200 kilos of cocaine in the house. However, the first time undercover officer Martinez met with Smith and Thomas to discuss the theft he told them the amount of cocaine would be anywhere from 30 to 100 kilos. Smith made it clear to Martinez she and her crew would do the theft for 30 kilos. Martinez testified as follows:
"Q. Who came up with what the fee would be?
"A. Defendant Smith did.
"Q. What did she tell you she would want in exchange for providing you the services that she offered?
"A. She specifically said if there was 30 kilos of cocaine, she would need three kilos per each one of her boys going to the residence and five kilos for her, and then the rest would be mine."
This evidence showswhich focuses not on the offender's conduct but on the government's.[121] The relevant question to ask is not whether defendant was "in for a dime, in for a dollar," but whether, if being in for a dime is sufficient to satisfy the government's legitimate law enforcement purposes, there is any rational reason to cause the defendant to be in for a dollar.
Before leaving the People's side of the case, a brief discussion of United States v. Sanchez is in order since its facts bear a resemblance to those in the case before us. In Sanchez, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (AFT) received information from a confidential informant about a group of armed home invaders who would "rip-off narcotics from stash houses. Working with the informant, the