From the article they consider it to be theft if not turned in with all contents. So not arrested for picking it up, but also entrapment bullshit in my opinion since police love to keep unclaimed cash for themselves. Criminalizing that for regular people removes competition.
The article is from a site called “Police Mag” and quotes NYPD representatives. I would take what they say about how successful, fair, and justly enforced these stings were with a grain of salt.
It literally says they stop-and-frisk if the “perpetrator” didn’t immediately return the wallet to the officer. On a crowded street or subway, it’s very possible to see a wallet on the ground and not see who dropped it, and now you’re getting pulled into one of the most bullshit warrantless search practices of modern policing?
Well that’s easy to solve. Turn on phone camera as you walk up to it, look around and capture the surroundings, and then pick it up. There’s your evidence. The case would be thrown out.
The case would be thrown out if it made it to a judge with that evidence. But the stings were often a pretense to initiate a stop-and-frisk where additional charges are going to get trumped up. Then they’ll lock you in a room where they just need to convince you that any one of those charges might stick, you’ll have a criminal record, and your life is over. Now you’re plea-bargaining down to a misdemeanor because the cops lied and intimidated you into avoiding a trial where your evidence would be presented.
The obvious answer is “lawyer up immediately,” but many people can’t afford lawyers. So now you’re getting an overworked, underpaid public defender who wants to spend as little time on your case as possible. You know what they’ll tell you? “Take the deal.”
The system as it is right now is designed to favor the state. Judges and prosecutors have been trying to reduce the number of jury trials for decades, often arguing that they’re cumbersome and time consuming. Fewer and fewer people get their day in court. Around 95% of US criminal convictions these days come from plea deals where no one had to present evidence. Instead of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the police and the DA just need to convince the accused that the state is too tough to fight.
The situation described in the article would not be entrapment. Presenting the opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment, usually you have to be coerced or tricked in some way.
I found an article that backs this up. Still not sure precisely what the crime is. Theft, I guess?
https://www.policemag.com/news/nypd-lucky-bag-sting-snares-300-offenders
From the article they consider it to be theft if not turned in with all contents. So not arrested for picking it up, but also entrapment bullshit in my opinion since police love to keep unclaimed cash for themselves. Criminalizing that for regular people removes competition.
The article is from a site called “Police Mag” and quotes NYPD representatives. I would take what they say about how successful, fair, and justly enforced these stings were with a grain of salt.
It literally says they stop-and-frisk if the “perpetrator” didn’t immediately return the wallet to the officer. On a crowded street or subway, it’s very possible to see a wallet on the ground and not see who dropped it, and now you’re getting pulled into one of the most bullshit warrantless search practices of modern policing?
Well that’s easy to solve. Turn on phone camera as you walk up to it, look around and capture the surroundings, and then pick it up. There’s your evidence. The case would be thrown out.
The case would be thrown out if it made it to a judge with that evidence. But the stings were often a pretense to initiate a stop-and-frisk where additional charges are going to get trumped up. Then they’ll lock you in a room where they just need to convince you that any one of those charges might stick, you’ll have a criminal record, and your life is over. Now you’re plea-bargaining down to a misdemeanor because the cops lied and intimidated you into avoiding a trial where your evidence would be presented.
The obvious answer is “lawyer up immediately,” but many people can’t afford lawyers. So now you’re getting an overworked, underpaid public defender who wants to spend as little time on your case as possible. You know what they’ll tell you? “Take the deal.”
The system as it is right now is designed to favor the state. Judges and prosecutors have been trying to reduce the number of jury trials for decades, often arguing that they’re cumbersome and time consuming. Fewer and fewer people get their day in court. Around 95% of US criminal convictions these days come from plea deals where no one had to present evidence. Instead of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the police and the DA just need to convince the accused that the state is too tough to fight.
deleted by creator
The situation described in the article would not be entrapment. Presenting the opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment, usually you have to be coerced or tricked in some way.
Ok that’s a little different than being arrested for picking up a random wallet on the sidewalk.