Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
blueeagle
How would 100 dollars make any difference?
Because a defense attorney could somehow argue that such an inducement (paltry as it is) could induce an otherwise law-abiding person to break the law.
*I* wouldn't buy it, but the argument might pass muster with a court.
Without ANY inducement, there IS no "entrapment" defense.
- Carl
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Minors are used in cigarette decoys all the time. I have run these operations safely for more than 9 years without an incident.
We can "what if" a situation all day long. What if a robber comes in ... what if a jealous boyfriend comes after the decoy ... what if ...
The bottom line is that when these are done properly, the decoy is adequately monitored and briefed beforehand that there is very little REASONABLE chance of anything untoward happening.
Police use minors for cigarette stings, informants, volunteers, and all sorts of non-sworn personnel for various support assignments. There is nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about the act.
Oh, and not all these operations are run by the police ... my county's health department also runs them.
- Carl
I understand what you are saying Carl, still my strong opinion is, they have NO business using minors, period.
As I stated, when minors have to be used as guinea pigs to enforce the law there is something wrong.
Sure, you can what if all day, but we are talking about a minor here, that "what if" becomes a more scary possibility, at least IMO.
Have you ever heard of "cops in shops"? Do they have such program in CA?
http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforce/cis.htm
NO minor is used. The officer poses as a clerk/employee of the business, when an underage person attempts to buy beer or tobacco, they nail them right there.
In my very strong opinion, this IS a MUCH more effecticve way to nab underage persons.
This way the IF, that may become reality, has no possibility to become reality.
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
I understand what you are saying Carl, still my strong opinion is, they have NO business using minors, period.
And I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence that these stings have put any minors in any danger, ever. They stand a greater risk driving TO the operation than they do suffering any ill effect during the conduct of it.
Of course there would be no way to do such an operation without the use of minors.
Never heard of it. Maybe the Texas ABC has a lot more money to spend, we don't. The odds of catching a minor trying to purchase in that way would be lower than the odds of my catching a trout in the irrigation canal! And if you have a business with so many minors trying to buy alcohol in a particular establishment as to make it an almost sure thing, then the problem is with the establishment. Kids buy where their friends buy ... when word gets out that they can buy from a business, they will all give it a go.
We HAVE staked out suspect businesses and watched as a 21-year-old goes in, buys the liquor, then puts it int he trunk of minors in the parking lot ... the old "shoulder tap" scenario. In those instances, the buyer gets charged as do the minors.
Quote:
In my very strong opinion, this IS a MUCH more effecticve way to nab underage persons.
It is actually very ineffective for the reasons stated above. I suspect that someone sold this plan to someone and they got funding for it. This kind of operation would be so inefficient, in terms of cost, that I cannot imagine anyone doing it unless it were funded by grants.
If you have kids flooding a business trying to buy cigs or liquor, then the word is out that the business is an easy mark. Now, there might be some inner city markets that are deluged with these requests even with denials, but even when I worked in the big city, we would never have wasted that kind of time and money hoping to get a fish in the net because the odds were far too low. It would be akin to staking out a random bank waiting to see if a robbery takes place.
- Carl
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
It is actually very ineffective for the reasons stated above. I suspect that someone sold this plan to someone and they got funding for it. This kind of operation would be so inefficient, in terms of cost, that I cannot imagine anyone doing it unless it were funded by grants.
- Carl
I don't see how it would be any more cost prohibitive than a sting involving minors, I really don't!!
If the sting uses one cop, then the cops in shops uses one cop!
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
I don't see how it would be any more cost prohibitive than a sting involving minors, I really don't!!
If the sting uses one cop, then the cops in shops uses one cop!
Unless Texas bucks common cop sense, these are NOT one man operations. They are TWO man (or more) operations. Being behind the counter is much more dangerous than walking up to it ... the guy behind the counter can get robbed or assaulted. Though, even that is slim. But, the point is, that unless TX goes against all established procedures for operational safety, there is at least one additional officer present either in the business or just outside.
Now, let's talk practical. With this operation, you MIGHT effect sales for a short period of time. When word gets out that Habib was not behind the counter at ABC Liquor, but a new guy was, and that the new guy got Johnny busted, all that is going to happen is that no one will buy when Habib is not working the counter. But! If you bust Habib and possibly cite the store's owner as well, then you create a long term change because chances are very good that ABC Liquor will no longer sell to minors ... at least not for a very long time.
In this TX idea, one officer and a cover remains at the same business for what might be a few hours or even for a few days ... okay ... a lot of hours for what is likely a minimal amount of cites (if any). There might be a deterrent factor if the nature of the local underage buying population is to buy in a store far from the neighborhood, but typically this is not the case. What decoy stings will tend to do is cover more ground and have a longer term impact by changing the supply of the product. When we bust kids at a party, or pop the kid who is carrying the booze, he still knows he can buy it at ABC Liquor later - and his friends do, too. But, if ABC stops selling the liquor without proper ID then the supply is cut off.
The ops out here typically involve 2-3 officers and one decoy per team. One team can cover up to a dozen businesses in four hours. We average about a 90% compliance for both alcohol and cigarettes when we conduct these operations, though a few years ago in San Diego, one of our ops netted only about 50%! In our last local op for alcohol, we hit 11 businesses in 4 hours and cited only one - a chain drug store where a clerk sold beer to the decoy.
We know when the supply has dried up because the kids tell us ... and, they resort to having their of-age pals buying for them. And, when we catch these guys, they go to jail for a couple of different offenses.
In the end, decoy operations work. When you take into account the buying habits of youth, it is plain to see that cutting off the alcohol at the source is much more effective than busting one random kid.
- Carl
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
The issue I have for using minors in stings is that the law allows the minor to break the law.
If a minor has cigarettes, he is in posseeion, right? That's illegal
If a minor is allowed to purchase cigarettes, that is illegal, just as a parent allowing it.
The focus of the law is jaded. The purpose is to stop minors from having cigarettes and prevent them from smoking. Given that, shouldn't the focus be on the true violator: the smoker?? If it weren't for the real perp, the smoker, we wouldn't have this discussion.
Cops posing as sellers would be more logical. A kid tries to buy and is busted will make the kid think before trying again. A kid buying and the seller getting busted doesn't affect the kid at all. There's another store just down the street.
Allowing a violation of the law to enforce the law just doesn't make sense.
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
zedex
The issue I have for using minors in stings is that the law allows the minor to break the law.
We allow officers to do the same thing in drug stings and other covert operations. This is no different. Plus - at least in CA - there is an exception that allows for these types of operations and declares them NOT to be "breaking the law" when conducted.
Quote:
The focus of the law is jaded. The purpose is to stop minors from having cigarettes and prevent them from smoking. Given that, shouldn't the focus be on the true violator: the smoker?? If it weren't for the real perp, the smoker, we wouldn't have this discussion.
We can cite both. Its easy to cite the kid smoking when he walks down the street. It is also easy to shut down the source of illegally purchased cigarettes by hitting the seller. If we just cite the kid, then he can go back and buy another pack. If we cite the business, he has a very expensive incentive NOT to sell anymore.
However, the source of most kids' cigarettes (and alcohol) is NOT from a direct purchase, it is from friends or even their parents (stealing their parents' stash of cigs or alcohol, or receiving it freely).
Quote:
Cops posing as sellers would be more logical. A kid tries to buy and is busted will make the kid think before trying again. A kid buying and the seller getting busted doesn't affect the kid at all. There's another store just down the street.
You don't understand the mentality behind the way these kids purchase this stuff. Most such purchases are done locally ... the kids know what stores sell and what stores do not sell. They also tend to know what clerks work and which ones will not check ID or are susceptible to bribe. If the clerk is different, and they suddenly get busted, they just won't buy from that clerk again, but the next time the clerk they bought from before is there, they will.
Busting one kid does not tend to dissuade the whole - it just dissuades the one kid and MAYBE a couple of friends. For each kid busted, you might dissuade, say, three people from not buying (though they will often get the stuff from their friends who are still buying). You bust the seller, and you prevent access to perhaps a hundred kids!
The cop clerk might effect out of area buys, but the clerk likely still has to wait a long time for a single sale ... unless the state gave us free money, I wouldn't waste a penny of my budget trying that method. I'd much prefer the tried and true way that DOES have a measurable impact - decoy ops. It would also be cheaper.
Quote:
Allowing a violation of the law to enforce the law just doesn't make sense.
We do it all the time. An officer can violate provisions of the Vehicle Code to enforce the law ... we can conduct sting operations where officers buy drugs and other contraband ... etc. Unless your state specifically forbids these operations, they are legal. Incidentally, that is how the law changed here in CA - a store owner (after being busted) demanded a citizen's arrest on a kid that bought either cigarettes or alcohol. While the DA did not prosecute, it brought up an interesting point, and members of the various liquor store organizations were told to make these citizen's arrests if they were busted. So, the legislature changed the law to specifically allow for these decoy ops without muddying the legal water. (The muddy defense never really worked, but it added a level of confusion that should never have been there)
- Carl
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Instead of debating possibles, what are the statistics?
In the US in, say, the last 5 years, how many children used as bait in sting operations have been hurt and to what extent?
Unless we can debate from a point of fact, we are all, with the notable exception of Carl, throwing about opinions.
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
I have to say that I don't have any stats on the issue, but in all the years I have been at this (the last nine directly involved in decoy ops), I have never heard from any federal, state or local source of ANY injury to any minor used in a decoy scam.
Now, I CAN come up with stats on the likelihood of injury or death to a teen while in a motor vehicle and I can guarantee that this number is far greater than the probability of injury in a decoy op.
- Carl
Re: Tobacco Stings and Use of Minors
Quote:
Quoting
cyjeff
Instead of debating possibles, what are the statistics?
In the US in, say, the last 5 years, how many children used as bait in sting operations have been hurt and to what extent?
Unless we can debate from a point of fact, we are all, with the notable exception of Carl, throwing about opinions.
You use the word CHILDREN. THANK YOU! That's the point. I don't care how safe the program is, or the safety record, or how well they are trained, CHILDREN have NO business being involved, that is my sound opinion and that is why it is in the "debate the issues".
Opinions play just as much part as facts on judgmental issues.
As Zedex points out, they are breaking the law to enforce the law, simply because the govt. gives them immunity from prosecution is inmaterial to me. It is a world of difference from a COP buying drugs to catch a seller.