Final answer:
Entrapment as a defense focuses on whether the police induced a crime that the person would not otherwise have committed. The scenarios discussed revolve more around rights violations, specifically mirroring violations of Miranda rights and constitutional amendments that protect against self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful search and seizure, and property rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Entrapment serves as a valid defense when a law enforcement officer induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. In the scenarios described, entrapment might be claimed in cases where the police action could be seen as inducing the alleged crime. However, the detailed scenarios focus more on rights violations during police procedures rather than entrapment specifically.
Miranda rights are a key focus, detailed by the Miranda v. Arizona decision, which mandates that persons must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney before being interrogated by the police. Failure to inform suspects of these rights can lead to the exclusion of any statements made by them during interrogation. Thus, in case 10, the failure of the police to inform the drug dealer of his rights constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and his confession might not be admissible in court.
Regarding the other cases, individuals are entitled to legal representation, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to private property under eminent domain with just compensation, all of which are protected by various amendments including the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.