Justices question police tactics and 'outrageous government conduct' in online sting

A central theme in argument was whether police conduct surrounding the undercover sting rose to the level of "outrageous government conduct," warranting dismissal or suppression.

Defense counsel Jeremy Yellen described the investigation as engineered: an Assistant Chief placed an AI‑regressed photo on a hookup app, shifted conversations to text, and then the task force executed a felony stop with multiple officers and long guns drawn. Yellen also said officers threatened obstruction charges to compel access to the defendant's phone and that time‑and‑a‑half pay for overtime created incentives to pursue such stings.

The state asked the court to view an eight‑minute body‑worn camera recording, which it described as a professional felony stop in which officers gave clear commands and the defendant complied. Assistant Attorney General Thad Tudtor emphasized the district court's factual findings that the defendant sent a majority of the messages and that the officers did not induce him to commit the charged acts.

Justices explored several factual elements the court would consider when evaluating an outrageous‑conduct claim: whether officers engineered the crime from start to finish, whether the phone access was coerced, whether the level of force used at the stop was justified by perceived risk, and whether financial incentives for extra shifts materially affected investigative behavior. The court repeatedly asked whether the totality of events (AI image, arrest tactics, and incentives) amounted to such egregious conduct that the constitution required relief.

Neither side prevailed at argument; the court took the matter under advisement and submitted the case for decision.