Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Probable Cause or Entrapment

A loan was given & the borrower put up collateral, on the same day a search warrant was requested. Three days later, the borrower came back with a controlled substance as a part payback, but did not take the collateral. Twelve hours later, they came in & raided our home, which is also our place of business. They had dogs, & 12 men searching, the only reason they found anything was we told them where the 2 gms were (so they wouldn't tear the house up). They walk away saying they found 8 gms. a stolen gun, & paraphernalia. The property is ''U'' shape & part of the property is on one street & the mailbox & house is technically on another street. They dropped the stolen gun charge, & they took the collateral for ''safekeep'' on the property sheet which was not presented to me when they were leaving. They say we had 6 gms we didn't even know we had, so why did we need the additional 2? And the borrower left the collateral, which he is also one of the informants, & the one informant that was wired ''supposedly'' there was nothing here to make a sales charge stick. So how much probable cause did they have or was it a case of entrapment to help the informant C.O.P. And doesn't a S/Warrant have to be specific, can it help our case? HELP


Asked on 3/31/06, 4:09 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
David Arase Arase, Habashy & Orozco

Re: Probable Cause or Entrapment

The legal definition of entrapment is: A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

There is nothing in your facts that show that you were coerced. Simply giving you the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading you to commit the crime.

Without looking at the warrant I cannot really determine whether the search warant was valid. Specififity of the search is required, however anything left in plain view or found as a result of the valid search does not violate your rights.

Without reviewing all the documents and facts any advice that I provide you would be inconsistent. It would be in your best interest to get yourself an attorney who can provide you a more indepth analysis of your case.

This communication does in no way create an attorney client relationship. The advise give is not to be considered legal counsel. No relationship between the inquirer and Arase, Habashy & Orozco is to be inferred or assumed.

Read more
Answered on 3/31/06, 12:49 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California