www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/12/16/offbeat.students.ap/index.html

Former inmate rejailed when picking up belongings ORLANDO, Florida (AP) --Released from prison, Ronald A. Mahner's first mistake was driving back to get his stuff. Mahner returned to the Seminole County Jail to reclaim his personal property four days after being released. He had served a sentence for drunken driving, auto theft and habitually driving with a suspended or revoked license. But when asked to provide identification, Mahner handed a sheriff's deputy his license, which after routine computer check was found to have been revoked for life. Deputy Teri Cresswell couldn't prove Mahner was doing anything illegal without seeing him behind the wheel, so she told him to drive to the back parking lot. Mahner took the car around back, parked in a fire lane and went inside to claim his clothing, shampoo, dart board and battery charger. Ann Mallory, a manager in the Forensic Services Section, called in a computer check of the car's tag and found it had been reported stolen the same day Mahner was released from jail. Mahner was handcuffed and arrested Monday, just as he was about to drive away.

LOL!

Why do we even let them out in the 1st place?
I can't believe the number of people that are raped, maimed, and just dissapear only to later find out that xxxxx released after serving xxxx years for the same crime was found to be responsible or this act.
What don't we get about this?

[rofl2]

Read this earlier on another site, but it's still funny as hell.

This guy MUST have brain damage of some kind.

Was it the drugs, or a few blows to the head...

Because most people have no understanding of the impact of crime of society, and are resistant to actually jailing people for any significant amount of time.

I gaurentee some tinfoil hat wearing freak on this board is complaining that the police entrapped this guy by asking him to drive to the back lot, infringed on his right to travel by revoking his license, and violated his right to due process by not asking him how he got the car before arresting him.

Everyone wants the police to do something about crime. Then when we catch someone, they usually backpeddle, oh not THAT crime, I meant those other guys....

Everything I've read indicates that the only reliable "cure" for criminality is time. The vast majority of even the most persistent criminals are just too old to be much of a problem after about age 45. I've sometimes thought that it might be a good idea to allow judges to sentence miscreants to incarceration until their Xth birthday, however long that might be, with the age at release escalating with the age age at convition.

Actually, that WILL prevent him from being charged with driving without a license. However, that doesn't really matter when they get him on Grand Theft Auto.

Some people amaze me by not drowning in the process of brushing their teeth.

Sorry, "The turnkey down at the hoosegow told me to" doesn't make even a prima facie entrapment case. The shitstain has the burden of proving that he was not inclined to drive the car, and was caused to do so by threats, pressure or enticement which would have caused an ordinary person to do likewise. "Drive around back" didn't make him do it; didn't make him do it even if the mystery pal who drove him there but whose name he can't remember ran away & left the keys in the car. He was perfectly free to say "Can't drive" or "Don't have a car." BTW (while I think its BS), there's 99% chance the suspended license charge is a felony, as well - and much easier to prove than the car theft.

Interesting. Does the law say that only when the police LIE to you about whether something is illegal, then you can not be prosecuted for it?

Entrapment is when the police entice you into doing something you normally wouldnt do.

Suggesting a guy, who has already driven all the way to the jail, on a revoked license, to drive around to the back, is not entrapment.

In a nutshell, entrapment occurs when a state agent draws a defendant into the commission of a crime which the defendant would not otherwise have committed by using means which would have caused a person of ordinary sensibility to commit the crime. The burden is on the defendant to prove entrapment, and the defense is defeated if the defendant is shown to have been predisposed to commit the crime. This is one thing that makes the defense dangerous as hell: every relevant prior act of the defendant is admissible to show predisposition. "The defense attorney says poor Willie was entrapped into this coke deal. Well, folks, here's the judgment from his 2001 conviction for Sale of Cocaine." "Willie always brings coke to the party." Et c.

It's a tough sell anyway, because the kind of people who get on juries are not the kind of people who would be readily persuaded to steal a car or break into a store. Successful entrapment defenses almost always involve police conduct so farfetched that a normal asks himself "WTF were the cops thinking?" There was a case where officers, incorrectly tipped that Joe Sixpack was a major dope dealer, called him something like 57 times in a month, even after they had him on tape saying "I can't help you. I haven't smoked pot since high school." They kept on and on and if memory served ended up offering him (he was in bad financial shape) something like 20 times market value for a pound of dope. He caved, and in about [i]3 weeks[/i] came up with the dope. The appelate court said essentially, "Oh, for Pete's sake, guys!" and held that to be entrapment per se. OTOH, following up a tip w/a sit-down where the officer says "I hear you got a domestic problem. I can whack the cv#+ for $750, make it look like a burglary, is that what you want?" isn't entrapment. Neither is having an operative tell a prospective car buyer "Yeah, I'm asking $50K for the Beemer, but I'd take a kilo of coke if you can get it here tomorrow," even if it's a cold shot. As long as the police only provide the opportunity - and even the accouterments - for a suspect with a malign heart to follow his inner dirtbag, they're acting within the law. And good on 'em.

Edited to add: I don't know whether that was his defense, but Randy Weaver was almost certainly entrapped when the snitch begged him for months to cut down 2 shotguns for him despite his persistent refusals, and eventually turned [i]with a hacksaw for Weaver to use[/i] and offered Weaver something like $200 for the 15 minutes' work. That was the offense underlying that whole sorry episode.

This is like the guy who shows for court on a driving while suspended ticket.
Judge finds him guilty. He goes to pay ticket.
Judge goes in chambers and is taking off his robe when he looks out his office window and see guy get in car and start to leave.
The clerks office has 5 officers in it. Guy made it 2 blocks before he got stopped.
JOB SECURITY