State v. Kummer

Dakota, Plaintiff North STATE Appellee, KUMMER,

Terry Lee Defendant Appellant. No. 910138.

Crim. North

Supreme Dakota. Court 20, 1992.

Feb.

MESCHKE, Justice. Terry appeals Kummer from a con- Lee possession of a controlled sub- viction for intent to deliver. The convic- stance with sting” opera- out of a “reverse tion arose Fargo by officers of the tion conducted divi- Department and the narcotics Inves- of the State Bureau Criminal sion that the un- tigations. Because we believe disputed facts of this case show that induce the used unlawful means to police crime, establishing entrapment as a matter law, reverse. we During law enforce- the summer learned from two confidential ment officers Kummer had been involved informants that drug trafficking. The informants had arrested for viola- themselves been tions, they agreed cooperate and exchange officers for favorable attorney’s state’s recommendation to the prosecutions. Special Agent on their office and Daniel Baumann of the Crime Bureau police depart- Donn Weaver of the Officer planned narcotics division a reverse ment’s arranging for an informant to make sting, drugs targeted to a individual. a sale of 17, 1990, infor- September one of the On mants, the direction of Baumann and at Weaver, taped telephone call from made a department to Kummer in Ana- moose, asked him when he would be and advantage Fargo to take area “good on cocaine. Kummer ex- deal” interest, quality only if the pressed an but past. than it had been was better he should con- The informant asked when again. replied that Kummer Kummer tact he contact the informant the follow- would return ing Wednesday. Kummer did not phone call. planned and Baumann Weaver to offer to Kummer and amount of cocaine $1,200 Sep- per ounce. On price set the at 21,1990, the informant made anoth- tember de- taped telephone er call to, Kummer in Anamoose and dis- partment quantity of co- price and the cussed the Atty., (argued), State’s Far- John T. Goff might purchase. Kum- that Kummer caine appellee. go, plaintiff for and purchase three ounces. mer decided to 28, 1990, the informant (argued) Nelson Law On /September Nelson Brian W. táped telephone calls appellant. made two more Office, Fargo, for defendant date, time, place this electronic surveillance was conducted plan Kummer a court order. and Kummer ar- without The informant sale. evening Septem- meet ranged to procedures obtaining Fargo. Bau- Motel ber warrant-like, parte ex order wire rooms Motel 75. then rented two at mann are in tapping eavesdropping or set forth Chapter A NDCC 29-29.2. court order au 30,1990, September Weaver obtained On thorizing electronic surveillance is not re of from the evidence three ounces cocaine Chapter all quired under circumstances. The co- police department. the room at 29-29.2 an originated from earlier caine had apply interception, does not to the disclo- time. had closed some case that been sure, wire, electronic, or use of a or oral one- cocaine into three Weaver divided the person intercepting, communication if the portion portions and heat-sealed each ounce disclosing, wire, electronic, using or the bags. gave cocaine plastic Weaver the or oral communication: Baumann. person acting 1. Was a color of under that Baumann and the two day, Later wire, electronic, intercept law to the rooms to one of rented informants went party to oral communication and was a placed “body Motel 75. Baumann at par- the communication or one of the the informants and on one of transmitter” given ties to the communication had per- the front desk them to tell instructed prior interception; consent to such ... arrival, Kummer, upon have his sonnel 29-29.2-05(1). argues NDCC Kummer coming to the room. When call before exception the consent to the court that called, gave Baumann the three Kummer requirement legalize not the order does packages of cocaine to the informant who in this surveillance case because electronic transaction, arranged turned on the had prove State failed to consent. We dis- the placed had body transmitter that the been agree. informant, to the the other and went interpreted consent We have not the up had set motel room where officers other statute, of our statute. Our NDCC clause receiving equipment. surveillance the 29-29.2-05(1), parallels language of 18 the informants the officers heard When 2511(2)(c), the federal eaves- U.S.C. § $3,600 given counting the Kummer had dropping The federal courts have statute. them, they hallway and went into wait- interpreting a framework established Upon for Kummer to leave room. ed provides guidance federal that statute room, stopped leaving the the officers Clapp- Co. v. to us. See Land search, Office Kummer, pat-down conducted Co., (N.D. 401, 442 N.W.2d 403 Thomssen packages of cocaine. the three retrieved 1989). precedents. look to the federal money Kum- The officers also retrieved given informants. prosecution prov mer had has the burden of The voluntary consent ing party’s charged of Kummer was with violation and uncoerced. United States v. Kolod 19-03.1-23, a class 19-03.1-07 and NDCC 590, (5th Cir.1983). F.2d The ziej, 706 593 of controlled felony, possession A informant, however, testimony of is not The confi- with intent to deliver. substance prove con required informant out state and moved dential informants Fishman, interception. to the C. sented also did testify trial. Kummer did not at 13(b) Wiretapping Eavesdropping § rejecting Kummer’s testify. jury, The (1978 Supp.1991), & and cases collected defense, guilty returned a ver- prosecution Generally, therein. appealed. Kummer dict. an informant’s proving meet the burden of showing infor simply consent SURVEILLANCE I. ELECTRONIC transaction after proceeded with the mant An- knowing that it monitored. would be argues that the trial court Kummer not., Interception Telecommunication failing suppress the evidence erred Excep- Party As or With Consent By body transmitter because from use 440 conducting elec cooperation informant’s Proscription Such Federal tion ...To infor 429, do not make the surveillance A.L.R.Fed. tronic

Interceptions, Jones, involuntary. 839 F.2d States v. mant’s consent United (1984); States United Cir.1973); Cir.1988). (4th (5th Kolodziej. F.2d Dowdy, 479 v. Silva, explained United 449 F.2d for this v. rationale States Bonanno, 658-659 Cir.1971). the consent is (1st Only when States Cir.1973): conduct, (2d improper police product of promises have no that the extent which the outset such as coercion We observe fact, an inform- the consent to show that proof required realistic basis monitoring Jones; or record- involuntary. to the United States er consented deemed normally quite (7th telephone 319, call ing Horton, of a F.2d 322-23 Cir. 601 v. needed to show con- that 1979); different from There is Kolodziej, 706 F.2d 595. search, by the physical whether to a sent consent here no reason to believe person in a byor some himself defendant coerced. was Cf., give an effective one. position case, the dispute no that In this there is Viale, 312 F.2d v. e.g., States United body transmitter the informant who wore denied, Cir.), 373 U.S. 595, (2 cert. 601 in return cooperating authorities (1963); 1291, 903, L.Ed.2d 199 10 83 S.Ct. to the recommendation for a favorable 891, Como, F.2d v. 340 United States testimony the that prosecutor. There was Cir.1965); (2 ex rel. United States 893 nature fully aware of the informants were 519, McMann, 417 Lundergan v. Motel 75. The infor- transaction at Cir.1969). (2 generally 521-522 during body transmitter mant wore Bustamonte, 412 U.S. v. Schneckloth undisputed that he and it is transaction (1973). 2041, 218, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 93 S.Ct. being monitored. transaction was knew the search, involving physical In cases Jones; conclude See, Bonanno. We e.g., doing alleged to have consented satisfactorily case this that evidence contrary to his something apparently informant’s consent. establishes of another who interests or to those own him. way connected with in some often is asserts that we Kummer also monitoring consent to the An informer’s evidence require exclusion of the telephone conversation recording of a sur of the electronic as a result obtained cooperation to a course of is an incident Sarmiento, 397 on State v. veillance based officials on which with law 643, (Fla.1981), the court where 645 So.2d pre time ordinarily decided some he has equivalent to the Fourth that Florida’s held unpleasant conse viously entails no in precludes the warrantless Amendment Hence, normally it will quences to him. in the private conversation terception of a show that suffice for the Government However, that section subject’s home. with a call after informer went ahead since been has the Florida Constitution offi knowing the law enforcement what require that it be construed amended to about. cers were Fourth Amendment. conformity with the reasoning persuasive. This concluded Supreme Court has The Florida effectively overruled that this amendment allegation of coer there is an Where Hume, 512 So.2d See State v. cion, must show that there government Sarmiento. that, moreover, 185, (Fla.1987). Before 187 threats, pressure, undue has no been had refused appellate court a lower Florida Kolodziej; inducements. improper monitoring of a tp Sarmiento (8th 1262, Kirk, 1273 534 F.2d v. States appljy in his moteil room. conversation suspect’s However, Cir.1976). an infor the fact that 151, (Fla. 152 State, 404 So.2d v. Padgett or le anticipates treatment mant favorable occupant Even if an Ct.App.1981). cooperation does not niency in return has/a in his privacy expectation of reasonable Jones; involuntary. Unit make a consent 376 U.S. California, v. 738, room hotel 662 F.2d 740 Salisbury, [Stoner v. ed States 893, 889, 856 483, 490, 11 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. Cir.1981). promises of immuni (11th Even guest of (1964)], was an invited Kummer in return for an prosecution ty

441 test, objective the focus is on the Kummer has der the case. occupants this expec- enforcement officials and a reasonable he had shown that during the three to five the effect it would have on the privacy tation Flamm, room as an law-abiding the hotel citizen. v. 338 spent he State minutes See, example, People 826, (N.D.1983); Mees, v. v. guest. N.W.2d State invited 973, Rada, (N.D.1978). 532 N.Y.S.2d Predispo- 141 Misc.2d 272 N.W.2d trial (1988). that conclude of the accused to commit the crime is sition suppress evi- properly Hoffman, refused irrelevant. State v. (N.D.1980). Thus, this electronic surveil- from in order to dence obtained fashion an defense under lance. 12.1-05-11, NDCC must estab- accused MEANS II. UNLAWFUL elements: law enforcement lish two agents en induced the commission of the crime argues that he was Kummer and that method of inducement was of law because trapped as a matter crime,” likely normally law-abiding per- to cause to create and commit police “had to commit the offense. is, to obtain the sons unlawful means use (N.D.1984). Weisz, In 356 N.W.2d persuade him in order to drugs for sale to case, agree. this the method of inducement was him to commit a crime. unlawful. a law Entrapment occurs “when This is the first time that this court has commission agent induces the entrapment faced the assertion of an de- offense, or other using persuasion of an where law enforcement officers fur- fense law-abiding likely to cause

means nished the controlled substance Conduct to commit the offense. persons brought prosecution and convic- about affording person opportunity an merely possession the accused for tion of not constitute an offense does to commit juris- from other intent to deliver. Courts 12.1-05-11(2). Any entrapment.” NDCC this have taken a dim view of dictions cooperating with a law enforcement police conduct. agent” for agency is a “law enforcement entrapment defense. purposes of decisions have declared Numerous Erban, 12.1-05-11(3); 429 v. State NDCC that, shows uncontroverted evidence when 408, (N.D.1988). Entrapment 413 N.W.2d agent provided the illicit one accused defense that the is an affirmative pos illegally then drugs that the accused preponderance of the evi prove by a must dispensed to a second sessed or 449 Nassif, v. City dence. Bismarck of entrapment is estab agent, the defense of 789, Ordinarily, (N.D.1989). 796 N.W.2d matter of law. See United lished as a entrapment question exists is a whether fact (3rd 1083, West, 1085 511 F.2d v. States Rehling, 426 jury. for the State v. Cir.1975); Mosley, 496 v. United States But, dispute 6, (N.D.1988). if no 7 N.W.2d Cir.1974); 1012, (5th 1015 F.2d the inferences to be over the facts or exists (5th 161, F.2d 163 Oquendo, 490 v. States facts, deter drawn Bueno, Cir.1974); 447 v. United States mat entrapment as a mine the existence (5th Cir.1971); 903, Evans v. 906 Willman, v. City of law. Mandan ter 1976); (Alaska 830, State, P.2d 844-845 550 92, (N.D.1989). use 93 439 436, P.2d Ariz. 501 McKinney, 108 v. State entrapment. of unlawful State, 141 378, (1972); v. Coleman 383 42, (1977); 193, 43-44 Ga.App. 233 S.E.2d entrapment statute em Our “ 914, 917 Overmann, 220 N.W.2d v. “objective” test ‘to determine State ploys the State, 1974); 566 So.2d (Iowa v. unsa Tanner sufficiently police conduct whether ” State, (Miss.1990); v. 1246, Froggatt 1249 entrapment defense.’ justify an vory to 1011, (1970); 267, 1013 694, (N.D. 467 86 Nev. P.2d 264 N.W.2d 697 Pfister, v. State 9, 160, 13 Talbot, 364 A.2d N.J. Papers v. 1978) Working (quoting from The 338, State, (1976); 106 N.M. Baca on Reform National Commission (1987); Lynn v. 320). (1970), P.2d 1045-1046 p. Un- Laws Federal Criminal State, (Miss.1986). State, P.2d Barnes v. 493 So.2d 313 (Okla.Ct.Crim.App.1973). The rationale for But see Moore v. 534 So.2d 557 West, clearly explained (Affirmance 511 (Miss.1988) this rule is of conviction court, F.2d at 1085: equally supplied divided where state marijuana sting). permissible enforce- reverse We concur Frequently, it is practice agent per that a se rule of ment an undercover in apply obtain evidence of unlawful traffic here. by purchasing heroin from a narcotics attempts distinguish There have been suspected peddler. But when the typical the conduit cases from the reverse government’s agent own has set ac- See, sting example, situation. State v. up activity by supplying cused illicit Gessler, 142 Ariz. 690 P.2d introducing him and then with narcotics (Ct.App.1984). attempts We find those un agent government him to another as a persuasive. It is the conduct of the prospective buyer, govern- the role of government agent furnishing illegal passed point of ment has toleration. accused, drugs to the rather than the ac Moreover, such conduct does not facili- subsequent govern cused’s sale to another discovery suppression ongoing tate agent, improper govern that is the drugs. justi- illicit traffic in It serves no Mosley, mental inducement. 496 F.2d Rather, fying objective. puts social defendant, at 1016 where [“a the law enforcement authorities in the issue, may acquitted an pre for lack of position creating crime for the new or, disposition, though disposed, even charges per- bringing against sake of agent supplies where the undercover him they persuaded participate son had ]; Oquendo, with the contraband” 490 F.2d wrongdoing. at 163 a defendant testifies that he [“when police When the themselves violate the law informer, obtained the contraband from an crime, they employ in order to induce a government produce must the informer unlawful means. allegations to contradict the defendant’s in predate The federal decisions cited above ]; jury” order to take the case to the Bue States, Hampton v. United 425 U.S. no, government sup 447 F.2d at 906 [when (1976), 96 S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d 113 where contraband, plies the the accused cannot be majority Supreme a of the Court re- guilty possessing law]; it as a matter of “subjective” theory entrap- affirmed the McKinney, 501 P.2d at 381 cases [“[i]n ment as a matter of federal Under law. state, supplied by wherein narcotics are subjective theory, entrapment cannot in agreement the courts are that the state predisposed if be established the accused is providing opportunity more than the to to commit the crime. While the federal offense, they providing commit the are also decisions that we cite have therefore lost very for the commission of the precedential entrap- their in value federal crime.”]; [recogniz Lynn, 505 P.2d at 1342 cases, the rule in announced those ing that the court could not condone the “quite compatible existing cases is with the acting government action of one for the entrapment” jurisdictions, law of like supplying very gave narcotics that rise ours, employ “objective” theory. alleged improper to the It is the offense].

Evans, Moreover, 550 P.2d at 845. even impor conduct of the that is most though many of these cases address a tant. government “conduit” situation a where furnishing The tactic of con agent provides illegal drugs or informant “lacks the element of who, turn, necessity traband drugs to the accused sells historically that has been the basis for ra government agent, to per another this se tionalizing government in the applied rule of involvement has also been commission of crimes.” typical sting a reverse situation undercover Com where ment, government Entrapment agent only pro- or informant Criminal Procedure: illegal drugs Employed vides the to the accused. Rationale to Condemn See (Miss.1988); Contraband, Kemp Furnishing 518 So.2d 656 Government’s (1974) turned it over to the informants. No crimi- [Emphasis Minn.L.Rev. liability imposed by are our Uniform There nal Con- original; footnote omitted]. adopting “upon any a for Substances Act autho- policy reasons trolled public sound officer, state, municipal in cases where county, rized or se rule of per controlled substance engaged performance of their police furnish the lawful 19-03.1-37(3). the crime: Neverthe- for duties.” NDCC less, by public ex- a officer is not and to easy to understand It seems “required and it seems it is or autho- police agents, justified unless plain to the limits guidance about 12.1-05-02. We are give clear rized law.” NDCC Moreover, it seems authority permissible any statutory conduct. unaware unnecessary dangerous a to strike at a controlled substance confiscat- authorizes agent If technique. an law enforcement drug prosecution to ed in another be with- dealing in con- target is suspects that a retention, evidentiary offered drawn from attempt a traband, to make agent can sale, to others. NDCC 19- and sold See him. There will decoy purchase from 19-03.1-36(4) 03.1-23; (A controlled sub- target provide the no need to sec- “taken or detained under this stance contraband; person who has been a replevin, subject is not but tion his own sources. trafficking will have custody of the or a deemed to be in board Indeed, agent an found the fact that agency subject only to the law enforcement provide contraband raises expedient to and decrees of district orders predis- target was not suspicion that the 19-03.1-39(5). court....”). also NDCC furnishing against rule posed. ... [T]he that he property custodian testified contraband, exclusionary rule in like the only authorization to release had written cases, prophylac- can be seen as search by a substances for examination controlled per- protect innocent rule intended to tic toxicologist, proceedings, for the police action intended sons from destruction. give feels free to guilty. agent An who Indeed, Operating Proce- the Standard danger drugs targets creates Fargo Department spe- dures agent that an corrupting the innocent court, only prose- cifically direct that “[a] decoy purchases does merely makes who policy attorney, departmental cuting not. disposal property” the of ... can authorize Park, Controversy, 60 Entrapment R. The drugs, “[n]arcotics, dangerous and and that 163,191 (1976) omit- Minn.L.Rev. [Footnote Toxi- taken to the drug implements will be addition, informers if officers and In ted]. destroyed in and cology Lab at N.D.S.U. drugs sell possess to and are allowed or property custodian presence of the the sellers, trapping users and purposes of of stat- designee.” appropriate Subversion drugs only that the not there is a chance rules, by law enforce- utes, regulations including recipients, by the be used will a criminal officers, to induce in order users, drugs will also that the but novice Kelly violation, cannot be sanctioned. Cf. Id., n. illegal at to channels. be diverted (Fla.Ct.App.1992) 593 So.2d any excuse per se rule eliminates 89. The rights when process violated due [accused’s agents to officers or enforcement for law and “crack” police illegally manufactured substances, except dur- controlled possess sting opera- in reverse it to accused sold the seizure or span between ing that brief police em- the conclude We tion]. placement of and the purchase undercover in- case to means in this unlawful ployed locker, police evidence drugs in the the a crime. to commit the accused duce facilitating of anticor- thereby enforcement “ ruption measures. Id. pri- ‘is treated entrapment defense Our improper law en- upon marily as a curb case, the cocaine obtained In this Weaver ’ ” Pfister, techniques, ... forcement Fargo the custodian at property Report of the [quoting Final at 697 any au- written Department without Federal Reform of on Commission National supervisory personnel. from thorization Laws, commentary on § Criminal Baumann who gave the cocaine to Weaver PEDERSON, Surrogate R. (1971) commentary official VERNON The drafters’ ]. pro- provision of the entrapment Judge, sitting resignation the due to the of the Code, from which posed Federal Criminal Honorable H. F. GIERRE III. drawn, statute was states: our WALLE, Justice, concurring VANDE of The defense devised specially. the those activities of to counter regarded as generally improp- which are The the law enforcement offi- conduct of It er of law enforcement. has illegal. agree and I cers was unauthorized commentators, of the been the sense majority opinion that as a result of with judicial, scholarly po- and both conduct, the illegal that unauthorized discover, not lice to deter or to are meant possession Rummer for conviction of foster, criminality. To allow such con- with to deliver controlled substance intent give to pass duct unchecked would be should be reversed. corrupting silent influences comfort result, Rum- I concur in the not department because within and within meaning “entrapped” within the society large. mer was at 12.1-05-11, NDCC, of section but because Working Papers I of the Commis- National actions officers of the Laws, sion on Reform of Federal Criminal public policy perhaps contrary were Entrapment: Comment on Section Rummer, process rights of violated the due (1970). p. agree at obser- Indeed, the trial and this before court court Talbot, A.2d vation of argue Rummer State not nor and the did 13: of the of the law brief issue actions properly may Government use artifice to manner enforcement officers criminals, trap unwary particularly its majority opinion disposes of this which stamp out efforts to traffic. How- issue; rather, wording ever, because by the employed the methods 12.1-05-11(2), NDCC, ar- accepted section Rummer up commonly must measure position wording “is decency gued to which our standards government must The not in adhere. manufac- the statute is accordance with by objective ture or creation of crime law en- en- original test of intent forcement authorities cannot be tolerat- trapment.” Rummer thus contended that ed. phrase ‘normally not law- “the abiding but man’ citizens’ ‘reasonable undisputed evidence this case large ‘person at who would not otherwise officers, shows that law enforcement with- normally law-abiding per- done A have so.’ law, provided the out authorization co- indicates a who never son would caine that formed basis Rummer’s any commit an offense of law. This Therefore, prosecution. we conclude that originally the standard intended.”1 entrapment Rummer has established as a matter of law. It is Rummer it understandable believed Accordingly, we reverse the conviction necessary attempt to to somehow entry judgment and remand for of a statutory entrap- change the standard for acquittal. urge upon inment order that he be able to unacceptable of the the court the behavior ERICRSTAD, C.J., R. and VERNON law enforcement officers as a matter PEDERSON, Surrogate Judge, concur. why I fathom a enforce- law. cannot law J., who, undercover, to LEVINE, result. ment officer offers sell concurs in the refuse, alleges phrase matter that of the as a 1. Kummer the use ” judgment normally abiding person” public policy, permit the stand.’ law to to "otherwise sec- NDCC, 12.1-05-11, statutory entrapment defense tion with entrapment” Insofar as our may "is not accordance objec- “original” original objective than intent test of be more limited of the standard, my that an at- analysis “was to focus tive tempt injudicious. it enforces belief which intended agent’s entrapment traditional whether the law enforcement methods circumstances, reprehensible ‘wereso under the “view(ed) case as of an court narcotics, commission [the defendant’s] induces likely by government or other one of intolerable by persuasion offense ” persons to abiding normally apparent law agents.... cause The same theme if the anymore than offense by majority commit the many of the cases cited by someone offered narcotics defendant is opinion. e.g., Hampton v. officer. The defen- enforcement

not a law States, 425 U.S. 96 S.Ct. either seller is an know that does not dant (1976)[majority that L.Ed.2d 113 concludes assume, as a matter agent. To undercover outrageous police conduct bar convic- law, defendant who that a law]; tion as a matter of Evans v. abiding purchase from will law (Alaska 1976). It 550 P.2d 830 is on the not agent but would is an undercover who conduct, rather than an basis of intolerable is not an under- a seller who purchase from application entrapment of the awkward disingenuous at best. agent is cover statute, agree majority’s I that with the Nevertheless, by majority of Rummer’s conviction. as noted reversal jurisdictions have a number of opinion, logic rationale. adopted this tortured PEDERSON, Surrogate R. VERNON me, juris- particularly in those escapes of it concurring specially. Judge, “objective” adopted an which have dictions given in- This court has not been much that of entrapment similar to standard relating police justification formation I can only explanation Dakota. The North “targeting” Because the Rummer. leap seemingly unwarranted for this offer entrapment employs the North Dakota courts, having deter- logic is that theory, it is not unusual that “objective” the actions of law mined that “predis- so Rummer’s we learn little about unacceptable as a matter of officers were Rummer, any to commit crime. position” necessary to cast

public believed policy, law, treated as under our was entitled to be and, per- traditional opinions in more their law-abiding person” “normally because entrap- such as haps, more tenable forms entrapment defense. NDCC he raised the ment. 12.1-05-11(2). § what heretofore But rather than confuse believe, however, ordinarily I exposition of a judicial has been a clear dirty trap and must use tricks can on the law of en- legislative statute clear drugs. in illicit I “predisposed” traffickers attempting tug and stretch trapment by law, matter of agree police, as a that it fits concept so permitted to use confiscated should not be case, I we should our believe view “normally to induce a law-abid- substances directly and declare that the issue confront to commit a crime. ing person” policy public we will as a matter by intolerable sustain a conviction obtained Folk, In part of law enforcement conduct on the (N.D.1979), we said: notwithstanding agents, ease can be a meritorious “No doubt neater and more candid statute. That is a defense proposition that a made for the supported It is position for this court.2 away attention juror’s which diverts West, 511 States v. the decision United police is onto the the defendant and from There, (1975). although crimi- professional designed to benefit entrap- “if the reaching the same result beginner who nal, a detriment to a but is analyzed as aspect of this ease worldly wiles of a gullible to the solely predisposition depending conniving, confidence-type, undercov- engage in illicit defendant] [the agent.” er traffic,” analyzed the issue the court first legislature time for the I that it is believe Meschke language cited Justice in the second look at to take a opinion and concluded that majority jury question, v. Kluck 340 embarrassing presents a [State ex This stance also avoids 2. (1983) "mat into a is transformed ] en N.W.2d 446 planation defense of of how the affirmative of law.” trapment, have heretofore held ter which we redesign it to benefit statute and give police au-

law-abiding persons” and profes- engage “predisposed”

thority to of “no holds a battle

sional criminal

barred.” LATRAILLE, Appellant,

Wanda WORKERS

NORTH DAKOTA BUREAU,

COMPENSATION

Appellee.

Civ. No. 910219. of North Dakota.

Supreme Court

Feb. 1992.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Kummer

Court Name: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 20, 1992

Citation: 481 N.W.2d 437

Docket Number: Crim. 910138

Court Abbreviation: N.D.