What is the source of the prohibition against entrapment?
152423
An interesting question.\n\nFirst: I might be completely wrong, and if I am I hope someone comes along and clears this up.\n\nBut: I don't think there is a law that specifically prohibits entrapment.  \n\nHowever: there is a successful defense to a crime if the government enticed the defendant into committing a crime the defendant would not have normally committed.  So, by virtue of the fact that you would be found not guilty if you can prove entrapment, there is, for all intents and purposes, a "law" that prohibits it.\n\nI can't tell you what that's based on, but I don't think the Constitution specifically addresses it.  I think it's probably more just a matter of fairness (courts are not going to let the government entice citizens into committing crimes).
525264
Technically, it isn't in the U.S. Constitution.  The Miranda Warning came about after Miranda vs. Arizona in 1960(?).  But it refers to the fifth amendment right that protects against self-incrimination, or "the right to remain silent".
553595
There are laws against this, but it still requires a burden of proof, which is hard to come by at times.  Many of these places also work 'off shore' in order to bend the rule and avoid prosecution.
504947
It advised an individual being arrested of his/her legal rights.  The right to remain silent is the most important one.  Talking can easily incriminate an individual.
503221
some states have this law. Basicly what it sums down to is that the violator entered onto a property to strike fear in the defendent.
313449
They can.  They choose not to, so as not to get injured.
116857
Entrapement is when the police more or less make you do something. Like say an undercover cop tells you that unless you do some drugs(or anything illegal) he will kill you. That is just an example but something like that. They "entrap" you. And no it is not legal. What you are talking about is not entrapement but you can take that to court and request that the officer that issued the citation to appear and it might get thrown out because he didnt see it.
945799
They wouldn't make you surrender it physically, but they would ban you from driving for a certain time, and if you are caught doing it anyway, there would be bigger rouble pronto. Hope that demystifies it for you?
684764
There are no laws against using our military to secure our border.\n\nThere is a law against using the military to enforce Civil law without presidential authorization but this law does not apply to the National Guard.
151256
There is no such provision! If they met with a known fugitive and did not report it that would be obstruction of justice or possibly aiding and abetting a fugitive. They may have some protrection under the firsta amendemnt as to disclosing their sources but even those rights are not absolute.\n\nAs to airing an interview, that depends where and how they got it.
747166
Majority test: Subjective entrapment as defense-- only succeeds "if the government, not the accused, is the source of the criminal design." If the Defendent is disposed to commit the crime and the government only facilitates it, the Defendent does not have the defense of subjective entrapment.
1041994
Yes, you can.\n\nBut, only if there was reasonable cause for not feeling safe.\n\nIn other words,  you cannot bypass shopping centers, police stations, etc. to go to your house claiming you didn't feel safe.\n\nReasonable is the key word.\n\nAdditional comment:\n\nFr. Chuck (below) is correct regarding procedures.\n\nRefusing to stop is considered an additional charge and you must be prepared to demonstrate that you had a good reason for not stopping. "Safe" is a subjective term, so a person who refuses to stop better have a very good reason (and evidence) to justify refusing to stop. Discarding incriminating evidence (drugs, alcohol, weapons, etc.) while you are fleeing will only result in other charges and negate your claim of "not feeling safe."
197598
It's hard to tell what you are asking, but I think you are talking about 'Conspiracy'. Some laws protect things other than human safety, such as property. For instance, fraud or theft doesn't hurt anyone specifically, but it hurts the economy, both on an individual and largescale level. For someone to get punished for conspiracy is to teach them for the future. If you get punished for conspiracy, than hopefully in the future you would think twice about your options beyond crime, and find a legal way to get what you want. If this doesn't answer your question, repost and reword your question.
839511
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
857412
This is one of the fundamental protections in a civilized society. We are now reduced to the level of a police state. I don't blame Bush for asking for this power; I blame a cowardly congress for granting it. That's one reason the nation rejected the GOP.\n\nTo answer the previous post, the President can declare ANYONE, not just foreigners, a "person who might be aiding terrorists", and then hold them indefinitely at an undisclosed location. Effectively, this has entirely negated habeas corpus. \n\nThe President is not required to explain to a court why he believes someone has aided terrorists, so he could literally choose anyone, and no-one, not even the Supreme Court could require him to produce that person ever again - people can now just 'disappear' - as happens in facist dictatorships.
1078935
I think you mean posse comitatus. This prohibits military personnel from acting as law enforcement in the US, unless authorized by Congress
531874
There are no laws on things like this. It's an open capitalist economic system. All emplyers basically set their own guidelines outside of polution and safety.