Question

You are a police detective and, though you lack probable cause, you are convinced that Amy Able is the mastermind behind a series of art thefts in the north end of town. You believe that she plans the thefts, hires local thieves, then sells the artwork overseas. You know that her usual thief has been arrested on an unrelated charge, so you decide to arrange a meeting between a confidential informant (CI) with a history of petty theft and Amy Able. At the meeting, your CI is wearing a "wire" to tape the conversations. During the meeting, Amy is reluctant to go ahead with more thefts, because she tells your CI that she is "out of the business" and wants to retire. At this point, your listening device malfunctions, but your CI later tells you he convinced her by threatening to go to the police and ruining her reputation as an art dealer. Amy reluctantly agrees to plan the heist and, several days later, meets with your CI to go over the details. At this point, you know that she has committed sufficient acts to be guilty of conspiracy to commit theft under local law and arrest her. You give the DA the transcript of the conversations recorded by the wire and she says it is a "slam dunk." What legal issues, if any, are raised by the facts? What should you do, if anything, as the detective on this case?

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 1178 characters.