## 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

1. 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.


People v. Johnson, 466 Mich. 491, 647 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2002)