-1

Are there any defenses for defendant who had a police officer order the filling of their known fraudulent prescription?

These are the facts:

  1. Suspect leaves a voice mail for a fraudulent prescription
  2. Pharmacist listens to the order and confirms it is fraudulent with the doctor's office
  3. Doctors office notifies police and the police ask the Pharmacist to stall
  4. After arrival, the police officer identifies the suspect with the Pharmacist
  5. Instead of making the arrest for attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, the police officer orders the pharmacist to fill the fraudulent prescription
  6. The pharmacist fills and notifies the suspect that the prescription is ready for pick up
  7. The suspect pays for and receives the prescription
  8. Immediately upon completion of the transaction, the police officer grabs the prescription and arrests the suspect for two crimes: obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and trafficking.
13
  • 1
    I can see several defenses for the police officer and the pharmacist. The suspect is screwed.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Dec 2, 2015 at 9:40
  • @DaleM, What exactly do you mean by "the suspect is screwed"? The suspected was wronged and can't do anything about it? There has to be some defense for the suspect right?
    – Breakskater
    Commented Dec 2, 2015 at 22:21
  • 1
    @Breakskater There does not have to be any defense for the suspect. Unfortunately, sometimes in life, if you commit a crime, you have to face the consequences. No number of rephrasings of the same question will change that fact.
    – jimsug
    Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 0:12
  • 1
    "Screwed" in this context means: if the facts above are supported by evidence and there are no other relevant factors, the charge will almost certainly be proved.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 2:56
  • @jimsug, it is wise to explore all the different angles to see where each one leads; a couple have led to dead ends and one has shown some promise. This question was generalized intentionally so people would think outside of the box instead of constraining their thoughts to the question
    – Breakskater
    Commented Dec 4, 2015 at 2:03

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged .