Both Miller and Daniel arise out of a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) decoy program designed to combat an increase in street-level robberies occurring in downtown Las Vegas. In Miller, a detective with the LVMPD disguised himself as an intoxicated vagrant and carried exposed cash in his pocket. The detective then positioned himself across from a bus station and leaned against a chain link fence. Richard Miller, an individual walking down the street, approached the detective and asked him for money. When the detective refused, Miller pulled the detective closer to him and took the cash from the detective’s pocket. In Daniel, the same detective carried a wallet in his pocket that also exposed cash. Rufas Daniel approached the detective and showed him a silver charm necklace, which the detective refused to look at. Daniel then pushed the necklace into the detective’s face and grabbed the wallet out of the detective’s pocket. Miller and Daniel argued that police officers entrapped them by improperly tempting them with exposed money and a helpless victim. The court held that both Miller and Daniel were not entrapped because they were predisposed to commit the crime. The court reasoned that since the entrapment defense was designed to prevent police misconduct, evidence must be demonstrated that the State presented the opportunity to commit a crime and that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime. In both cases, the defendants were found to be predisposed to commit the crime because they initiated contact with the detective and engaged in the robbery or larceny for profit. Further, neither defendant demonstrated reluctance which was overcome by the government’s inducement. Since the defendants were predisposed to commit the crime, entrapment was not available as a defense.
Labouz, Hagar, "Summary of Miller v. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 and Summary of Daniel v. State, 121 Nev. Adv. Op. 11" (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 603.