undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

now that the title has you lost, here's the scoop: a couple of people that i know were recently caught in an undercover sting in Maine. a warden befriended them( i met him too, seemed nice enough) out of the blue, and the guys let him talk them into doing some illegal things. they know they should have said " no way", but they didn't, and now are willing to pay the price for it. if a warden goes undercover, and witness's several offenses in a short period of time, should he arrest the people at that point, or see how many charges he can rack up? if he commits crimes while undercover, should he be prosecuted, or should the entire case be thrown out? i feel if he sees a lot of offenses being committed in a short amount of time, say a week or so, that should be good enough. if he commits crimes himself, like taking game out of season, the case would to me be questionable at best.
Pat

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Any who breaks game laws should pay the price. Most adults know right from wrong.

Yes. Are you saying he did?

No way not if they broke laws

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Sounds like the people you know may have been specifically targeted by DNR law enforcement. If so, they have probably been under suspicion (and rightfully so it seems) for a while. I'm not sure what the law allows in terms of what wardens can do to gain the confidence of the lawbreakers, but would suspect that these people will have their day in court to find out.

I would also suspect that the warden didn't have to "talk them into it" very hard. After all, youstated he just met them out of the blue. Sounds like these people were very culpable and I think the warden not only has the right but the obligation to uncover and investigate as many crimes as possible. Sounds like the guys should have the book thrown at them from your initial post. want to explain a little further?????

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

A game warden, or any other type of law enforcement officer for that matter, cannot persuade someone into committing a crime and then arrest them for it....its called entrapment. Even though the guys who broke the law should be prosecuted or fined or whatever, if these guys hire a decent defense lawyer, the most likely scenario would be that the charges would be thrown out.


In regards to "how far cana warden go when undercover," it all depends on the case. If the people who are under investigation are suspected of multiple offenses or very serious crimes, the warden will be allowed to bend the rules a little as long as it builds up evidence to prosecute them to the fullest. If these people are suspected of hunting during closed seasons for example, an undercover warden isn't going to bust them for something minor. He's going to wait until enough evidence builds up against them that it would be difficult for them to get off. But the warden still has to follow some rules. For example, he can't drive out to a field at nite, pull over and spotlight a deer for someone to shoot and then try to arrest them for it...that is entrapment.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

IMO when a warden sees some breaking the law, then that person/s
should be busted right then and there. Like a drunk driver running
a stop light. You don't wait to see if he hits another car and perhaps
kill someone. As, with the warden he is there to protect wildlife and
not wait until it is gone to say I wanted to get those guys. If he sees it being comitted and can prove it then bust them. If he's a part of it and
he can not win it unless he is tried on it too. Either way he should be done working with the warden service as a result.
I'm not sure what case vtbuck is talking about. But,one case here was more of a personal vandetta against a Maine Guide where the guide was
encouraged to cook up a short bass for dinner. All because the warden
wanted his guides licsence and cost the courts, taxpayers,lawyer fees,
the guides reputation and the bit. Just to have the case thrown out.
Reason being they ate the evidence.IMO for what this nonsence cost us
taxpayers it should of cost this wardens job. I believe once the bass was dead it would of been enough to convict why wait. This guide buisness
has picked up due to the publicity of it all.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

My guess is that we got the story from the point of view of the guys who were arrested, with some details polished up a little bit to make them look like victims. Law enforcement officers get a bad rap that they usually don't deserve with this sort of thing. I suspect that these guys were targeted because they have a hisory of such stuff. Of course, I don't know any more than anyone else. This is just my suspicion, because this is the way such stories get told here in PA.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I suspect that these guys were targeted because they have a hisory of such stuff

You may be right I do not know for sure either as I'm not part of it in any manner. But, I believe if something is being done that is wrong then there
is no need to wait until more is done. There are laws here that could result in lisences be suspended for 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, and for a lifetime so
why wait until it costs all these taxpayers dollars to flopp it up?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I don't believe in intrapment. You still have a choice no matter what. Either you broke the law or you didn't.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

this is the case that happened up in washington county. the warden service heard some things were happening up there involving these guys. what they heard about were acts committed years earlier, when the guys were young and dumb. the warden met them,and myself, introduced himself. got their confidence. asked them if they could trap him a bear. asked if we could help him to get a wood duck. asked if he could shoot seals. he participated in all of the above. asked me, after i legally got my bear, why don't i go back out the next night for another? i wasn't that stupid. i the course of a few weeks, they commited a couple of offenses, enough to prosecute. he did an investigation from sept. to dec. he shot from vehicles, carried loaded weapons. took a rabbit from a vehicle, drank and drove. plus more offenses. in my veiw, that made him no better than the guys he was trying to bust. but the question still remains, how ong should a normal investigation go on for, if enough evidence is discovered quickly?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

with all due respect Phil, if the warden was undercover, why should he reveal himself to arrest these guys for a minor infraction when obviously they suspected them of greater fish&game crimes?
By that reasoning, an undercover cop who has infiltrated a mob or drug gang should reveal himself and arrest them for the 1st law violation that happens (ex. drunk driving) when he is really after them for drug trafficking???? I don't think so.

If the warden had some personal greivance against these guys and was using his office for illegitimate purposes, then he and them should be prosecuted, but if this was a legitimate operation then the lawyers can hash it out as to whether the warden went too far.


If there is legitmacy to the investigation then, imo, it should go on long enough to where the guilty parties dig themself a hole they can't get out of too easily. If the investigation is legitimate then I'm sure it had objectives.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

And they are now what? Older and still dumb. Come on, man! If the UC would have jumped off a cliff - would they? If he shot himself in the foot - would they? If he raped - would they?

It was their poor decisions and they can't be justified by him encouraging them.

As to his conduct when UC, there very well have been a court order for him to do certain things in the scope of his investigative efforts.

Another thing. It's just stupid to start doing things like these in the company or to the knowledge of folks who aren't family or LONG TIME friends. I said long time friends - not aqaintences.

I think if someone like this showed up in the lives of me, my friends or family and started encouraging or doing illegal things like this - I would personallyarrest him. He could cry all he wanted to about being LE, I'd deliver him to the State Police or probobly USFWS. He could then tell it to them or explain itto the judge.

Come on, some guy outta the blue? Not a local? Duh!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Enforcement officers undercover have protectional laws (via court order, or statue)that do allow them to do what is deemed necessary to maintaing cover, and prevent a risk of life/limb from revealing one's self. Understandably there are some limits (like killing someone, unless the cop is in an extremely unique situation, like infiltraring Osama's camp:D).

I believe undercover cops have even been documented as ingesting illicit drugs, and engaging in propositioned sexual acts legally.I wish I could name the statue, but cases like this have precedents in the supreme court, and are rarely questioned by defense attorneys anymore.

Entrapment is sometimes able to be determined, but that rarely is the case. It's often a last ditch effort for someone who has committed the crimes, and are blaming law enforcement when in actuality the officers were well within the boundaries of the law. A good example of this are the prostitution stings where a female officer hits the corner, and propositions johns. It's well within their legal rights to do so, and is not entrapment.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

First of all the case I was talking about was different from the case in question.

The case in question is still being worked on I believe. However if the
warden was in fact drunk driving or shooting from any motor vehicle then
he clearly violated the law. For as far as bear trapping if it was in season
and the wood duck was in season with the right permits,stamps, and etc.
what would be wrong? Here you can shoot or trap bear leagely same with the wood duck. But the seal is a federal offense so again why wait? The seal would certainly tie those guys up for a long time. But if the warden
was shooting at game from a motor vehicle he is clearly in the wrong. If
he was drunk driving he was clearly wrong. I also believe this case has more going on than what is being said. So it is IMO that both sides are
wrong and both needs to be addressed.


Also if you think a warden or anyone for that matters was drunk driving and run into my wife and kids or myself that
they would be above the law THINK AGAIN !

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I think most or your questions have already been answered here Phil in regards to what can be allowed for the law enforcement officer. You seem to be very passionate about this particular subject. Did you know the perpetrators as well? You seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions (drunk warden, etc.) and finding more fault with the officer than the illegal huntersso I thought you must know more than we've seen so far.

I am unsure but would be inclined to initially find guilt with the poachers especially if they have a history (as vt pointed out) of this stuff. I would like to see a link to a story if possible.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I agree. It seems like you find guilt against the law enforcement personnel without proof. Yet, you expect the supposed law-violators to be subject to being innocent until proven guilty.

Sounds a little more than biasness.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in it. Entrapment is illegal. The only question is whether or not the officer is guilty of it. If the court decides that he is, then the charges that resulted from it will be dropped and and rightly so. That's how our system works. I agree with it!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I'm sorry, but from the information given by vt, I think these guys are probably very guilty and figure that entrapment was probably not part of the deal. I am glad you were not part of it vt.

vt, I take it you are not speaking hypothetically here but are claiming that A LOT of violations were committed

Sounds like it had some high profile for that area.


vt, please know that my opinions about this case are in no way directed towards you. just trying to be objective.

I, myself have got friends from the old days back home who could easily get caught breaking a few game laws with regularity.Still, if they get caught, theyprobabaly deserved it. Most poachers get away because of our lack of enforcement to start with.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Why is it irrelevant? 99% of the time its not true. We should all be responsable for our actions. Entrapment is just a lameexcuse for the bad guys.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I must be misunderstood some where ? I was simply going by what vtbuck
had stated. No I do not know the perpetrators and feel no passion towards poachers doing what has been said here! I did how ever state
that in IMO if the fact be stated here are correct both sides would be wrong . If in fact the seal mentioned was shot it was clearly a federal violation. That's enough to put those guys away for quite some time.
And it should of been done right then.
I also said if the warden had done what has been stated he would of been
wrong also. And that is that! Everyone pays a price for being wrong !

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in it becausethere arealready laws that makeentrapment illegal. That's a fact so your belief dosn't matter, it ISthe law.

O.K. but the 1% of the time it is true then the leo broke the law and the charges that resulted from the illegal act are dropped. Again, that's the law. Are you really trying to tell me that a full 1% of the time game wardens arrest people illegally?

Iflaw breakers are the bad guys then leo's guilty of entrapment are law breakers and therefore the bad guys right?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I'm confused as to how the "entrapment" theory comes into play here.

Did the UC put undo pressure on the perps to commit illegal act(s) where there was no prior evidence or suspision against the perps. Did the UC just pick these guys out the clear blue. From what I read here - I bet not.

Don't know about Maine,but the UC wildlife agents around here got there ducks in a row - they dot the I's and cross the T's.I'm sure they are all aware of the do's and don'ts with respect to entrapment.

They did a huge sting down here on the Maryland E.Shore 15+ yrs ago.As I recall the wildlife agent(s) was uncover in excess of a year. When he/they got thru alot of men went to jail - A big time UC bust with convictions that made all the papers.

Unless your the Pope with no prior record or inclination to commit a crime against wildlife then maybe its entrapment,otherwise you probably goin to jail with no pass.

BTW - down here they frequently set up mechanical deer in fields day or night.Many a hunter been busted shottin these deer.I heard about entrapment decades ago when they started these stings.All the guys I've heard of or read about never got out of it by the old "entrapment" defense.

Sounds to me like these boys up in Maine are in a heap of Dog-Doo.
Uness the UC wildlife agent was just plain stupid they might be goin to jail.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I see no entrapment. I see people whom break the law, enjoy breaking the law and when faced with the opportunity to break the law, they took advantage of it. To say the warden befriended them sounds like your saying they knew he was a warden. Did they? These people are the reason why we honest folk must pay higher prices for tags, stamps etc. and why may land owners shut their land down to hunting. If you do the crime be a man and face the time. They knew they were wrong in the first place.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I would like to see some of those undercover ops being run around here. I'm tired of finding deer with just their heads missing and hearing guys alluding to how many bucks they killed BEFORE the season even started!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Please note that never did I say it WAS entrapment, that discussion was already in progress. I merely pointed out that IF "the court decides" that it is then the charges get dropped. That's the law too! It seems that some of you have no tolerance whatsoeverif John Smith violates a law, you want to throw the book at him, but if a game warden does you're ready to turn a blind eye. I'm not. I think laws must be followed no matter who you are or be ready to accept the consequences. How can anybody be honest with themselves and disagree with that?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Here's a legal explination of entrpment...

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

So the mechanical deer thing is clearly not entrapment. The government agents are not trying to pursuade anybody to break the law, they are merely providing an opportunity.You might not consider itto beethical but certainly it's not illegal. Besides its actually not illegal to shoot a mechanical deer. The guys who do shoot it are usually arrested for something else like shooting from a vechicle or too close to a road.

In vt original post he said that "the guys let him(game warden)talk them into doing some illegal things". From the above definition, if that is true and the agent "pursuaded" them to commit a specific crime then most definately there is a case for entrapment. BUt of course it is for the court to hear the evidence and decide.

Also remember in the case of entrapment, it is the governments responsibilty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't occur. The defendent does not have to prove that it did.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Sylvan, here issome more information about the whole deal: the agent approached my friend, whom used to hold a guide's license( he let it expire), asking if he would help him to scout for moose, supposedly a friend had drawn a permit. the agent was willing to pay for his services( illegal to accept payment unless you have a guides license). payment was declined. asked if he could go bear hunting with friend, for which he was willing to pay, again payment declined, but was given a site to watch.upon seeing some old bear snares( legal for friend, hadn't bought the permit yet), asked if he would trap a bear for him, again offering payment. friend refused to trap for him. wanted to shoot a wood duck, said he didn't have any in PA. duck season didn't start for three days. in steps number two guy to be bagged. at some point int the fall, he allegedly shoots the duck in the agent's presence. over the course of the fall, the agent repeatedly comes to friends home, gaining trust. deer season comes along. warden asks for some help bringing home a deer to PA(wake up call boys, it's a lot easier to get one in Pa than in Maine.). they shot four deer total. without his prodding, they had no inclination to jack a deer, however, upon seeing a deer in a good spot, the warden not only would suggest they take the deer, but also fired at the animal.number two bagged man took him to a spot where seals had been shot, where again the warden shot and missed. the warden did connect with a rabbit out of the truck window, breaking a few laws in the process( firing from a vehicle, loaded weapon in vehicle, shooting from a road). i watched him buy and help consume a 30 pack of beer, then drive to his hotel( 3 of us were having beer that day while skinning my bear). the hotel was 15 minutes from the house. now, now of what i stated above is biased one side or the other, i am sure the agents report follows pretty close to what i stated. so if the people that i know had no inclination towards taking wildlife illegally in the first place, yet were foolish enough at each opportunity to go along with the wardens suggestion, which he always did first, in this case i would say that this sounds like a case of entrapment at least in some, but not all, of the charges. hopes this might clear some points up.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

vt,
there may or may not be a case for entrapment (probably not, if I had to guess), but that can in no way be objectively decided here without all the facts (and probably not even then:D:D) and with only the statement of a person (yourself) who is probably sympathetic with the alleged perpetrators. Your friends sound like criminals at worstor just plain stupid at best, no offense to you, in regards to this circumstance.

If they think they were duped they need to express that feelingto their attorney or the court.

Sorry, but you admittedly said that they broke several laws and thatright there gives them little credibility.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I don't think there is any question whether or not there is a "case" for entrapment. Just the fact that the warden had prior knowledge of the crime about to be committed and was present when it was committed is enough for a "case" for entrapment or in other words an "entrapment defense". The only hurdle for the accused is to convince a judge that it is "reasonable" to believe that entrapment "could have" taken place. They don't have to prove it did. If the judge thinks its reasonable to believe that it "cold have" taken place then its the responsibility of the government to prove that it didn't in court. Once you get to that point the question becomes, is the warden"guilty" of entrapment and in that I agree with you that it can't be decided here but must be decided in court where all the facts can be brought out. Of course if the court decides the warden is guilty then all the charges that resulted from the entrapment get dropped. That's just how it works!

Remember too, if there is reasonable doubt in the jury as to whether or not the warden made the arrest "entrapment free" if you will, then the accused go free. It's a subtle but important reverse of the way we normally think about court cases. In a manner of speaking, if the judge decides there is a case for entrapment then the warden is for all intent and purpose considered guilty unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did everything right in making the arrest.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

This is my point.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I do not believe that. If that was the case then undercovers would never be effective and they are effective (obviously)

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Sounds to me like your idiot friends don't have much backbone to begin with. They should go to jail just for being stupid enough to keep hanging out with the CO. How many times does someone ask you to do some thing illegal, or stupid before you stop associating with them? One time, pass it off as a misunderstanding. Twice, I write the guy off, as we clearly have different standards. This undercover CO had info, andfound the right two fools. After a time your friends should have reported the CO to the warden service. Their not reporting him to the warden service show they don't have any respect for the game, other hunters, or fair chase ethics. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for you, and you'll start looking forsome real sportsmen to be friends with. My advise, when you do find some honest sportsmen, don't mention your association with those two clowns unless you feel like hunting alone for a while.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Not at all! A "case" doesn't mean convicted. The defense attourney can use "entrapment" as a defense but that doesn't mean the judge and/or jury will buy it. Defense atrouneys do it all the time and loose of course. The threshold to claim entrapment is very low but to convict those accused of the crime the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, so if it is reasonable to believe that entrapment occured then they go free. That doesn not mean that the officer was convicted of a crime. The officer isn't on trial. But if the district attourney as a result of the trial of the game violators beilievs he could convict the leo he may endict the officer. In that case then it is the governments responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer commited the crime. New threshold!

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I understand all that. I just think that when it come down to it, this particular case, imo,from the description, probably has nothing to do with entrapment. Be interesting tohear any results of this case or official word but probably unlikely.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

My bet is, you are correct! :)

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Didn't they make a movie about these guys?

Oh yea I remember now " dumband dumber " :D

I think aspell in the butt hut should give them some time to further their education.

Remember you can't pick your family but friends are another story! [:o]

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

for those of you that can't seem to remember the original question, i'll spell this sloooowwllly so that you can understand it: howlong should a warden watch crimes being committed before acting upon them? there, does that help out all that can't remember the question from page one? we don't need to bust on their character or intelligence, they got caught, they know they were wrong, and are willing to do what it takes to put this all behind them. they didn't ditch the country, which would be easy with the border 20 minutes away, nor killed anyone yet, lol. but i bet the undercover guy won't be getting a christmas card next year, heheheh.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

What charges were brought against your friends?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I suppose this topic has drifted a bit.

Answer;
As long as it takes to gather evidence of suspected previous and ongoing crimminal activity against all the perps involved and in accordance with code or statute set forth in a given jurisdiction(local,state,federal).

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

How long should they wait to make a bust? As long as it takes. I'd rather they wait to make a bust of some substance that will do the public, and the wildlife some good, than bust someone for the first little infraction allowing the criminal to not only be free sooner, but also a little wiser to the workings of the CO's. If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

The way this thread has been going it sounds to me like the OP, and a few others feel like the CO played dirty pool here, and want to rally, and turn law abiding hunters against the warden service. Sorry, I'm not buying the OP's story that the CO is some how to blame here. The CO did his job and removed a couple of criminals from society.

So, to all the COs and wardens out there, Thank you.