Now, though, comes word via The Lo-Down that owner Charles Hanson agreed to pay a few thousand dollars in fines and add several safeguards, such as an electronic scanner.
Per DNAinfo, who first reported on the story: "Authorities caught the East Broadway bar selling beer to minors twice last year when underage auxiliary officers bought two cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon on Nov. 19, 2014 and two cans of Miller Lite the next day, court documents show."
A 169 Bar lawyer countered that the ID used by the NYPD auxiliary officer was fake, thus making the alleged police operation unlawful," The Lo-Down reported.
Anyway, it's all worked out now, probably, as a judge dismissed the case this morning for the bar at 169 East Broadway off of Essex Street.
Image via the 169 Bar website
"underage auxiliary officers "
ReplyDeleteSpending your formative years really making a difference. I hope the paycheck was worth it.
Underaged narcs SMH. That's some 21 Jump Street shit. How is that not entrapment? I'm not saying it is, just can a lawyer enlighten me? My argument is the place isn't fined if two little narc shits posing as underaged drinkers don't go in there, ask for beers, and get them. It's at least artificially created lawbreaking.
ReplyDelete169 shouldn't have even paid one cent. Especially since the NYPD used illegal tactics.
ReplyDeleteAny court worth its salt (do any even exist?) would throw out any suit filed by the NYPD.
Is there a bar in the East Village that doesn't occasionally serve underage patrons?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad they will remain open, and I wonder if the lawyers are from upstairs? I've always loved that combo there.
ReplyDelete"How is that not entrapment?"
ReplyDeleteLegally speaking, there are two types of entrapment. The first is when "the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation". They most likely received a tip that this was occurring, therefore this does not likely apply in this situation.
The second type is "when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offense, and instead actually induce the commission of the offense". Assuming they simply presented the fake IDs and didn't argue or try to persuade the bouncer to let them in, this likely does not apply either.
Thank you 5:56pm (1:21pm here), but what if 169 Bar says they never received a tip that these narcs were coming and/or these narcs insisted on getting in?
ReplyDeleteCouldn't 169 Bar just claim either or both to file entrapment charges against the cops?
All the speculation about entrapment-or-not is moot. The case has been resolved.
ReplyDeleteApparently this all stemmed from calls from 1 neighbor who doesn't like the bar.
ReplyDelete@12:34 It is not the bar that must receive a tip, it's the cops.
ReplyDeleteThey could certainly claim that the undercover narcs insisted on getting in which could constitute entrapment, but they'd better have some evidence of it or else the case will go nowhere.
1:21pm here again. I know that 7:10om, I was asking a question about entrapment in general, ok?
ReplyDeleteI see 12:34pm. What evidence could narcs present that they didn't insist on getting in? It seems like it comes down to one word against another, unless one party has video and/or audio evidence supporting their case. I'd imagine the bar would be more likely to be believed since narcs aren't doing their job if they don't get in.
If I owned a bar, I'd have a video camera with crystal clear audio right next to the door showing if someone is insisting on getting in or not.
I don't know if this still hods true, but what they USED to do is go into a crowded busy bar, sit the rookies back at the farthest table and send an older cop to go buy beers for the table. Too bad illegally destabilized apartments or professional Air BnBs aren't under NYPD's jurisdiction!
ReplyDelete"charges of entrapment"
ReplyDeleteEntrapment is not an offnece in itself