United States v. Tucker

Facts

The government set up a reverse sting to catch people involved in the illegal sale of food stamps. Linda Hancock was hired by the Department of Agriculture to help 'catch . . . a lot of people that had been abusing the [food stamp] system.' Hancock worked on a 'commission.' She kept half the money collected from her sale of food stamps. She was not told whom she should approach, just that she should find people willing to buy the stamps below face value and secretly record the transactions. Hancock called D, a friend of more than ten years. She claimed she was in dire financial need. Hancock told D that she was going to have to sell her family's food stamps in order to provide a 'proper Christmas' for her children. D resisted but finally purchased the stamps when Hancock later appeared at her beauty salon dressed in a manner suggesting her financial distress. Hancock asked D for more leads and D sent Hancock to McDonald, one of D's employees. McDonald also purchased food stamps from Hancock after listening to her tales of ill-health and financial need. D was arrested and moved to dismiss based on due process and entrapment. The district court stated: I don't think we are at a point in our criminal history where the government needs to lower itself into targeting sympathetic ploys on citizens that are not otherwise suspected of engaging in criminal conduct . . . There is no reason why the government cannot use undercover agents, cannot pay those undercover agents, cannot have undercover agents deal with friends, cannot use untrue ploys. All of those things individually are certainly useful techniques for investigation. But when they are employed in totality with people who are not otherwise suspected of engaging in crime, it seems to me that the conduct, crosses [the constitutional] boundary. The court dismissed and the government appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.