I saw this a lot as a teenager working in a grocery store. The pharmacist would call the cops and they would mill around until the subject took possession of the drugs. I don't think it was done just to increase the sentence. Taking possession took the crime from intent to actual commission and removed the "I changed my mind" defense.

@emory since the question was about sentence entrapment/manipulation I thought the directing of the pharmacist not applicable. However, while police can order citizens to do various things, I think that a pharmacist has a colorable argument for refusing to fill a prescription based on either ethics codes or federal regulations. Here's a nurse who refused to draw blood; she settled for $78k.

@jqning how does the nurse's case relate to this one? Is it similar due to the cop directing the nurse to violate the hospital's procedure and withdraw blood before the proper paperwork is filed on the subject? In this particular case, the cop is asking the pharmacist to dispense the drugs against the law (without a valid prescription and identity/practitioner-patient relationship). Emory is correct; it is about the pharmacist and the cop and not entrapment, although the sentence is significantly greater between prescription fraud (up to 3yrs) and the trafficking amount (up to 30yrs)

@Breakskater I see the similarity in that both instances a cop tells a citizen to assist him and do something against their training, their employer's policy, and perhaps their better judgment. As for your last sentence, dude showed up to get his prescription filled, cops didn't entrap him; they let him finish the crime that he planned to complete. Are you saying something special is happening between the cops and the pharmacist? That the cops enlisting the help of a citizen entitles the criminal to a particular defense?

@Dave the felony crime of attempt to obtain a prescription by fraud is already committed when the prescription is either verbally phoned or written and confirmed to be invalid by calling the doctor's office, and especially when the subject is there trying to pick it up. The second crime is possession or trafficking which can only occur in a pharmacy by mistakenly giving drugs out and subject busted later or knowingly dispensing a fraudulent prescription. The question is can a cop ask a pharmacist to do that? This may have been planned between cop and pharmacist before he arrived. I don't know

@jqning yes, there is definitely something special between the cop and the pharmacist. The phone conversation between the doctor's office and pharmacist indicate there was; they wanted to "get the subject". It's against the law for the pharmacist to fill the prescription, so can the cop tell the pharmacist to break the law (subject never asked to show an id, no valid practitioner-patient relationship, known fraudulent prescription) and fill it anyways? After all this, the cop was even promoted to sergeant

@jqning I just wanted to add the crime was already completed when the cop arrived. The uninterrupted crime that was already completed was attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud which is a felony

@Breakskater - my point isn't about the arrest but the prosecution. The defense before taking possession of the drugs will be "it was a mistake", "it wasn't me," etc. By waiting to arrest until after the drugs are delivered then the subject is arrested in possession of a controlled substance and it eliminates some of the most common defense strategies. I can tell you in Maryland in the 1970s it was common to wait until the fraudulent prescription was filled and delivered to the subject before making the arrest.

Wait, now there's a doctor's office talking to the pharmacist?

@DaveD okay, I see your point. The subject can not take those defenses(it wasn't me or it was a prank/mistake) in this case because the subject arrived to pick the drugs up, went to the counter to do so, identified verbally and by fake name as the perpetrator, but was told by the pharmacist to have a seat in the waiting area to stall until the cop arrived for what should have been only prescription fraud

@jqning yes, the doctor's office told the pharmacist we have had another call here about that in the past and you need "to get the subject". Afterwards, the pharmacist phoned the police department. Are you seeing an issue with that?

@jqning my point and back to the main question is the cop had to make a conscious decision between 1) arrest the subject now for the completed crime of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, or 2) tell the pharmacist to violate a bunch of laws so he can arrest the subject for trafficking, probably violate his own ethics and code of conduct too. The cop made the conscious decision and most unethical/illegal choice #2. That's where I think there is a problem but I do not know if the subjects rights were violated because cop chose #2. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

@Breakskater I edited my answer to address some comments

Thanks jqning for editing the answer and for the references. What is very interesting in this case is there are two totally separate crimes: fraud and possession. The fraud was already committed and the officer had enough probably cause to make the arrest right then. So at this point, is the subject considered predisposed to posses the drugs or should everything stop right there? I think everything should stop there because there is a legal wall (valid script) that has to be removed before possession can take place, therefore I think the possession was outrageously induced?

I believe if there is a preventative law between the subject and the crime then any inducement to cause the subject to commit the crime is outrageous. Is the sum of all of these factors including the afore mentioned legal wall outrageous inducement: 1) Pre-existing probable cause 2) Substitute another cop and only fraud would exist 3) Pharmacist would not have dispensed 4) Cop was required to exert superfluous effort to conspire and cause possession 5) Inconsistent enforcement of the law?

@emory I believe the pharmacist could refuse to fill the prescription like the nurse refused to withdraw blood from a DUI suspect because it would have violated hospital procedures.

@jqning, can you edit your answer to differentiate between "outrageous conduct" and "sentence manipulation"? Those are two separate defenses. See State v. Steadman, 827 So. 2d 1022 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2002 - "a trial court has discretion to impose a downward departure sentence, when law enforcement allows a defendant to continue criminal activities for no reason other than to enhance his or her sentence"

@Breakskater no. The answer is fine. Anyone who wants more info will see your comments and read that opinion which can be distinguished based on the facts and does not apply to my answer. Since the facts in the original question do not contain outrageous conduct I'm not going to give a bunch of examples of cases that do contain such.

@jqning The answer is misleading, confusing the readers to believe that sentence manipulation is synonymous with sentence entrapment. The delineation is "strategic action" vs "outrageous action". With sentence manipulation, the defendant needs not to prove egregious action by law enforcement but that the act was only to enhance the subject's sentence

@Breakskater ok, so now "the reader" will see that comment too. So it's taken care of. You took care of it. Just like you asked the original question, and then didn't like the answer and answered it yourself and marked your own answer to your own question correct. I'd like to be done here. Take it up in meta if you think I'm harming someone.

@jqning Your contribution is much appreciated. If it was the answer, it would've been marked as such.

@jqning comments are supposed to be treated as "temporary post-it notes" on an answer and may be deleted at any time. So it's not correct to assume that "the reader will see this additional info in the comments". If comments provide information that can improve the post, then that information should be incorporated into the post before those comments get deleted. Further, we should always assume that all comments will eventually be deleted. (Unless Law.SE has a different policy on this matter?)