United States v. Russell71-15851972Burger Court (1972-1975)burger4https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4United StatesRussell1973-02-271973-04-244114231973https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14828https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/423/Writ of <i>certiorari</i><p>At the conclusion of an undercover drug investigation, Richard Russell was arrested by Washington police and eventually convicted in a district court for drug manufacturing crimes. Russell challenged his conviction as the result of unconstitutional entrapment practices, since an undercover agent supplied him with an essential ingredient of his drug manufacturing operation. On appeal from an adverse Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court granted the government certiorari.</p> At the conclusion of an undercover drug investigation, Richard Russell was arrested by Washington police and eventually convicted in a district court for drug manufacturing crimes. Russell challenged his conviction as the result of unconstitutional entrapment practices, since an undercover agent supplied him with an essential ingredient of his drug manufacturing operation. On appeal from an adverse Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court granted the government certiorari.<p>Not always. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that law enforcement officers may participate in the procedural commission of certain crimes such as drug manufacturing, so long as they do not implant criminal designs in the minds of the accused. In Russell's case, the investigated drug operations were in place long before undercover agents infiltrated them. Moreover, the ingredients contributed by the agents could have been acquired independently by Russell and his co-conspirators. As such, none of the agents' participatory activities amounted to entrapment.</p> Not always. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that law enforcement officers may participate in the procedural commission of certain crimes such as drug manufacturing, so long as they do not implant criminal designs in the minds of the accused. In Russell's case, the investigated drug operations were in place long before undercover agents infiltrated them. Moreover, the ingredients contributed by the agents could have been acquired independently by Russell and his co-conspirators. As such, none of the agents' participatory activities amounted to entrapment.Thomas H. S. Bruckerhttps://api.oyez.org/people/thomas_h_s_bruckerPhilip A. Lacovarahttps://api.oyez.org/people/philip_a_lacovaraWilliam O. Douglashttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglasPotter Stewarthttps://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewartThurgood Marshallhttps://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshallWilliam J. Brennan, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jrByron R. Whitehttps://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_whiteWarren E. Burgerhttps://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burgerHarry A. Blackmunhttps://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmunLewis F. Powell, Jr.https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jrWilliam H. Rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquisthttps://api.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1585D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1972_71-1585.json