Facts
-
Jessie B. Johnson, a Pontiac police officer, owned a rental house.
-
A former tenant became an informant and alleged Johnson knowingly allowed the house to operate as a drug house, providing protection and taking profits.
-
Because the suspect was a local officer, Pontiac police requested assistance from the Michigan State Police.
-
An undercover officer, introduced by the informant as a major drug dealer, met with Johnson and proposed that Johnson provide protection and assist with drug-house locations.
-
Two staged cocaine transactions were arranged:
- In the first, Johnson handled cocaine for inspection, then accepted about $1,000 and indicated willingness to participate again.
- In the second, conducted on similar terms, Johnson again handled cocaine and was arrested.
-
Johnson did not dispute handling cocaine or taking money; he asserted entrapment and sought dismissal.
Issues
- Whether, under Michigan’s objective entrapment test, the informant-led undercover operation and staged drug transactions constituted impermissible police conduct barring prosecution.
Decision
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held the lower courts clearly erred in finding entrapment under Michigan’s objective test.
- The Court concluded the police conduct was permissible: it provided an opportunity to commit crime without coercion, threats, or other intolerable tactics.
Legal Principles
- Michigan applies an objective entrapment test focusing on police conduct, not the defendant’s subjective predisposition.
- Entrapment is established if police conduct would induce an otherwise law-abiding person in similar circumstances to commit the offense, or if police conduct is so reprehensible that courts will not tolerate it even absent such inducement.
- Police may use informants and undercover officers and may furnish opportunities or facilities for crime; entrapment requires more than proposing criminal activity and enabling its commission.
- The defendant bears the burden to prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Factors supporting rejection of entrapment include absence of coercion or persistent solicitation after refusal, absence of exploitation of special vulnerability, and voluntary, affirmative participation by the accused.
Conclusion
The Michigan Supreme Court held that the undercover operation testing allegations of a police officer’s involvement in drug activity did not amount to entrapment because the officers did not employ coercive or intolerable tactics; the prosecution was permitted to proceed on remand.