 and I have opposing court case sources. My sources have binding precedent over all courts in the US, save the US Supreme Court, whereas theirs don't have any binding precedent, but are more directly on-topic.
The circuits all over the place on this one but in short, no, police are not obliged to apprehend a suspect at the earliest opportunity. It is within the discretion of the police to decide whether delaying the arrest of the suspect will help ensnare co-conspirators, as exemplified by this case, will give the police greater understanding of the nature of the criminal enterprise, or merely will allow the suspect enough "rope to hang himself." U.S. V. Garcia 79 F.3d 74 (7th Cir. 1996) See also Hoffa v. United States 385 U.S. 293 (1966) A suspect has no constitutional right to be arrested when the police have probable cause. The police are not required to guess, at their peril, the precise moment at which they have probable cause to arrest a suspect, risking a violation of the Fourth Amendment if they act too soon, and a violation of the Sixth Amendment if they wait too long. Law enforcement officers are under no constitutional duty to call a halt to a criminal investigation the moment they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause, a quantum of evidence which may fall far short of the amount necessary to support a criminal conviction.
In most U.S. states, a citizen's arrest using proportionate non-deadly force is authorized when the citizen has witnessed the crime or has been asked by a law enforcement officer to assist in making an arrest. The U.S. Constitution is not violated by this authorization. For example, in Colorado, citizens arrests (not made at the direction of a law enforcement officer) are authorized by Section 18-1-707(7) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which states that: A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. Generally speaking it is illegal in the context of a citizen's arrest to use: disproportionate force, force applied to punish rather than detain someone, or deadly force, although there are times when deadly force is authorized for reasons similar to those that would apply for self-defense in the absence of a citizen's arrest. Deadly force is generally not authorized to protect tangible personal property or most forms of real property, but some places authorize the use of deadly force to protect a residence. I've heard before that a thief have "right" to flee, and trying to knock him out is not justified because you can only use violence to protect your self, instead of your money. While it is understandable that you might think this based upon U.S. Supreme Court cases like Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the law is actually more nuanced and that case held that: when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger. Thus, it is illegal to shoot to kill a fleeing thief or shoplifter, even though it is not illegal to restrain a shoplifter physically to prevent that shoplifter from fleeing the scene prior to the arrival of the police.
In all common law countries, this would be the tort of battery (thus, illegal). The police might lawfully lay hands on the person, under certain conditions. First, the police would have to be legally arresting the person; second, the person would have to be (unlawfully) resisting that arrest. If the person acts in a way that a police officer "has reason to believe to be so mentally ill as to be incapable of taking care of himself", he may arrest the person (Mental Health Act 1987 art. 23). Part III (art. 20 ff) provides the legal background for the second path for arrest, via involuntary commitment. Under the circumstances you describe, a court would have to first order the person taken into custody (leading to an arrest, and possibly being subdued). The police would not be authorized to administer a sedative, so they would have to use physical restraint (handcuffs, hammer-lock and so on). The process is either initiated by a psychiatric professional, or by a relative (art. 20), then the court determines whether the person is to be so detained.
18 USC §1344: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice (1) to defraud a financial institution; or (2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation, or promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. Here are some example prosecutions: United States v. Wall, 37 F.3d 1443 (1994) United States v. Molinaro, 11 F.3d 853 (1993) United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300 (1992)