United States v. David Ardrey
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 858
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- In June 2011 police coordinated with Lane Phillips, who agreed to drive into Sturgeon, MO, to facilitate a traffic stop aimed at apprehending parole violator David Ardrey on outstanding warrants.
- At the stop Ardrey (front passenger) gave a false ID, resisted arrest, was handcuffed, and was placed in a patrol car; officers searched the vehicle with Phillips' consent.
- Officers recovered a loaded .410 shotgun (with taped ammunition) in a duffel bag on the front passenger floorboard, ammunition in the bag, and a homemade mask; Ardrey at one point told officers the gun was his and said he would accept responsibility.
- Ardrey testified that Phillips—who was cooperating with police but was not a government agent—pulled the gun from under the seat during the stop and handed it to Ardrey, asking him to "take the weight" (i.e., take the blame) for Breedlove.
- Ardrey sought a jury instruction on entrapment; the district court denied the instruction, the jury convicted him of being a felon in possession and possession of an unregistered firearm, and Ardrey appealed only the denial of the entrapment instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entrapment instruction was warranted | Ardrey: he never intended to possess a gun; Phillips (who arranged the stop but was not a government agent) handed him the gun and asked him to take blame, amounting to government-induced crime | Government: no government inducement as Phillips was not an agent and acted for his own purposes; police coordinated the stop to arrest Ardrey on warrants, not to induce gun possession | Court affirmed denial: insufficient evidence of government inducement, so entrapment instruction not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing denial of proffered legal defense)
- United States v. Chase, 717 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2013) (deference and standard for factual findings underlying legal conclusions)
- United States v. Havlik, 710 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2013) (definition of entrapment as government implanting criminal design)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (entrapment and burden to show inducement)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (two elements of entrapment: government inducement and lack of predisposition)
- United States v. Eldeeb, 20 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 1994) (inducement exists when government implanted criminal design)