Entrapment Law in Georgia: Defense, Examples, and Court Cases

What Is Entrapment Law?

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. It applies when law enforcement induces a person, by undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means, to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed.

Need answers tonight? Call (404) 567-5515 at any hour for a FREE lawyer consultation with a co-author of the leading law book on Georgia DUI laws. Our criminal defense law firm can be reached 24 hours a day.

Entrapment law distinguishes between lawful undercover work and unlawful inducement. Lawful undercover work means officers simply provide an opportunity to commit a crime. Unlawful inducement means government agents persuade or coerce someone into criminal conduct.

This defense exists in both federal and state courts, including Georgia. Under Georgia law, entrapment is codified in the state criminal code. That statute sets out the elements Georgia courts use to evaluate these claims.

Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of committing the crime originated with a government officer, employee, or agent, who then used undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means to induce the act. The accused must also not have committed the act except for that conduct, and the inducement must have been for the purpose of obtaining evidence to prosecute the person.

Georgia law confirms that entrapment is an affirmative defense. This means that unless the state's own evidence raises the issue, the defendant must present evidence to raise it. How the defense applies to any given set of facts is case-specific. Anyone facing charges should consult a criminal defense attorney about their situation.

Types of Entrapment: Subjective vs. Objective

Courts across the country recognize two types of entrapment frameworks. The distinction matters because it determines what evidence the jury considers and what questions they answer.

Subjective test: This approach focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. The central question is whether the defendant was already willing and ready to break the law before government agents got involved. If the defendant was predisposed, the defense fails. This is true even if police used aggressive tactics. Federal courts apply the subjective test, and Georgia's statute asks the same question of whether the accused would have committed the act except for the officer's conduct.

Objective test: This approach focuses on the government's conduct rather than the defendant's character. The question is whether the police tactics would have induced a law-abiding person to commit the offense. Some other states use this test instead. Under the objective framework, a defendant's prior criminal history or willingness is less relevant. What matters is whether the government went too far.

Because Georgia's statute turns on what the accused would have done without the officer's conduct, what the defendant said and did during the contact is central. Georgia's rules on evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts bar using them to prove character and allow them only for limited purposes, with advance notice to the defense.

Entrapment vs. Lawful Undercover Investigation

Entrapment is not a blanket shield against undercover police work. Law enforcement officers are permitted to use undercover identities, confidential informants, sting operations, and ruses to investigate criminal activity. These tactics alone do not constitute entrapment.

The key distinction is between offering an opportunity and manufacturing a crime. An undercover officer who agrees to buy drugs from a suspect who already offered to sell is generally conducting a lawful investigation. The suspect initiated the illegal transaction.

By contrast, an informant who makes repeated pleas to a reluctant acquaintance may raise entrapment concerns. If someone initially refused and the informant pressures them until they agree, the government may have pushed that person past their own resistance.

Deceitful means is one method the statute names, but deception about identity alone does not establish entrapment. An officer posing as a drug buyer, a minor, or a co-conspirator is using a lawful investigative technique. The question is whether the government's actions went beyond providing an opportunity. Did they cross into persuasion, pressure, or exploitation? Did they cause someone to commit a crime they would not have committed on their own?

Depending on the circumstances, the line between opportunity and inducement can be thin. That is why the specific facts matter so much. The number of contacts, who initiated them, what was said, and whether the target resisted all play a role.

Entrapment in Drug Cases

Entrapment drug cases arise more frequently than in almost any other area of criminal law. Drug enforcement in Georgia relies heavily on controlled buys, confidential informants, reverse stings, and undercover purchases. These tactics create the conditions where entrapment claims naturally emerge.

Common fact patterns that give rise to the defense include:

• A confidential informant with a personal relationship to the defendant. The informant makes repeated requests to buy or sell drugs. The defendant initially declined.
• Sustained pressure from an informant or undercover officer. They exploit the defendant's addiction, financial desperation, or personal loyalty.
• A reverse sting where police supply both the drugs and the buyer. The defendant becomes a middleman drawn into a transaction the government created from scratch.

Raising entrapment in a drug case is fact-intensive. Courts will examine the full history of contact between the defendant and government agents. They will look at who suggested the transaction first, how many times the defendant was approached, and whether the defendant showed any reluctance.

An entrapment defense does not guarantee dismissal. The prosecution will counter by arguing that the idea and intention came from the defendant, pointing to what the defendant said and did during the transaction. Evidence of the defendant's other drug activity is subject to the limits the evidence code places on other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Anyone facing drug charges in Georgia who believes they were induced by law enforcement should consult a criminal defense attorney about the specific facts of their case.

Online Entrapment: Internet Stings and Social Media

Is online entrapment illegal? Many people ask some version of this question because internet sting operations have become a routine law enforcement tool. The short answer is that online stings are lawful investigative techniques, not entrapment by default.

Undercover officers regularly pose as minors, buyers of illegal goods, or participants in illicit transactions. They use chat apps, dating sites, and social media platforms. The fact that an officer was not who they claimed to be does not make the operation entrapment. This is a common misconception.

What could support an entrapment defense in an online case is government inducement. The idea and intention must have originated with the government, and the person must not have committed the act otherwise. Consider these contrasts:

• A target who initiates illegal proposals to an undercover profile will have a difficult time claiming entrapment. For example, sending explicit messages to someone they believe is a minor. The target acted on their own initiative.
• An officer who initiates contact and repeatedly steers a reluctant target toward illegal conduct may create the basis for an entrapment argument. Escalating conversations and reintroducing sexual topics after the target changes the subject are examples.

Georgia's entrapment statute draws no distinction between online and in-person conduct. The medium does not change the elements. What matters is who originated the idea of the crime and whether government agents used undue persuasion to bring it about.

Notable Entrapment Court Cases

Several landmark United States Supreme Court decisions shaped the entrapment framework that Georgia and other states apply today. These are matters of public legal record.

Sorrells v. United States (1932): This was the first case where the Supreme Court formally recognized entrapment as a defense at the federal level. A government agent posing as a fellow veteran repeatedly asked the defendant to get him illegal liquor. The defendant initially refused but eventually agreed. The Court reversed the conviction. The decision established that courts must examine whether the government implanted the criminal design in the defendant's mind.

Sherman v. United States (1958): The Court reinforced the subjective predisposition test. A government informant met the defendant while both were being treated for narcotics addiction. The informant repeatedly asked him to obtain narcotics. The informant played on their shared struggle with addiction. The defendant initially resisted. The Court reversed the conviction. It found that the government's informant had induced the crime by exploiting the defendant's vulnerability. The case confirmed that predisposition is the central question.

Jacobson v. United States (1992): The government conducted a multi-year mail-order sting. It sent the defendant repeated solicitations for illegal material. The Court held that the government must prove the defendant's predisposition existed before government contact began. The government cannot rely on the fact that the defendant eventually gave in after years of inducement. This case matters because it limited how long and how aggressively the government can pursue a target. Beyond a certain point, the inducement itself creates the crime.

In Georgia, the entrapment statute supplies the governing elements, and these federal decisions turn on the same inducement question. How current case law applies to a specific situation depends on the facts. Anyone raising an entrapment defense should consult counsel.

How to Raise an Entrapment Defense in Georgia

Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Unless the state's own evidence raises the issue, the defendant must present evidence on it to put the defense before the court. This is typically done through defense counsel.

Georgia's discovery statutes require written notice of an intention to offer a defense only for alibi, not for entrapment. Raising entrapment means presenting evidence that the idea and intention came from a government agent and that the accused would not have committed the act otherwise. Procedural timing, how the burden of producing evidence shifts between the parties, and jury instructions are matters that the defendant's attorney will handle. This depends on the case's posture and current Georgia law and applicable Georgia appellate decisions.

What is critical from the defendant's perspective is early investigation. Preserving the entrapment defense requires gathering evidence before it disappears. This includes:

• The informant's role and relationship to the defendant
• Recorded communications between the defendant and government agents
• The full history of contact – who initiated it, how many times, and what was said
• Any evidence that the defendant initially refused or resisted

The sooner a defense attorney begins investigating, the stronger the foundation for the defense. Recorded calls, text messages, and social media conversations may be subject to destruction or loss if not preserved promptly.

Speak With a Georgia Criminal Defense Attorney About an Entrapment Defense

If you believe law enforcement induced you to commit a crime, you may have an entrapment defense. This could involve an undercover agent, a confidential informant, or an online sting. Contact Kohn & Yager LLC for a confidential consultation about the criminal charges you are facing.

During a consultation, the defense team will review the facts of your law enforcement contact. They will identify potential evidence of inducement. They will also discuss whether an entrapment defense or other defenses may apply to your situation. Kohn & Yager LLC focuses on criminal defense in Georgia courts and understands how local judges evaluate affirmative defenses like entrapment.

Contact the firm promptly. Evidence preservation and early investigation are critical to building an effective entrapment defense. Recorded communications, informant records, and the timeline of government contact all matter. These become harder to obtain as time passes.

Frequently Asked Questions About Entrapment Law

What Is the Legal Definition of Entrapment?

Entrapment occurs when a government officer, employee, or agent induces or solicits someone to commit a crime that the person would not have committed without that government conduct. Under Georgia law, the defense requires proof that the idea and intention to commit the crime originated with the government. It also requires proof that undue persuasion, incitement, or deceitful means were used. You should consult an attorney to determine whether entrapment applies to your facts.

Is Entrapment a Defense in Georgia Drug Cases?

Yes, entrapment may be raised as an affirmative defense in Georgia drug cases. Drug prosecutions frequently involve informants and undercover operations, which can create fact patterns supporting the defense. The key question is whether law enforcement induced the defendant to participate in a drug transaction the defendant would not have otherwise committed. A criminal defense attorney can evaluate the specifics of your case.

Can an Online Sting Operation Count as Entrapment?

An online sting operation could count as entrapment depending on the facts. An online sting is not entrapment simply because an officer posed as someone else. However, if the idea and intention came from the officer and sustained pressure pushed a reluctant person into conduct they would not otherwise have committed, an entrapment defense may apply. Georgia's entrapment statute draws no distinction between online and in-person conduct. An attorney can review the communications and advise whether the defense fits.

What Is the Difference Between Subjective and Objective Entrapment?

The subjective test is used in Georgia and the federal courts. Georgia's statute asks whether the accused would have committed the act except for the officer's conduct. Some other states use an objective test instead. It asks whether police conduct would have induced a reasonable law-abiding person to commit the crime. The test your jurisdiction uses affects what evidence matters most. Speak with a Georgia attorney about how the subjective standard applies to your situation.