Question Three Assume that the police set up an operation as follows: An underco

Question

Question Three Assume that the police set up an operation as follows: An undercover police officer in plain clothes parks a car on a busy street. He exits the car, leaving the windows down and the keys in the ignition. There is also an iPad on the front seat. He walks into a nearby apartment building. The police have a number of other undercover officers watching the scene. Jack walks by the car, sees the open window and the iPad. He looks around. He reaches through the window and grabs the iPad and walks quickly down the street. He turns the corner and is stopped by police officers who search him, find the iPad and arrest him for theft. If Jack argues that he was entrapped, how should the court rule? (Does he have a valid defense of entrapment?) Explain why or why not. Question Four

Explanation / Answer

Solution:

No, Jack doesn't have a valid defence against this case because the entrapment defines that person was completely right ethically but here, in this case, Jack took the iPad and ran after all so even if there was possibility of entrapment then it is gone because Jack took the iPad after seeing an opportunity that is how the court will rule.

there was no point or no force on Jack to steal the iPad when he did it. so the argument of Jack will be turned down in this case.

I hope this helps if you find any problem. Please comment below. Don't forget to give a thumbs up if you liked it. :)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.