As the community prepares for 500,000 motorcycle enthusiasts to visit the Black Hills, law enforcement is also preparing. Each year for the past several years, “sting operations” have been conducted to preempt criminal conduct and provide a safer community. Sting operations are typically used against those engaged in drug offenses, but are also used to combat child exploitation and commercial sex trafficking.
In the latter types of operations, law enforcement officers pose as underage girls or boys, pimps, or intermediaries in online forums and via text messages. The goal is to identify adults attempting to purchase sex from minors or entice minors into sexual activity. These operations are the result of joint task forces comprised of federal, state, and local authorities. They represent an amazing effort for the public good, but they may sometimes cross a boundary.
Each year during the Rally, we see headlines about individuals being arrested for offenses related to Child Exploitation, Prostitution, and Human Trafficking. In preparing this week’s column, I reviewed press releases dating back to 2013 from prior U.S. Attorneys Brendan Johnson, Randy Seiler (acting), and Allison Ramsdell; current U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons; and South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley. I believe we can expect another such press release following the 2026 Rally.
Recent decisions by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (cited below) have upheld prison sentences for those convicted of enticing minors arising out of sting operations, one of which was during the 2021 Sturgis Rally.
Entrapment
Occasionally, law enforcement may go too far in pursuing a sting, thereby giving rise to an effective defense of “entrapment.” Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that entrapment occurs when (1) the government induced the defendant to commit the crime, and (2) the accused otherwise lacked a predisposition to commit the crime.
There are two leading U.S. Supreme Court cases, both of which warrant discussion. Initially, the defense of entrapment was recognized in Sorrels v U.S., a 1932 decision involving the “entrapment” of a World War I veteran who was induced by federal agents to possess and sell ½ gallon of whiskey, in violation of the National Prohibition Act. He was convicted at a jury trial in federal court and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The U. S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction, stating, “the controlling question [is] whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials.”
More recently, and more directly related to the Sturgis Rally operations, in 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. United States, a case from Nebraska. In Jacobson, the Defendant was “a 56-year-old veteran-turned-farmer who supported his elderly father in Nebraska.” It was also reported that he “served in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, for which he received the Bronze Star and the Army Commendation Medal.” The Defendant had no criminal history except for a DUI in 1958. However, he was charged and convicted of child pornography when he “ordered two magazines and a brochure from a California adult bookstore.” He had been the subject of 5 undercover sting operations and surreptitiously contacted by postal inspectors more than eleven times, which led to his placing the order for the magazines. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed his conviction, stating, “In their zeal to enforce the law . . . Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.”
In discussing these cases with Matthew J. Kinney, a local criminal defense attorney, I have learned that facilitating “[e]ntrapment as a jury question [is] crucial” to a favorable resolution.
Finally, even if a Defendant pleads guilty to a crime committed during a sting operation, the 8th Circuit has recognized that “entrapment” may serve to lessen the punishment: “Sentencing entrapment occurs when official [government] conduct leads a defendant predisposed to deal only in small quantities of drugs to deal in larger quantities, leading to an increased sentence.’’
Welcome to the 2026 Sturgis Rally!
Note: In regard to the preparation of this week’s column, the author would like to thank Attorney Matthew J. Kinney, Kinney Law, P.C. (specializing in criminal defense in the Black Hills area), Attorney Sarah Baron and Claudia Baron for their assistance and input.
Anyone desiring to communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .
Authorities: U.S. v. Hanapel, 112 F.4th 539, 543 (8th Cir. 2024) (affirming sentence of 120 months imposed by Hon. Jeffrey Viken for attempting to entice a minor); United States v. Debevec, 176 F.4th 1107 (8th Cir. 2026) (affirming sentence of 120 months imposed by Hon. Eric Schulte, for attempting to entice a minor through the internet); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932); Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992); State v. Nelsen, 89 S.D. 1, (1975)(SD Supreme Court adopting federal test for entrapment); United States v. Searcy, 233 F.3d 1096 (recognizing “sentence entrapment”).
Roger Baron is a guest columnist for the Rapid City Post. Opinions expressed may not necessarily represent the views of the Rapid City Post, its affiliates, or advertisers.
