General Information

[IrishMale]

It can if it's on point but if the state law is different, and on some issues state law varies widely, then it may not be very effective. Also, if a decision is noted as non-precedential or is an unpublished opinion it may also not be effective. The point is that the thread of this issue started with a citation that the US Supreme Court had ruled on the issue of driver's licenses and it hadn't in the case citation provided. As someone who has lived in at least 6 states and has had licenses from those states I learned that motor vehicle law is often very different in each state.

Well, actually the thread started with a post concerning a motor vehicle law in California that allowed the state to suspend a driver's license for engaging in prostitution. I carefully read the law as it was posted and believe there is wiggle room in that law for Californians but I also questioned then as I do now that enforcement of that law amounts to double punishment, one would be the conviction in criminal court and then losing one's license. It seems on the surface to be unfair but what the hey, that's why all those police officers, attorneys, and judges get the big bucks and we just monger on.

[Poncho]

Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.

True. So can other state law, rules and regulations, etcetera. As long as its on the same issue and under the Constitution.

[Wallie]

Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.

This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.

[Poncho]

Took some digging but here is California law on being "arrested" for failing to appear to a notice to do so:

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40500.htm "(e) (1) A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through his or her local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court determines that referral is not in the interest of justice.

(2) Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.

(3) Upon receipt of the issuing agency's or prosecuting attorney's response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the person's driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.

(4) If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court determines that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.

(5) The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.

Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 93, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 467, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004." -- end quote

Most times after one year the original citation was tossed when entered on the "system". Its a risky move with "perjury", but my non-legal opinion, the cops lie on their arresting affidavits. So is it so bad to make them find your outstanding ticket?

[Poncho]

This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.

The Washington and California State Supreme Court, used United States Supreme Court rulings to determine each case. My main point is the DMV does have to give a hearing before they can suspend your license. Requires less due process over taking your car, hence why they changed the law.

CA law on notification of pending action:

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13106.htm

I'm guessing that avoiding license suspension is a carrot to gaining plea deals. On regular notice to appear tickets, no finger prints are taken. Most people do not realize after the court receives the ticket and its put on the "system". The courts through out the paper copy of the ticket. Hence why in one year if the ticket is not on the computer system, its an automatic dismissal in California, "statute" of limitation, as it was not properly filed with the court. Therefore you can't fail to appear and they no longer have "evidence" with your "accuser" you broke the law. A traffic offense must be committed in front of a police officer by California Vehicle Code.

Sticky gray area. Notice to appear tickets, if you can avoid being detected over a year and fail to appear for that citation. I'll find the vehicle code, you can when brought before a magistrate "request show cause". That you in fact received a traffic ticket from a police officer. If they can't find the original paper ticket in 45 days they must find you innocent on face value of driving while suspended because you failed to appear on a past traffic ticket. They need the past ticket as evidence. Your screwed if they find the court paper copy.

This is why on promise to appear citations they make you put your finger print on the citation.

Oh, should mention I' am not a lawyer. Just a bad driver, who knows how to manipulate the laws to their advantage

[IrishMale]

My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...493maj&invol=3

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...493maj&invol=3

Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....97-17006.html


quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.

[Poncho]

I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0319_ZS.html.

My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...493maj&invol=3

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...493maj&invol=3

Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....97-17006.html


quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).

17
In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license."--end quote

The key word in the quote is full administrative hearing satisfied due process.

For soliciting does the police in California give a notice to appear or promise to appear the latter with a finger print on the notice?

[IrishMale]

The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law. .

I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0319_ZS.html.

[Poncho]

The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law.

For many years, government considered a driver's license "A privilege. Not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a licensee's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Good news some wiggle room, bad news its why most DMV's give hearings to challenge suspensions, including California.

[IrishMale]

(http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.

(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "

This law looks burdensome on first glance but there is some wiggle room within it. First, there's the language in the first sentence of (a) that says the court MAY suspend. This is permissive rather than mandatory language. It gives the court or DMV lattitude to use its own judgement, and a defense attorney negotiating room.

In the same sentence are the words, "upon conviction." Therefore it's not a given that a license will be suspended upon arrest or citation. A conviction must first be rendered by a court and there would, I am assuming, need to be some proof offered during that conviction that the act did in fact occur as prescribed by the law, i.e., within 1,000 feet of a private residence inside a car. Therefore it would seem there is room for a challenge if, for example, someone drove their car up to a SW, was outside of the car and completed an act or, in the case of an aggressive cop, the person was grabbed in the crotch through the window or outside the car but no money exchanged hands. In any event, the operative words of this part of the law is "upon conviction."

Section (b) is interesting in that it also uses permissive rather than mandatory language. It, too requires a conviction under the penal code before it can be imposed, and requires that the person pick up a SW. However, it also seems to require that the act of picking up a SW be witnessed by a peace officer (which section (a) does not require) and that somehow the peace officer has knowledge of the SW's activities or can otherwise prove that the SW is in fact a SW or is working at the time as a SW. However, this section also requires that the person picking up the SW does in fact engage in a lewd act, which of course would have to be proved under the penal code, which is why this law is dependent upon a penal code conviction.

The most interesting part of this law is that it appears designed to punish a person twice for engaging a SW, once under the penal code and once under the motor vehicle code of the state. I'm wondering if at some point someone caught up in this scenario will have the money to hire a good attorney to attack this as double punishment.

[Hargow20]

I ran across this law today. This is another one of those ridiculous prostitution laws. I think this law was passed in lieu of impounding cars where the cops cannot prove solicitation. This law is still relatively easy avoid if you take the proper precautions and drive a good distance from where you pick up the SW. This the first time I have heard of such a law so I am uncertain how often the DA uses this. There are similar statutes in other states as well. The only good thing is that they can suspend you license for 30 days. The other option is for them to restrict your driving privileges for 3 months.

(http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.

(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "

[SgtPerv]

I see a lot of bs about people getting and using prepaid CC with false info as not to trace back to them.

How stupid are they?

How many laws are they breaking?

I can think of a few federal laws such as money laundering and identity theft as possibilities.

At the least they could get you for unauthorized use, because that false person can not come forward and say you had permission.

To me this seems like a very foolish thing to do and add to your troubles.

The false phones are illegal in some STATES but the card is illegal everywhere.

[IrishMale]

This statement was posted on CL

"LE cannot do anything that would be considered entrapment. Here are a couple of things that they CANNOT DO. They CANNOT post a nude picture. AND they cannot post a fee for services. Just like being out on the streets, YOU have to make the first fee offer. They can nail you for that."


Any part of this statement true?

Most likely the truth or non-truth in this statement will be found in each different state's statutes. While every state has similar laws the statutes for each state are sometimes written slightly or largely differently. Case law (court decisions interpreting the law) is tailored to each state's statutes. So, what may be so in, say, New York may be very different in, say, Oregon.

[Snake27]

Related to this topic, there's an interesting discussion on "Figueroa Street Walker Reports" on the Los Angeles board, especially posts from "Walter" who claims (somewhat credibly) to be a cop, and who provides entertaining insight into the police's motivations and methods, as well as info about the local scene.

Admin suggested they move their discussion here, but I suppose one reason this thread isn't more popular is that it's obscure. If you click on "All the Forums" from the main page and you will not see this thread in the "Special Interests" sub-forum unless you specifically click on "Special Interests" (only then do you see "Police Tactics & Legal Issues").

[Hargow20]

This is good news. Hopefully this will force more girls to work the streets again. I am hoping that LE cracks down even harder on CL.

(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10084304-93.html )
"Craigslist will require anyone posting ads to the Web's site's "erotic services" section to submit a working phone number and credit card, the online classified publication said Thursday."

Joint Statement with Attorneys General, NCMEC
November 6th, 2008 by jim

"Joint Statement with NCMEC and over 40 Attorneys General Detailing Measures to Prevent Illegal Activity and Improve Safety

craigslist Files 14 Lawsuits Against Software and Service Providers who Facilitate Misuse of Site

November 06, San Francisco, CA - craigslist announced today it is implementing sweeping new measures, in close partnership with state law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), to prevent its online communities and classified ads from being misused for the facilitation of human trafficking, child exploitation, and other illegal activities.

The measures were outlined in a joint statement signed by craigslist, NCMEC, and the attorneys general of more than 40 U.S. states and territories, representing a broad collaborative effort spearheaded by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The specific measures outlined in today’s joint statement were shaped during face-to-face meetings between Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, Attorney General Blumenthal, and representatives of NCMEC.

“Preventing site misuse and improving public safety are our highest priorities,” said Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, “and we are extremely appreciative of the encouragement we’ve received from the attorneys general and NCMEC.” He added, “The incidence of crime on craigslist is actually exceedingly low, considering the tens of millions of legitimate ads posted each month by well-intentioned users.” “But no amount of criminal activity is acceptable, and as craigslist has grown, we have become aware of instances where our free services were being misused to facilitate illegal activities.” Buckmaster continued, “We are unequivocally committed to stamping out misuse of the site and to improving safety for craigslist users, through preventative measures such as the ones we are announcing as part of the Joint Statement.”

Due in part to the growth of craigslist, businesses have sprung up selling software and other services designed to evade craigslist’s terms of use, and to circumvent its technical defenses against misuse, including phone verification. By offering services designed to undermine craigslist’s ability to enforce its terms of use, these businesses facilitate the placement of ads for illegal services that would otherwise be blocked by craigslist’s protective measures. craigslist has no tolerance for these activities and has filed 14 lawsuits and is sending “cease and desist” demands to numerous other companies and individuals offering such services. In addition, craigslist will investigate and provide information to state attorneys general for the prosecution of those engaging in and facilitating criminal activity.

craigslist is constantly working to improve its existing tools for enforcing its terms of use. In this regard, the company has continued to refine its protocols for blocking inappropriate postings and advertisements for illegal services. In addition, a flagging system accompanies each ad, so that inappropriate content can be identified by users for quick removal. craigslist has also implemented the industry standard PICS rating system for tagging adult content, to facilitate parental screening software on home computers.

craigslist recently implemented a telephone verification system for the “erotic services” section of the site, requiring a working phone number for advertisers, and enabling blacklisting of phone numbers for those who post inappropriate ads. Phone verification resulted in an 80% reduction in ad volume, and significantly increased compliance with site guidelines.

In addition to phone verification and other existing protective measures, craigslist will soon require credit card verification and a small fee per ad for posting in “erotic services”, to further encourage compliance with
site guidelines. Paid ads that violate site guidelines will be removed without refund. The company intends to donate 100% of net revenue generated from these ads to charity, with net revenue to be verified by an external auditor.

“Requiring credit card verification, and charging a fee to post in this category raises accountability to a point where we expect few illicit ads will remain,” says Buckmaster. “For those that do persist, telephone and credit card information will be available to law enforcement via subpoena. More than ever, those who would misuse craigslist to violate the law will find that craigslist is a very inhospitable place.”

The craigslist site is used by 40 million Americans each month, who represent a potent force for identifying and reporting illicit activity. In addition to participating in NCMEC’s Cybertipline program, and urging craigslist users to flag suspect postings and file a report anytime they suspect the exploitation of a minor or human trafficking, craigslist will work with NCMEC and the state attorneys general to further improve site messaging to build awareness of these important issues. Buckmaster added, “Human trafficking and child exploitation are despicable crimes, and in addition to working diligently to prevent such abuse, we want to do everything we can to raise awareness among craigslist users so that they will be even more vigila"
http://blog.craigslist.org/2008/11/j...general-ncmec/