United States v. Hudson, 3 F. Supp. 3d 772

ATF conducted a reverse-sting stash-house operation targeting individuals in poverty; undercover agent fabricated a stash-house robbery with 20–25 kilograms of cocaine; Dunlap joined the crew at the final meeting on January 30, 2013; the government supplied the safe house, weapons, and plan; indictment (Feb. 25, 2013) charged conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent and related offenses; court grants motion to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct and orders Dunlap released.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge outrageous conduct	Dunlap lacks standing per Emmert	Emmert applies; Dunlap not target	Dunlap has standing
Whether government conduct was outrageous	Black factors weigh in his favor	No outrageous conduct; agent’s role limited	Yes, outrageous conduct—indictment dismissed
Government's role in creating the crime	Government manufactured the crime	Infiltration or creation justified as investigation	Court finds government manufactured the crime; weighs against prosecution
Government coercion/economic inducement	Economic coercion and poverty aligned with inducement	Inducement not coercive enough	Factor weighs in favor of outrageous conduct; coercion present
Inherent supervisory power to dismiss	Court could use supervisory power to dismiss	Not fully briefed; dismissal under supervisory power not decided	Declines to opine on supervisory-power basis

United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 2013) (multifactor/totality standard for outrageous conduct; rejection of Bonanno factors)
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973) (due-process concerns in government-created crime)
United States v. Restrepo, 930 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1991) (focus on government actions, not defendants’ conduct)
United States v. Bonanno, 852 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1988) (multifactor inquiry prior to Black (disavowed as sole test))
United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1991) (outrageous conduct standard context)