Undercover Cops Selling Stolen iPhones

I have to rofl at the ridiculousness of this type of scheme to arrest people for buying stolen property. First of all, how can intent be derived unless the person buying says or indicates that they know they are buying stolen property, not simply because they are in an area 'known' to be a center for this type of criminality. This is entrapment, plain and simple.
 
Not if it actually is not stolen. Then it is an attempt to purchase a non-stolen phone. No matter what the cop or anyone else says. If it is a stolen phone then the cops have a duty to return it to the rightful owner. If it is not a stolen phone then you cannot be arrested for attempting to purchase said stolen phone.

You don't have to have a stolen phone in order to be guilty of a criminal attempt to buy a stolen phone. No different than someone trying to buy drugs off of a police officer. The officer most likely doesn't have actual drugs on him, but the suspect is arrested for the attempt to buy drugs. It's called inchoate crime. What makes it illegal is the fact that the cop tells the person it is stolen and then the person continues to make a transaction. At that point, it becomes illegal because the suspect is making a criminal attempt to purchase what he believes to be stolen property.
 
I have to rofl at the ridiculousness of this type of scheme to arrest people for buying stolen property. First of all, how can intent be derived unless the person buying says or indicates that they know they are buying stolen property, not simply because they are in an area 'known' to be a center for this type of criminality. This is entrapment, plain and simple.

The key is
These officers are offering iPhones that they openly declare are stolen.
It is no longer entrapment but inchoate crime at that point.
 
Defense -- I thought the seller was making a joke. People say a lot of random things. I don't support trading of stolen items, but this is a very slippery slope. Note that we're still sore from having my Dad's house robbed recently, but you can't just go out and do it like this. At best, the misguided buyers should get a nice scary shake-em-up you-could've-been-in-real-trouble type experience to scare them off. We're talking telephones here, not drugs and weapons.
 
Defense -- I thought the seller was making a joke. People say a lot of random things. I don't support trading of stolen items, but this is a very slippery slope. Note that we're still sore from having my Dad's house robbed recently, but you can't just go out and do it like this. At best, the misguided buyers should get a nice scary shake-em-up you-could've-been-in-real-trouble type experience to scare them off. We're talking telephones here, not drugs and weapons.

No, we're talking a major crime trend that's tying up a lot of time and money to deal with. If the market for stolen phones dries up (customers too afraid to buy one because it could be a sting), the incentive to steal the phones in the first place may disappear for a while.

Smart phone theft (via robbery, car break-ins, etc) is a huge fucking deal these days.
 
I find it interesting that roughly 50% of the posters in this thread have no problem with buying stolen property.

If someone came up to you and said this iPhone was for sale for $1, but it's stolen, you wouldn't buy it?

How about this steak you're about to eat required the brutal killing of a cow? You still gonna eat it? That shirt you're wearing was made buy children in some poor country, but you still wear it right? Oh hey, that legitimately bought iPhone was made with the souls of Chinese factory workers. You still bought it right?

sad_foxconn_worker.jpg.jpeg


Don't give me that bullshit. We're all ignorant to what's going on around us.
 
The key is It is no longer entrapment but inchoate crime at that point.

If the declaration is that the property is stolen to the 'suspect' and they know it is and yet continue to buy it then I'd say yes, this is actionable. However, if the property isn't stolen and yet you declare that it is, what then?
 
If someone came up to you and said this iPhone was for sale for $1, but it's stolen, you wouldn't buy it?

How about this steak you're about to eat required the brutal killing of a cow? You still gonna eat it? That shirt you're wearing was made buy children in some poor country, but you still wear it right? Oh hey, that legitimately bought iPhone was made with the souls of Chinese factory workers. You still bought it right?

sad_foxconn_worker.jpg.jpeg


Don't give me that bullshit. We're all ignorant to what's going on around us.

Wow, lot's of failed moral equivalency going on there. However, I'll be honest and say, I wouldn't knowingly buy known stolen property. I'm not a big fan of thievery. To the rest of your argument, I say yes to all of them. I will eat that steak, I will wear that shirt, and I will buy that iphone.
 
Yet another thing that AT&T or Apple could kill easily, but they both profit from the stolen goods market...
 
Neither party is in the right here tbh. Those that buy known stolen property are criminals and should be treated as such. That however does not excuse the Cops for using clearly shady tactics which likewise should be illegal.
 
undercover: "Hey check this out, a stolen iphone, for 10 bucks."
buyer: "yes, please."
undercover: "You are under arrest for buying stolen goods!"
buyer: "Huh, so you stole a phone to arrest me?"
undercover: "No, it is a setup!"
buyer: "So are you saying that the phone I just brought is not stolen?"
undercover: "Yes ... no ... yes ..."
buyer: "Give me the phone."
 
If the declaration is that the property is stolen to the 'suspect' and they know it is and yet continue to buy it then I'd say yes, this is actionable. However, if the property isn't stolen and yet you declare that it is, what then?

There is no expectation that the police have to be truthful to a suspect. All that matters is that the motive on the part of the suspect was to commit a crime even if there was no actual set of circumstances where a crime could be committed.
 
undercover: "Hey check this out, a stolen iphone, for 10 bucks."
buyer: "yes, please."
undercover: "You are under arrest for buying stolen goods!"
buyer: "Huh, so you stole a phone to arrest me?"
undercover: "No, it is a setup!"
buyer: "So are you saying that the phone I just brought is not stolen?"
undercover: "Yes ... no ... yes ..."
buyer: "Give me the phone."

It's actually closer to:

Offer made for stolen iPhone
Offer accepted by suspect
Money changes hands
Suspect receives iPhone
Suspect begins to walk away
Suspect is arrested
 
Get busted.

"You're under arrest for buying stolen goods."

"Well, my phone was stolen several months ago, and the police couldn't find it. I was hoping this was it."
"Nope. Not mine. I want a refund!" :)
 
It's actually closer to:

Offer made for stolen iPhone
Offer accepted by suspect
Money changes hands
Suspect receives iPhone
Suspect begins to walk away
Suspect is arrested
The question is, is the phone stolen or not? If not, then buyer simply brought a phone, believing it is stolen, which is not a crime. If it is, then the officer has committed a crime and should have been arrested before the trade begins.
 
The question is, is the phone stolen or not? If not, then buyer simply brought a phone, believing it is stolen, which is not a crime. If it is, then the officer has committed a crime and should have been arrested before the trade begins.

Intent to commit a crime is considered in the American legal system ... it would be up a jury or judge to decide if the intent justified the judicial process but they can definitely charge you for trying to commit a crime (and buying what you think are drugs, or illicit sex, or stolen property are all crimes) even if you do not succeed in actually committing that crime ;)

proactive law enforcement is always a little more controversial but it is legal and is often upheld by both juries and judges
 
Intent to commit a crime is considered in the American legal system ... it would be up a jury or judge to decide if the intent justified the judicial process but they can definitely charge you for trying to commit a crime (and buying what you think are drugs, or illicit sex, or stolen property are all crimes) even if you do not succeed in actually committing that crime ;)

proactive law enforcement is always a little more controversial but it is legal and is often upheld by both juries and judges
Can polices sell baby power which they claimed to be cocaine and arrest people who purchase them?
 
Sorry, to be precise, will they be put into jail for purchasing baby power, believing that they are drugs?
 
Can polices sell baby power which they claimed to be cocaine and arrest people who purchase them?

Depends on the state and how they wrote their laws ... but generally yes ... the same as they can charge you for solicitation by approaching a prostitute (or an officer pretending to be one) and asking for sex and exchanging money (you don't actually have to have sex) ... in some cases (non violent crime) the attempted versions of the crimes might be less severe (misdemeanors vs felonies) and each state can have different laws about what can be "attempted" and what cannot ;)
 
Depends on the state and how they wrote their laws ... but generally yes ... the same as they can charge you for solicitation by approaching a prostitute (or an officer pretending to be one) and asking for sex and exchanging money (you don't actually have to have sex) ... in some cases (non violent crime) the attempted versions of the crimes might be less severe (misdemeanors vs felonies) and each state can have different laws about what can be "attempted" and what cannot ;)

So, no actual crime was commited. Just the attempt to possibly commit a crime? Kind of fucked up.

I wouldn't knowingly buy a stolen phone. For $1, I might (or some very low number) to see about returning it to the original owner if possible. But, if it's $100 for a $600 phone, I'd pass and just make a phone call.
 
So, no actual crime was commited. Just the attempt to possibly commit a crime? Kind of fucked up.

Well, if someone tries to break into your house, but you catch him and he runs away, do you want him charged with attempted burglary or just let him go because he hasn't committed a crime yet?
 
So, it's "human nature" to steal? Guess I missed that gene.

Nice trying to pull the mortal high ground there.

But most people when given the opportunity to take something behind closes doors without anyone knowing would.

Notice I said most people not all.

And secondly even your parents may fall under this. It is human nature to take advantage of a situation for personal gain.

Its very easy to sit in your chair saying I would never steal anything..... Yeah right.

Let be realistic.
 
Well, if someone tries to break into your house, but you catch him and he runs away, do you want him charged with attempted burglary or just let him go because he hasn't committed a crime yet?

He was in process of committing the crime.

Buying baby powder isn't a crime. If it were real cocaine, yes - that's a crime. But, baby powder that was labeled cocaine? Nothing illegal passed hands. :/

Unless attempted purchase of false drugs is a crime?
 
So, no actual crime was commited. Just the attempt to possibly commit a crime? Kind of fucked up.

I wouldn't knowingly buy a stolen phone. For $1, I might (or some very low number) to see about returning it to the original owner if possible. But, if it's $100 for a $600 phone, I'd pass and just make a phone call.

States make judgement calls on what they want to prevent by allowing "attempted crimes" ... if you try and rob a store they can't charge you with robbery since you didn't succeed in the robbery if no money changed hands ... but they can charge you with "attempted robbery" which has the same penalties ... "attempted murder" will generally get you pretty severe penalties as well

I wasn't making a moral judgement on the crime of "attempt to purchase stolen property" but police stings are not uncommon and they are definitely legal :cool:
 
I imagine the media hype will be more effective than the actual program.

I've yet to see anyone offer me "stolen" merchandise. "I need money for gas." "I need money for diapers". "I lost the receipt and can't return it", etc, etc, etc.
 
He was in process of committing the crime.

Buying baby powder isn't a crime. If it were real cocaine, yes - that's a crime. But, baby powder that was labeled cocaine? Nothing illegal passed hands. :/

Unless attempted purchase of false drugs is a crime?

Once again, the attempt is not to buy baby powder, it's an attempt to buy cocaine. Just because there is no cocaine present, doesn't mean the suspect did not INTEND to buy cocaine, so yes, attempting to buy baby powder that you believe to be cocaine from an undercover officer is a crime.
 
Its very easy to sit in your chair saying I would never steal anything..... Yeah right.

Let be realistic.

I haven't in a long time. But, I have in the past. How do you think I obtained all the Contructicon's back in the day?! :eek:

Now, I wouldn't unless I really needed to (starving, etc.). I don't need anything, and if I want something, I'll buy it. I won't take something that someone else worked their ass off to earn. I've worked my ass off for my stuff, and I expect people to respect that, as well.

I am not sure what the circumstances would be for me to steal something, but right now, I wouldn't. Everyone has that breaking point, though.

I do steal those little bottles of shampoo and soap from the hotel, though. I'm a fucking hardcore rebel, dammit! :)
 
If you are so stupid that you would buy something that the seller said was stolen, you got bigger problems than getting arrested.
 
He was in process of committing the crime.

Buying baby powder isn't a crime. If it were real cocaine, yes - that's a crime. But, baby powder that was labeled cocaine? Nothing illegal passed hands. :/

Unless attempted purchase of false drugs is a crime?

Well this line on the drug angle is not necessarily valid as most police drug stings are more than capable of using real drugs since they need to stand up to verification ;)
 
Once again, the attempt is not to buy baby powder, it's an attempt to buy cocaine. Just because there is no cocaine present, doesn't mean the suspect did not INTEND to buy cocaine, so yes, attempting to buy baby powder that you believe to be cocaine from an undercover officer is a crime.

Well that begs the question. Is it really intent if you were presented with the opportunity vs seeking the opportunity.
 
Well that begs the question. Is it really intent if you were presented with the opportunity vs seeking the opportunity.

It's irrelevant as they aren't arrested until after money changes hands. Once you take out your wallet and pay for something it's hard to argue you didn't intend to purchase it.
 
Once again, the attempt is not to buy baby powder, it's an attempt to buy cocaine. Just because there is no cocaine present, doesn't mean the suspect did not INTEND to buy cocaine, so yes, attempting to buy baby powder that you believe to be cocaine from an undercover officer is a crime.

Yea... I see that... It works fine, just doesn't sound right. I see the reasoning, but I'm just trying to overanalyize it, I guess. Attempt to buy cocaine. What cocaine? There was no cocaine to be bought. You're arresting them saying that they attempted to buy drugs, when there were no drugs there.
 
He was in process of committing the crime.

Buying baby powder isn't a crime. If it were real cocaine, yes - that's a crime. But, baby powder that was labeled cocaine? Nothing illegal passed hands. :/

Unless attempted purchase of false drugs is a crime?

Actually you are incorrect... You can be charged with a crime. They are called intent laws, you don't have to sell anything or have anything... They just have to prove you intended to.

This is more prevalent in the war on drugs... but other areas have them as well.
 
Nice trying to pull the mortal high ground there.

But most people when given the opportunity to take something behind closes doors without anyone knowing would.

Notice I said most people not all.

And secondly even your parents may fall under this. It is human nature to take advantage of a situation for personal gain.

Its very easy to sit in your chair saying I would never steal anything..... Yeah right.

Let be realistic.

I think there are cultural elements here though ... when I was in Japan my books all said you could leave stuff out in the open and the Japanese would either ignore it or take it to lost and found ... I left a jacket on the train one time and the train company had it boxed up and neatly folded when I came to get it :)
 
Yeah, but if the NYPD is in lawful possession of said item they can't exactly define it as stolen. In order for the person to be guilty of actually receiving stolen property the property has to be stolen in the first place. The item isn't stolen, it was either bought or seized legally by the NYPD which means the item is not stolen property. the NYPD is deciding to arrest people based on the presumption that they INTENDED to buy stolen property but actually didn't? This isn't like undercover cops selling drugs for a sting, the crime in buying the drugs is in actually buying an possessing the drugs, which themselves are illegal. In this case the phone clearly can not be in the class of stolen property, unless the NYPD is going around stealing shit now, it had to have been in legally in the NYPD's possesion for the item to even be eligible to be used in a sting. Either way seems like this would go against some kind of federal law.
 
Well, this is only to validate that crooks are now way smarter than Cops. In this case the Cops cannot catch the crooks so they focused on the crooks "to be customers"! I wonder if they have tried Gazelle yet?
 
Back
Top