CA7: Entrapment defense isn’t relevant to whether controlled buy is PC; it’s a question for trial

Defendant’s assertion of entrapment in a controlled buy is a question for trial. It doesn’t negate the fact that the buy occurred and that probable cause exists. State v. Curtis, 2019-Ohio-499, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 514 (7th Dist. Jan. 25, 2019):

[*P22] Furthermore, law enforcement telling Padgett what to say and to use her relationship with Appellant to have him sell her drugs is typical in a controlled drug transaction. Confidential informants are used for controlled buys because drug dealers typically do not sell drugs to a person they do not know for fear it is an undercover police officer. See State v. Altman, 7th Dist. No. 12 CO 42, 2013-Ohio-5883, ¶ 4-6; State v. Persohn, 7th Dist. No. 11 CO 37, 2012-Ohio-6091, ¶ 26 (testimony from the officer explaining why confidential informants are used). Using a previous relationship to obtain drugs from a known distributor and law enforcement indicating what needs to be said or seen in the video recording for purposes of building a case are how controlled buys occur.

[*P23] Appellant’s arguments about the timing of the controlled buys and law enforcement telling Padgett to use her relationship to get Appellant to take the “significant risk” to sell her drugs may support his affirmative defense of entrapment, but it does not negate the fact that the controlled buys occurred. Those controlled buys provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. Accordingly, this assignment of error is meritless.

This entry was posted in Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.