Challenging Postal Inspector Investigative Tactics as Entrapment
Contents
- 1 Challenging Postal Inspector Investigative Tactics as Entrapment
- 1.1 What is Entrapment?
- 1.2 Two Tests for Entrapment
- 1.3 Examples of Potential USPIS Entrapment
- 1.4 Using Entrapment as a Defense to Mail Fraud
- 1.5 Using Entrapment Against Child Exploitation Charges
- 1.6 Proving Entrapment
- 1.7 Reporting Suspected Entrapment
- 1.8 Avoiding Entrapment Claims
- 1.9 Responding to Entrapment Claims
- 1.10 Seeking Legal Guidance
Challenging Postal Inspector Investigative Tactics as Entrapment
Postal inspectors have extensive powers to investigate crimes involving the mail system. However, in some cases their investigative tactics may cross ethical or legal boundaries. One defense individuals can raise is arguing they were unfairly entrapped by overzealous postal inspectors.
What is Entrapment?
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. For example, an undercover postal inspector could repeatedly pressure someone to mail a package of illegal drugs. If that person had no prior intent to traffic drugs, they could claim entrapment.
However, simply providing an opportunity to commit a crime does not necessarily constitute entrapment. Postal inspectors routinely conduct “sting” operations targeting mail thieves, fraudsters, drug dealers, and others engaged in illegal mail activities. These operations are generally lawful, as long as inspectors do not overly coerce or persuade innocent people to commit crimes.
Two Tests for Entrapment
There are two main tests courts use to evaluate entrapment claims [1]:
- Subjective test – Focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime. Someone with prior related offenses, or who readily agrees to commit a crime, would likely fail this test.
- Objective test – Looks at whether law enforcement used unacceptable methods to induce the crime. For example, pleas based on sympathy, repeated coercion, or threats.
The subjective test is more common, but some jurisdictions use a combination of both. Postal inspectors can avoid entrapment claims by carefully targeting suspects already engaged in criminal activity, and avoiding coercive tactics.
Examples of Potential USPIS Entrapment
While rare, there have been some cases where defendants claimed they were entrapped by postal inspectors:
- An inspector posing as a corrupt postal worker pressures a contractor to provide kickbacks [2].
- Inspectors send repeated solicitations to purchase child porn to someone with no known prior interest [3].
- An inspector threatens to deliver cocaine hidden in magazines unless the recipient pays them off [4].
In each case, the questionable postal inspector tactics could potentially constitute entrapment depending on the specific circumstances.
Using Entrapment as a Defense to Mail Fraud
One of the most common crimes investigated by postal inspectors is mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code § 1341. This covers any scheme to defraud using the mail system. Defendants accused of mail fraud can claim entrapment if postal inspectors improperly lured them into a fraudulent scheme.
For example, a defendant could argue inspectors used coercive mail solicitations about a fake investment opportunity that manipulated them into participating. If successful, this entrapment defense could defeat the mail fraud charges.
Using Entrapment Against Child Exploitation Charges
Postal inspectors aggressively investigate child exploitation offenses involving use of the mail. Defendants accused of crimes like distributing or possessing child pornography sometimes allege entrapment.
For instance, a defendant could claim inspectors sent them unsolicited pornographic materials featuring minors. Or inspectors repeatedly pressured them to purchase child porn from an undercover agent. These tactics could potentially constitute entrapment [5].
Proving Entrapment
The burden of proving entrapment falls on the defendant. They must show either:
- No predisposition to commit the crime before postal inspector involvement; or
- Improper investigative tactics by inspectors that induced the criminal activity.
This often requires testimony about the defendant’s state of mind, background, as well as inspector behavior. Physical evidence like recorded conversations or written communications can also support an entrapment claim.
Reporting Suspected Entrapment
Defense attorneys who believe their client was unfairly entrapped by postal inspectors can file complaints with the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG):
- Online complaint form: https://www.uspsoig.gov/form/file-online-complaint
- By phone: 1-888-877-7644
The OIG scrutinizes allegations of inspector misconduct. Substantiated complaints can lead to retraining or discipline. However, the OIG does not have authority over criminal prosecutions – entrapment ultimately must be raised as a defense at trial.
Avoiding Entrapment Claims
Well-trained postal inspectors are aware of entrapment issues and design operations to avoid them. For example:
- Targeting suspects with a documented history of similar criminal activity.
- Conducting extensive background research on targets.
- Carefully reviewing operations to remove any coercive or manipulative tactics.
- Having reasonable suspicion before engaging a target.
- Letting the target initiate illegal acts rather than suggesting them.
- Avoiding too persistent or repeated attempts to induce crime.
- Using proper supervisor review and approval processes.
Following best practices around entrapment allows postal inspectors to conduct lawful investigations. However, defendants can still raise entrapment claims alleging inspectors crossed ethical or legal boundaries. The merits depend on the specific facts and jurisdiction.
Responding to Entrapment Claims
When entrapment is raised in a postal inspection case, prosecutors will defend against the allegations. Common counterarguments include:
- The defendant showed predisposition by readily agreeing to commit the crime.
- Investigators used proper, non-coercive investigative tactics.
- The defendant had committed similar crimes previously.
- The defendant initiated key parts of the criminal activity.
- There is no evidence of unacceptable inducement by inspectors.
Prosecutors can rebut entrapment claims using evidence from the investigation, as well as information about the defendant’s background. However, defendants can argue these counterclaims are subjective or prejudicial.
Seeking Legal Guidance
Those who believe they were unfairly targeted or entrapped by postal inspectors should consult with a criminal defense attorney. An experienced lawyer can assess the merits of an entrapment defense based on the specific circumstances of the case and jurisdiction.
Raising an entrapment claim during legal proceedings can be complex. But in appropriate cases, entrapment can potentially lead to acquittal or dismissal of charges resulting from postal inspector operations.