Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

That depends on the "prompt." There is a WHOLE lot of law on the subject of when the government conduct is "entrapment," and when it is legitimate police work. Here's a simplistic example that may give you a general idea. An undercover cop cannot saddle up to you in a club and say,"I've got some really good coke, $60 for a gram. Want some?" and then arrest you if you buy it. However, an undercover cop can find someone they think is a drug distributor and say, "I'm looking to buy a kilo of coke to sell. Can you make a deal at that level," and then arrest him or her when they make the sale. The central principle is whether the government's conduct was such as might induce someone to commit a crime who otherwise would not (you never would have considered buying a gram of coke if it wasn't offered after you'd had three vodka martini's at the bar first), versus participating in conduct that the accused would have engaged in without the prompting (distributor has to sell it to someone). If you want to read a lot more detail, here is the U.S. Dept. of Justice information page on the subject for use by prosecutors. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements

I generally agree with Mr. McCormick. The government can tempt you with an opportunity to commit a crime and then arrest you if you take the bait. But it can't pressure you into committing a crime you otherwise would have been unwilling to commit. That's the difference between a sting and entrapment.

The line between a sting and entrapment varies from one person to the next, since some people are more willing than others to commit crimes. That often makes it hard to tell whether a given defendant was entrapped. But the principle is the same, regardless of how hard or easy it is to apply in a particular case.