is it legal for law enforcement to go undercover to trap sexual preditors in texas?
215604
I think its a felony in every state!
211521
The law on this topic is very, very complicated but the key fact is that the police are allowed to use "reasonable deception" in the course of an investigation, provided that the police do not encourage the suspect or person under surveillance to do anything that he or she was not already going to do. For example, it's totally OK for the police to pose as drug dealers and allow potential customers to approach them and buy drugs, and use that act as evidence against them, but it is not OK for the police to SOLICIT the buyers. So in the case of the "are you wearing a wire" question, it is totally OK for the cop to lie and say "no" because that falls under "reasonable deception."\n\nAs for signing a contract stating that you are not a cop, or not wearing a wire, any contract made in preparation for or during an illegal act is null and void. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife and he takes your money but doesn't kill her, you can't sue him...
191142
This doesn't make much sense. The short answer is that police get away with a lot of things that are not legal.\n\nIf you're saying they forced the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim into making and accepting a charge of statutory rape, and then charged them with making a false report, what was the point?\n\nThis is why all interrogations should be recorded, preferably videotaped. One of the lawyers should be be able to get this tossed out.
576783
Yes it's legal.\n\n"anyone they suspect" So much for innocent until proven guilty.\n\nUnfortunately the US is on a slippery slope towards a police state.
168935
No not at all as I said on the other question you can be a "sex offender" for mooning someone its really stupid there should be different offenses that aren't included
24420
Some good answers here.  I'll take a stab at it myself, though I don't know anything about the incidents other than what the original poster included in his question.\n\nFirst, we're talking about illegal pornography.  "Regular" porn, the kind that isn't illegal depending on whoever's standards we're using, isn't going to be subject to a search warrant because it isn't a crime...and search warrants can only be issued when they seek to provide evidence of a public offense (a crime).  So whatever porn we're talking about, it's evidently illegal according to whatever legal standard is being used (and this varies, but things like kiddy porn are illegal everywhere in the US).  Once the illegality has been established, then I don't think there's much left to talk about...you cannot hide behind a right to privacy if you are engaging in criminal behavior.  That's not to say you give up your right to privacy, it's to say that if you're engaging in criminal acts, the government has the right to ask a judge for a search warrant to gather evidence of those acts, and I would argue that you cannot complain about your privacy being "invaded" when they do.\n\nAnd a word about search warrants; they are not rubber-stamped documents that sail through the justice system to your front door.  Law enforcement agents must prepare an application for them, outlining reasons to believe a particular place holds evidence of a particular crime.  They must swear the things they've said in that document are true, and then they must present the document to a neutral party - a magistrate (or a judge).  That magistrate (or judge) then reviews the information provided by the agent, and decides on his/her own if there is a more than likely chance (i.e., "probable cause") that the things the agents are looking for are in the places the agents say they are.  Despite the rare news to the contrary, magistrates and law enforcement alike take this process seriously.\n\nAbout the "third party" argument made by the original poster: again - if you're engaging in criminal behavior, you cannot expect to hide behind the right to privacy just because you've given the evidence of your guilt to a third party.  The government has the right under our system of law to gather evidence of your criminal behavior, no matter where you have left it.\n\nIf you want to deliver evidence of your involvement in criminal acts to a third party, press on...and you do so at your own risk, obviously.  The original poster's comment is well taken; if your third party is going to comply with an order of a court to disclose certain information relative to criminal acts, then perhaps you need to find another third party - one who will become a criminal themselves if they fail to comply with a lawful court order.\n\nYahoo and Google have not betrayed anyone's trust...although it's been a while since I've seen them, I'm fairly certain both corporations have privacy policies, and I'm equally certain both of them talk about safeguarding your information except when ordered to release it pursuant to a court order.  If the third party thing bothers you, don't use a third party...there's a saying: "three can keep a secret, if two are dead."  \n\nDon't want anybody to know what you're doing?  Don't tell anybody.
651940
I don't know about Texas...but in California, 6 years for possesing c.pornography...and 12 years for solicitation.
268397
Yes only if you are in their jurisdiction but if it's a Trooper they gotcha.  Usually they'd get another officer there to pull you over in some cases but not a rule.  They are never off duty, technically.
532319
yup sorry to tell ya but sounds like he's a pervert.\n\ngo see some one esle but i would have him turned in cause he does not need to be doing this to any one ever again right \n\ndont let him do this to some one else!!!
509774
The only CRIME in Texas involving sexual harassment is "Abuse of Office" crime, and is defined in Penal code 39.03 as:\nA public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he ....: 3)  intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.     \n\nThis is a class A misdemeanor.\n\nI don't know if a person CAN run with Abuse of office conviction , but he will definitely not WIN.
465160
That is illegal, but it happens. Frankly, if it's unsecured, your neighbors probably don't mind.\n\nUnless they go to great lengths to find out what you're doing, they probably won't even notice.
474689
If the Officer was driving around in his vehicle it would be illegal. The officer is subject to the same laws as we are not to mention that this is dangerous for anyone else on the road. However if he is parked offside the road of course he can have his lights off while radaring people. \nIt is not entrapment the Officers lights off is not forcing you to speed. I'm sure if he had is headlights on and was offside the road alot of people would still speed by.
662660
Yes it is legal. That happened in Smiths Station, a suburb (and in a different COUNTY) of Phenix City.
472098
Technically, it's NOT ILLEGAL, but...\n\nWhy tempt fate?  If you were to have it on you and you were detained for any reason, it would make you look awfully suspicious.\n\n\nGood Luck.
530540
...The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969).  The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand.  Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined.  This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave.  Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not.  For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence does not look to be in your favor, therefore you can be pursuaded into continuing the interrogation.  \n\nDuring interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a case.  For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not.  The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect.  In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape.  In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case.  During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin, had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime.  The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement.  The Court determined that the criminal defendant’s confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness.  Id.  \n\nPolice officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception.  In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendant’s fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victim’s checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook.  The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession.  Id.  at 258.  Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement.  Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible.  Id., at 259.  \n\nIn order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated.  Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996).  Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing.  In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened.  The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder.
583194
Your local law enforcement organization would be happy to talk to you about this. Seek there advice.\n\nTrust me on this one.\n\nYour issue about working under the table shouldn't even come into question unless something illegal was going on. We've all had to work under the table at some point in our lives to make ends meet.\n\nWhatever you do, avoid lying about anything. Leaving a small item out is one thing, lying is entirely different.\n\nBut really, police officers, especially old school guys are happy to talk to guys seriously interested in joining the force.
640941
Yes, that is against the law. I knew someone who was put in jail for a long time for doing that.