In what situation could the defense of entrapment be successfully used?

The defense of entrapment can be successfully used in situations where law enforcement officers induce an individual to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. This typically involves scenarios where an undercover officer or informant engages in conduct that encourages or coerces the individual into committing the offense, highlighting that the individual's intent to commit the crime wasn’t pre-existing.

In this context, option B aptly captures the essence of entrapment—it emphasizes the role of law enforcement officials in suggesting the commission of a crime that the accused had no intention of doing prior to that inducement. This concept underscores the principle that the government should not create crimes by pushing individuals who are otherwise law-abiding to break the law. The success of the entrapment defense relies heavily on demonstrating that the actions of law enforcement overstepped mere encouragement and constituted significant inducement.

Meanwhile, the other options do not portray scenarios in which entrapment would apply, as they involve situations where the individual either acted without police influence or where a crime was committed independently of any law enforcement suggestion. Thus, they do not fulfill the requirements necessary to substantiate a claim of entrapment.