Ohio Law

[3-Minute Passion]

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses130/h0130-i-130.pdf

Just a little heads-up on a bill that could become a cause of concern for hobbyists.

Of primary concern is the removal of the requirement that, if by some small chance you solicit someone under the age of 18, the state proves you knew and disregarded the age before you solicited. So if someone lies about her age, there is the potential for serious time as a result of this bill.

The bill analysis is rather long so I won't cut and paste here.

This bill is intended to seriously discourage hobbyist activities, no doubt. Have a gander. Sentences are considerably lengthened. It will be mandatory for spouses to be contacted. Not knowing the age of the minor is your responsibility. They are even going to make it illegal for anyone to advertise "massage services" unless they are legally certified by the state. This is not good. The intent may be good but the results will be moving closer to a police state. Prostitution ought to be legalized along with drugs and they should tax it and everyone, except the bible thumpers, would be happy.

[Countryboy72]

I have parked and walked, gives you closer view of what she really looks like, I am not looking while I ram into a stopped car or losing wheel control. Also can get a vibe of the girl. You can chat her up or give a meet spot. If stopped hey you were lost or the chick asked you for a CIG or CIG $. Watch your six always.

QUOTE=Gitanacv; 1772678]You had OH plates?

The other question that comes to mind, based on what happened here, is there any advantage to making initial contact on foot? Just kind of walking the area, sizing it up. This way they can't impound your car at least. And you would think you would be less conspicuous. Has anyone done this?[/QUOTE]

[FallenAngel]

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses130/h0130-i-130.pdf

Just a little heads-up on a bill that could become a cause of concern for hobbyists.

Of primary concern is the removal of the requirement that, if by some small chance you solicit someone under the age of 18, the state proves you knew and disregarded the age before you solicited. So if someone lies about her age, there is the potential for serious time as a result of this bill.

The bill analysis is rather long so I won't cut and paste here.

[3-Minute Passion]

Several years ago I was cruising in the Covington area around the Kroger store. I saw a possible SW on a corner, and looped around for the scoop. Rolled my passenger window down, asked if she wanted a ride, she said yes and got in the car. Before I could take my foot off the brake, BAM! Two undercover LEO that were standing on the street run come running over, guns drawn and order me to get out of the car.

They put me in handcuffs, sat me on the curb and began questioning me and the girl. Now, this girl was definitely not an undercover LEO herself, but I will never know if she was part of a setup. The cops started saying I was trolling for prostitutes in a known area of prostitution. Being from out of town worked in my favor, as I replied "Known by whom? Certainly not me" and I denied everything.

For about the next 45-60 minutes I sat on that curb while they ran my license and plates, searched my vehicle and continued to try to get me to admit that I was engaging in prostitution. At one point they brought in a Supervisor and I remember the cops telling him that I picked up this hooker, pointing to the girl. I yelled out,"Whoa, that's not true. All I did was offer this women a ride, nothing more"

Eventually, they let me go with a big show of how lucky I was and to not be seen around those parts ever again, blah, blah, blah.

Moral of the story. In my experience, cops don't need much of an excuse to make your life miserable. You need to remain polite, be professional, and tell them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Tonto

You had OH plates?

The other question that comes to mind, based on what happened here, is there any advantage to making initial contact on foot? Just kind of walking the area, sizing it up. This way they can't impound your car at least. And you would think you would be less conspicuous. Has anyone done this?

[Zomby]

You and I are going to disagree on the police doing what is right. Too many young woman are being hauled in on baseless charges, only to be released after being confined for a week or more. Also, when one reviews where abuse takes place, statistically, police are high on the list. I am sure I am not alone in being told by providers that police have hit on them and get aggressive and / or violent if their advances are rejected.

But my original question was whether anyone is aware of arrests of mongers that have taken place based on groundless charges. I discussed with another poster via PM the concern that should we EVEN pull over to talk with a SW whether we could be arrested. I think the answer is yes. I would like to know whether this has happened to anyone and, if so, how things unfolded. What was the arrest based on? How long were you held? What were the ramifications? Etc.

Thanks.

While there is no excuse for police officers to violate your rights, consider that if the fucking asswipe lawmakers hadn't enacted those laws in the first place, there wouldn't be as much of a problem. Please direct your ire to the cause of the problem, not the symptoms.

[LakersFan29]

Florence police did a sting last Tuesday. It was on backpage providers.

A provider told me she got caught up in a sting last Saturday as well. Damn jealous LEO's! Ha ha. They're never going to completely stop someones addiction. Just because you crack down doesn't mean the people will stop. For example, just like drug dealing or drug addictions. Do you seeing anyone completely stopping? If they do, for how long before they start back up? They'll just do things more carefully or try to at least.

[Tonto Monger]

You and I are going to disagree on the police doing what is right. Too many young woman are being hauled in on baseless charges, only to be released after being confined for a week or more. Also, when one reviews where abuse takes place, statistically, police are high on the list. I am sure I am not alone in being told by providers that police have hit on them and get aggressive and / or violent if their advances are rejected.

But my original question was whether anyone is aware of arrests of mongers that have taken place based on groundless charges. I discussed with another poster via PM the concern that should we EVEN pull over to talk with a SW whether we could be arrested. I think the answer is yes. I would like to know whether this has happened to anyone and, if so, how things unfolded. What was the arrest based on? How long were you held? What were the ramifications? Etc.

Thanks.

Several years ago I was cruising in the Covington area around the Kroger store. I saw a possible SW on a corner, and looped around for the scoop. Rolled my passenger window down, asked if she wanted a ride, she said yes and got in the car. Before I could take my foot off the brake, BAM! Two undercover LEO that were standing on the street run come running over, guns drawn and order me to get out of the car.

They put me in handcuffs, sat me on the curb and began questioning me and the girl. Now, this girl was definitely not an undercover LEO herself, but I will never know if she was part of a setup. The cops started saying I was trolling for prostitutes in a known area of prostitution. Being from out of town worked in my favor, as I replied "Known by whom? Certainly not me" and I denied everything.

For about the next 45-60 minutes I sat on that curb while they ran my license and plates, searched my vehicle and continued to try to get me to admit that I was engaging in prostitution. At one point they brought in a Supervisor and I remember the cops telling him that I picked up this hooker, pointing to the girl. I yelled out,"Whoa, that's not true. All I did was offer this women a ride, nothing more"

Eventually, they let me go with a big show of how lucky I was and to not be seen around those parts ever again, blah, blah, blah.

Moral of the story. In my experience, cops don't need much of an excuse to make your life miserable. You need to remain polite, be professional, and tell them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Tonto

[3-Minute Passion]

No. You want to do your job right. So do the police.

You and I are going to disagree on the police doing what is right. Too many young woman are being hauled in on baseless charges, only to be released after being confined for a week or more. Also, when one reviews where abuse takes place, statistically, police are high on the list. I am sure I am not alone in being told by providers that police have hit on them and get aggressive and / or violent if their advances are rejected.

But my original question was whether anyone is aware of arrests of mongers that have taken place based on groundless charges. I discussed with another poster via PM the concern that should we EVEN pull over to talk with a SW whether we could be arrested. I think the answer is yes. I would like to know whether this has happened to anyone and, if so, how things unfolded. What was the arrest based on? How long were you held? What were the ramifications? Etc.

Thanks.

[Golfcart]

The police can do what they want regardless of one's actions. If they believe you are mongering they will arrest you first and ask questions later because even if they do not, in the end, have enough evidence to charge you they will make your life so miserable you will not monger again anytime soon. Also, it appears there are many instances in which the police, these days, are fabricating disorderly conduct. Frightening the number of videos that are popping up catching police brutalizing law-abiding citizens.

No. You want to do your job right. So do the police.

[3-Minute Passion]

The police can do what they want regardless of one's actions. If they believe you are mongering they will arrest you first and ask questions later because even if they do not, in the end, have enough evidence to charge you they will make your life so miserable you will not monger again anytime soon. Also, it appears there are many instances in which the police, these days, are fabricating disorderly conduct. Frightening the number of videos that are popping up catching police brutalizing law-abiding citizens.

[Golfcart]

But I wonder if anyone can comment on this.

I have heard through the grapevine that when one pulls over to talk with a SW LE will, on occasion, pull up and bring you in. This will entail impounding your car and though it may turn out they do not have enough to prosecute you or the SW because nothing occurred, they can still make your life miserable. Pretty tough to make a case to the Mrs. Why you were trolling McM, RR or COV, which is why LE does this.

Gitanacv, we should not be pulling up to a SW and speak with her while she remains outside our car in the first place. When we pull up to her and she does not immediately get in we should drive off.

Being inside our car with us would compromise her security. If she is a LE plant she will not get in. That's the first indication she is a possible LE plant. The premises of your question is a fact situation we should not let happen.

Second, it is hard to answer questions like "What can the police do when such and such happens?" when we never know what LE knows when they approach us. A car of the same make and model and with the same left tail light out could be on their radar based upon something occurring earlier in the area. Even though that guy and car is not us this could allow LE to make a stop, an inventory search of our car and even a custodial arrest leading to the impoundment of our car. Police need Probably Cause, not Perfect Cause. Too bad for us it may not be straightened out until in the morning. Too bad for us if this happens in a known streetwalker area. We are always at risk of LE having "probable cause" based on another police report and we are simply confused with the other guy.

When you think about it police work cannot be done in any other way.

Acting like a monger, fitting the profile of a monger in a streetwalker area could give LE authority to make a brief "investigative stop." The scope of this could be expanded based upon what happens during the "investigative stop." Everything inside our car that can be seen from the outside is in "plain view" and is subject to seizure if it something we should not have. A response by us that is "disorderly conduct" could get our ass arrested and our car impounded just for that. That can happen when LE lets him go and he decides to give LE a piece of his mind. We don't fuck with LE on the street.

Police do not want to hassle law abiding citizens. This happens when law abiding citizens put themselves in positions of looking like something far different. This is the reality of things.

[3-Minute Passion]

But I wonder if anyone can comment on this.

I have heard through the grapevine that when one pulls over to talk with a SW LE will, on occasion, pull up and bring you in. This will entail impounding your car and though it may turn out they do not have enough to prosecute you or the SW because nothing occurred, they can still make your life miserable. Pretty tough to make a case to the Mrs. Why you were trolling McM, RR or COV, which is why LE does this.

[Hargow20]

One thing to remember is that even if a minor shows you a fake DL. You can can still be convicted of statutory rape or this law. My guess however if you went to trial you could probably get off these laws. Either way it pays to use extra caution.

I just saw a notice on the news today about Ohio's proposed sex trafficking law. This should be of interest of people here. My experience with laws of this type is many of these laws designed to stop "human trafficking" are used to target those engaged in adult consensual activity in exchange for mediums of exchange. In some states I have seen the laws expand into making all so-called "johns" into registered citizens.

At the least, there is a concern that in the event you procure the services of someone who turns out to be younger than 18, regardless of whether you know it or not, then you could get the full harassment package, the registry, the Adam Walsh Act, community notification, residency restrictions, and so on. It is a proposal of interest to all of you.

To amend sections 109. 54, 2151. 281, 2151. 414, 2151. 419, 2901. 13, 2905. 32, 2907. 02, 2907. 05, 2907. 07, 2907. 22, 2907. 24, 2929. 01, 2937. 11, 2950. 01, and 4731. 41 and to enact sections 149. 435, 2907. 19, and 2907. 242 of the Revised Code to authorize a judge or magistrate to order the testimony of a victim of trafficking in persons to be taken by closed circuit television equipment under certain circumstances, to prohibit the release of routine police reports that contain identifying information about minor crime victims or uncharged arrestees unless the identifying information is redacted, to specify that a public children services agency or private child placement agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from the child's home, eliminate the continued removal of a child from the child's home, or return a child to the child's home and that a court find that a child cannot be placed with either parent under specified circumstances, to provide that a guardian ad litem can be appointed for a child in certain situations, to extend the period within which a prosecution for trafficking in persons must be commenced from six to twenty years after the offense is committed, to specify that the Rape Shield Law applies to evidence of a rape victim's involuntary sexual activity as well as evidence of a rape victim's voluntary sexual activity, to prohibit the admission of evidence pertaining to a victim's sexual activity in a case of trafficking in persons in the same manner as the Rape Shield Law does in a case of rape, to eliminate as an element of the offense of importuning the offender's knowledge or reckless disregard of the age of the person importuned when the person importuned is a victim of trafficking in persons who is 16 or 17 years of age, to provide that if a minor is a victim of trafficking in persons or human trafficking the state does not need to prove that the minor was compelled to engage in certain specified activities, to include in the offense of promoting prostitution certain specified activities that through electronic means promotes or facilitates sexual activity for hire, to increase the penalty for soliciting when the person solicited is a minor, to require offenders convicted of solicitation when the person solicited is under 18 years of age to register as sex offenders, to prohibit including the term "massage" or any other term that implies a massage technique or method in advertisements unless certain circumstances apply, and to declare an emergency.

[ClassASweetie]

Florence police did a sting last Tuesday. It was on backpage providers.

I can't remember an escort sting in Northern Kentucky. I think they have cracked down on strip clubs in Newport and such over there, but not escorts.

Different story in Ohio, but it doesn't sound like a ton of activity outside SW action in the hot zones and occasionally some sting activity in Sharonville. They've been pretty active in the Eastgate / Union Twp / Clermont area too it sounds like. And it sounds like Cincinnati has had a couple of stings on outcall escorts over the past year, and those seem to have targeted specific companies / services or individuals from what I heard. But nothing I can remember in Kentucky.

[FallenAngel]

I just saw a notice on the news today about Ohio's proposed sex trafficking law. This should be of interest of people here. My experience with laws of this type is many of these laws designed to stop "human trafficking" are used to target those engaged in adult consensual activity in exchange for mediums of exchange. In some states I have seen the laws expand into making all so-called "johns" into registered citizens.

At the least, there is a concern that in the event you procure the services of someone who turns out to be younger than 18, regardless of whether you know it or not, then you could get the full harassment package, the registry, the Adam Walsh Act, community notification, residency restrictions, and so on. It is a proposal of interest to all of you.

To amend sections 109. 54, 2151. 281, 2151. 414, 2151. 419, 2901. 13, 2905. 32, 2907. 02, 2907. 05, 2907. 07, 2907. 22, 2907. 24, 2929. 01, 2937. 11, 2950. 01, and 4731. 41 and to enact sections 149. 435, 2907. 19, and 2907. 242 of the Revised Code to authorize a judge or magistrate to order the testimony of a victim of trafficking in persons to be taken by closed circuit television equipment under certain circumstances, to prohibit the release of routine police reports that contain identifying information about minor crime victims or uncharged arrestees unless the identifying information is redacted, to specify that a public children services agency or private child placement agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from the child's home, eliminate the continued removal of a child from the child's home, or return a child to the child's home and that a court find that a child cannot be placed with either parent under specified circumstances, to provide that a guardian ad litem can be appointed for a child in certain situations, to extend the period within which a prosecution for trafficking in persons must be commenced from six to twenty years after the offense is committed, to specify that the Rape Shield Law applies to evidence of a rape victim's involuntary sexual activity as well as evidence of a rape victim's voluntary sexual activity, to prohibit the admission of evidence pertaining to a victim's sexual activity in a case of trafficking in persons in the same manner as the Rape Shield Law does in a case of rape, to eliminate as an element of the offense of importuning the offender's knowledge or reckless disregard of the age of the person importuned when the person importuned is a victim of trafficking in persons who is 16 or 17 years of age, to provide that if a minor is a victim of trafficking in persons or human trafficking the state does not need to prove that the minor was compelled to engage in certain specified activities, to include in the offense of promoting prostitution certain specified activities that through electronic means promotes or facilitates sexual activity for hire, to increase the penalty for soliciting when the person solicited is a minor, to require offenders convicted of solicitation when the person solicited is under 18 years of age to register as sex offenders, to prohibit including the term "massage" or any other term that implies a massage technique or method in advertisements unless certain circumstances apply, and to declare an emergency.