◆ SpookStack

e | ; | ; | _ n Government is able to prove predisposition." 425 US at 495. In footnote, Justice Powell added: I emphasize that the cases, if any, in which proof of predisposition is not dispositive will be rare. Police overinvolvement in crime would have to reach a demonstrable level of out- rageousness before it could bar convic- . tion. This would be especially difficult ‘ ; to show with respect to contraband ) offenses which are so difficult to detect in the absence of undercover Government involvement. One cannot easily exaggerate the problems confronted by law enforcement authorities in dealing ; ; effectively with an expanding narcotics . traffic * * * which is one of the major ( contributing causes of escalating crime in our cities. * * * Enforcement offi- cials, therefore, must be allowed flexi- bility adequate to counter effectively ; . such criminal activity. . . a 425 US at 496 n.7 (citations omitted). Thus as the Court divided in Hampton, with Justice Stevens taking no part: three judges would make. predisposi-_ tion the only issue; three judges would eliminate predisposi- 7 tion entirely; andthe deci¥ive two. concurring votes, -express-: ed in Justice Powell's opinion, indicate that predisposition : is not only relevant but will be dispositive in all but the "rare" case where police over-involvement in the crime reaches "a demonstrable level of outrageousness". Since 7 Hampton had been predisposed, and since the police involve- ment in his crime was not "outrageous", his conviction was affirmed. The three dissenting judges would eliminate