Calif. agents use award ruse to reel in fugitives

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_ ... role_sting




SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Dozens of California parole violators showed up to claim a very attractive offer: $200 and amnesty. And dozens of parole violators found themselves in handcuffs and, for most, headed back to prison.


In a corrections department variation on the old bait-and-switch, officials set up an elaborate sting aimed at some of the more than 14,000 California ex-convicts who broke off contact with their parole agents, are suspected of committing new crimes or of violating terms of their parole.

They used a website, an e-mail account, and appointed an agent to the fictitious post of "amnesty program director." They sent 2,700 letters to relatives of parolees-at-large advertising the reward and fake amnesty program.

It wasn't the first time law enforcement has relied on a ruse to collar offenders.

In the past, agents have reeled in fugitives with fake notices that they had won cash or prizes but needed to show up at a certain location to collect.

But this time it had some 21st century wrinkles.

"Using the Web page and such is a new way to do it. We used to play on the greed, and now we're playing on the promise that they might be released from custody," said Tony Chaus, who runs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Office of Correctional Safety.

Corrections officials confirmed the ruse after The Associated Press learned of it independently.

The offer had the hollow ring of truth, piggybacking on the state's colossal budget deficit and a bona fide state law that took effect in January.

The law creates a new non-revocable parole for some offenders who are considered to be less dangerous. Those on non-revocable parole don't have to report to parole agents, are free to come and go as they please, and can't be sent back to prison unless they are convicted of a new crime.

The fugitives were told they would either be put on non-revocable parole or discharged from parole entirely to help the state cut costs and prison crowding.

"If you have received a letter, you are pre-qualified for Amnesty or Discharge," read the offer posted on the website. "Your warrant will be canceled and a $200.00 check will be issued.... A Non Revocable Parole card will be issued and you will be free to go."

The amnesty ended Saturday, warned the website, and parolees-at-large were told they "must call for reservations."

About 130 felons showed up at the Oakland parole office, some with family members in tow.

They were told to wait in an auditorium until they could be taken, one at a time, to see a counselor. They were arrested as they got off an elevator and were soon en route to the Alameda County Jail.

"I think they were pretty stunned, to be honest with you," Chaus said.

Midway through the process, word filtered back to those waiting in the auditorium that it was a sting.

"Things got pretty loud," said Chaus, and a dozen or more parolees escaped. Officers rushed in and arrested the remaining parolees without incident.

Chaus said other parolees slipped away earlier Saturday and were allowed to leave for fear of revealing the sting prematurely.

Seven fugitives who had received the letters were arrested before Saturday, including one who flew in from Tonga, when they arrived at the office to take advantage of the amnesty, he said.

In the end, 81 of those who showed up were taken into custody.

A few of those arrested might actually qualify for the non-revocable parole program, Chaus said. But his team targeted "the worst of the worst" for the sting: most are suspects in new crimes or have outstanding warrants beyond being in trouble as wayward parolees.

Some lawmakers, victims' rights and law enforcement organizations have criticized the new non-revocable parole law for eliminating supervision for thousands of ex-convicts, some of whom served time for serious offenses.

But half of the projected $200 million first-year savings is going back into reducing the number of offenders supervised by each parole agent from about 70-to-one to about 48-to-one.

"We've chosen to focus on the real bad apples," said department spokesman Oscar Hidalgo. With the reduced caseload, "You're able to focus your attention and energy on those who are the highest risk."

The department added about 40 employees and $300,000 worth of computer software to help find fugitive parolees — dead or alive. Since January, employees discovered that 673 parolees thought to be on the run had actually died.

Another 2,244 are foreign nationals who now are believed to have been deported. Before Saturday, 433 fugitives had been arrested, nearly two-thirds of them sex offenders or considered to be dangerous.

Getting those 3,350 ex-convicts off the "wanted" lists further reduces parole agents' remaining caseloads and saves the state money, Hidalgo said.

This almost sounds like entrapment to me. I am sure some enterprising lawyer will cause some issues with this ruse. It is one thing to offer money as a prize. It is another thing to offer legal amnesty and then take it away.

Lol. And yes, this sounds like entrapment.

It's obvious that amnesty would not normally be offered for some of the more serious offenses, such as sex crimes or homicide. Seems to me that anyone dumb enough to fall for this deserves to be caught anyway.

Its not entrapment they already violated their parole.

The government has the right to apprehend parole violators so it's not entrapment. It's just more frugal

I don't know if the amnesty part of this bait-and-switch is specifically illegal, but it was probably not the best bait for the police to use. It amounts to an act of bad-faith on the part of the cops, explicitly telling the fugitives that they are eligible under a new, quite real, parole law to receive amnesty or a Non Revocable Parole. Because the police chose an actual law as bait, the arrests may be challenged in court ("My client was promised amnesty under the new Non Revocable Parole law, and went to the location that day under the impression that he would be able to resolve his ongoing legal issues.") and the incident will hurt police and state credibility in future, real amnesty programs ("You say you're offering amnesty? How do I know you're not just trying to sucker me in so you can arrest me?").

I think they probably could have pulled off the sting with as much success by simply using the more traditional "Congratulations, you're a winner!" bait, and avoided any potential issues with the false amnesty offer.

If it is too good to be true... topic

Law enforcement will not be able to use that one again.

Hampshire police did something similar in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 717896.stm

Entrapment is when you are manipulated into committing a crime, in other words those doing the entrapment are implicated. If there is not crime, how can it be entrapment?

Even if it's not entrapment, can a government agency simply tell lies like that? If those letters are sent by some private citizen, I'm sure he/she will be liable for fraud. I sure aren't comfortable with it even if it's supposing for good.

Yes they can do it and they have many times falling for this old trick is simply idiotic these criminals should be ashamed.( of their idiocy not whatever crime they committed)

the criminals deserve to be lied to like that, plain and simple. as you can tell, I am quite the pragmatic 'ends justify the means' type of person. They deserve no sympathy, and in all honesty, lawyers **** up the judicial system anyways, people should learn to speak for their ******* selfs, thats one reason they have a damn mouth.

I remember a case where the cops in Washington state suspected a guy who had moved to the east coast.

They sent him a letter saying he had won a prize and an envelope to use as a reply.

He licked the reply envelope and they used that to get a sample of his DNA.

GOTCHA, sucker!

The criminal mind must be the weakest link no?

Using a ruse (such as a fake sweepstakes) to trick parole violators or wanted criminals into showing up at a police-controlled location to be arrested is fine. In such a case, the police aren't pretending that their offer is an official state offer.

The problem here, as stated above, is that the police lied to the fugitives about their status in regards to the legal system, and did so under the auspices of an apparently legitimate state agency. This bad faith approach undermines the credibility of the police, and, by extension, the justice system. After all, if the cops will lie about an amnesty offer, how can you trust them not to lie to you or your family about some other legal matter? How can you trust a court system that allows such misrepresentation to treat you fairly and in good faith should you find yourself as a defendant?



I would like to see you try and represent yourself in a legal proceeding. Odds are that you'd fail miserably. The judicial system operates in a manner that the average citizen would find strange and difficult to deal with, and this would put them at a serious disadvantage against prosecutors who's entire career involves dealing with legal proceedings. Please note, 'serious disadvantage' translates into 'high likelihood of being convicted due to poor representation rather than actual evidence.' An innocent, but poorly represented, defendant can easily be convicted for a crime they didn't commit.

Yet a truly guilty defendant can get away with murder with the good enough lawyer. The judicial system will never work simply because $$$ is involved.
Should also be guilty til proven innocent, but thats just me :/