Los Angeles Drug Entrapment Defense Attorney

Undercover “buy-bust” operations have become one of the most powerful tools in the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and federal task forces that target narcotics activity from Hollywood Boulevard to the ports of Long Beach. Because these stings are designed to produce arrests in real time, they can cross the line from legitimate investigation into unlawful entrapment, police conduct so overbearing that a normally law-abiding person would never have committed the crime but for the officer’s pressure. California law demands that the charges be dismissed when that line is crossed. If you have been arrested for a drug crime and believe you were the victim of entrapment, you must consult with an attorney with experience in handling drug cases.

California follows the objective test announced by the Supreme Court in People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675. Under this standard, a defendant is entrapped when law-enforcement conduct would “induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.” The focus is on what the police did, not the defendant’s personal history or “predisposition.”

Key elements:

• Government involvement. The inducement must come from a sworn officer or someone acting as an agent of law enforcement (paid informants, cooperating defendants, or undercover decoys).
• Improper persuasion or pressure. Badgering, repeated requests, appeals to sympathy, threats, harassment, promises of extraordinary benefit, or assurances that the act is “safe” or legal can all satisfy this element.
• Causation. The officer’s conduct must be the reason the crime occurred; merely providing an opportunity is not enough. Every day, policing “ruses, stings, and decoys” remains lawful so long as it does not break these boundaries.

Once a defendant presents substantial evidence of entrapment, the trial court must instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 3408. Unlike most defenses, the defendant then bears the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, proving it is more likely than not that entrapment occurred. If the jurors unanimously find entrapment, they must return a not-guilty verdict. No matter how strong the prosecution’s proof of drug possession or sales, entrapment is a complete bar to conviction.

• An undercover detective enters a suspected dealer’s apartment, offers cash, and buys cocaine after a single, low-key request. The officer merely created an opportunity; the target chose to sell.
• A confidential informant arranges a controlled buy, but the target quickly quotes a price and supplies methamphetamine without hesitation. There is no evidence of overbearing tactics.

• Officers use a recovering addict as a decoy. After the target refuses twice, the decoy claims she will suffer seizures without heroin, pleads for help, and threatens self-harm until the target relents.
• Detectives offer a first-time offender an “easy score,” repeatedly promise the deal is legal, and guarantee no one will ever learn about it. This false assurance can render the crime “unusually attractive” to a law-abiding person (Barraza, supra, at p. 690).
• A paid informant menaces a street-level user, “My people will break your legs if you don’t get me fentanyl tonight”, and the user complies. Threats are classic entrapment fodder.

Los Angeles agencies employ sophisticated tactics that can raise entrapment questions:

• Reverse stings: Officers pose as sellers and encourage buyers to pay up front for narcotics that never exist.
• “Historical” buys: An informant presses a low-level dealer for a larger volume than the target has ever handled.
• Online baiting: Undercover profiles in encrypted messaging apps solicit deliveries to specific addresses or out-of-character quantities (e.g., pounds instead of grams).
• Multi-buy escalation: After several routine transactions, officers abruptly demand bulk shipments or threaten to cut off the target’s “income” unless he scales up.

Any escalation that turns casual or reluctant involvement into a serious felony can supply the inducement necessary for an entrapment defense.

• Pre-filing advocacy: A persuasive entrapment package sent to the District Attorney or U.S. Attorney may convince prosecutors to reject or reduce charges before arraignment.
• Motion to Dismiss (Penal Code §995): If the magistrate bound the case for trial without considering entrapment evidence, counsel can move in Superior Court to dismiss for lack of probable cause.
• Evidentiary hearing: Strategic use of Pitchess motions, informant-reliability hearings, and discovery requests can uncover audio, video, text messages, and police-procedure manuals that show overreach.
• Trial defense: At trial, the defense introduces recordings and testimony from percipient witnesses, or even cross-examines the undercover agent to establish entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Federal courts use a “subjective” test focused on the defendant’s predisposition (United States v. Russell (1973) 411 U.S. 423). Because many Los Angeles cases involve DEA or Homeland Security task forces, dual-jurisdiction indictments occur frequently. A defense framed around California’s objective test can still persuade federal prosecutors to cede the case to state court or to offer favorable pleas, primarily when the local facts paint officers in a bad light.

Successful cases typically feature:

• Documented refusal followed by persistent pressure.
• Imbalance of power (e.g., officers exploiting addiction, immigration fears, or extreme poverty).
• Exaggerated inducements that shift the venture from routine to unusually tempting.
• Internal policy violations (such as ignoring LAPD Special Order 12 safeguards on informant supervision).

Courts routinely reject entrapment when:

• The defendant boasts about prior deals or initiates the transaction.
• The inducement is minor, a single text or a polite inquiry.
• Videotape shows the target eagerly negotiating quantity, price, or counter-offers.
• There is no evidence that any officer threatened harm, made false guarantees, or exploited vulnerability.

• Dismissal of all charges with prejudice; the prosecution cannot refile.
• Potential sealing and destruction of arrest records under Penal Code §851.8 if the defendant establishes factual innocence.
• Civil-rights remedies, such as 42 U.S.C. §1983 actions for egregious police misconduct (rare but viable in severe cases).

If you suspect you were lured into a drug offense by overzealous officers or informants:

• Do not discuss the incident with police or on recorded jail lines.
• Save all communications: texts, social-media messages, voicemails—before they disappear.
• Identify witnesses who can testify to the officer’s pressure or your initial refusal.
• Contact experienced counsel immediately.

Attorney Michael Kraut is a former Deputy District Attorney who has evaluated and litigated hundreds of sting cases from both sides of the aisle. Our team leverages:

• Complete discovery audits to expose withheld inducement evidence.
• Independent forensic review of audio, video, and cell-phone data to capture nuances missed in police reports.
• Expert testimony on addiction science, coercive interrogation techniques, and law-enforcement policies.
• Aggressive motion practice to suppress tainted evidence and compel disclosure of informant records.

Early, strategic intervention often results in charge reductions, drug-treatment diversions, or outright dismissal long before trial.

Sting operations play a legitimate role in keeping dangerous narcotics off Los Angeles streets, but the Constitution forbids the government from manufacturing crime. California’s entrapment doctrine strikes that balance by holding officers accountable when they bully or trick ordinary citizens into breaking the law. If you believe you were a target of such tactics, you owe it to yourself to have your case evaluated by a seasoned criminal defense attorney who understands the subtleties of People v. Barraza and CALCRIM 3408.

Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. has the prosecutorial insight, investigative resources, and trial skills to expose improper police conduct and safeguard your future.

For a confidential, no-cost consultation, visit us at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90028, call 888-334-6344 or 323-464-6453, or use our secure online form at any time, day or night.