General Information

[Sully15]

Let me throw this out there.

Can an LE setup ad legally include "No African American Guys" in the ad? Or "Must be over 35 yrs old"?

I would guess targeting (or eliminating) a particular race or age group would be illegal and might be thrown out in court. If someone had the funds to fight it?

Although I can understand the defendant did not have to respond to the ad, I am not sure if LE must be all inclusive when conducting such stings.

[Hargow20]

One can always hope so, but we will probably never see this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...c97_story.html

Perhaps this will encourage judges of courts in the USA to hand down similar opinions.

[Hargow20]

I am thinking that one good way to detect possible escort / BP stings is to search for a girls ph number. If the girl is completely new then there is a greater chance she could be a decoy.

[Param Ahmad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...c97_story.html

Perhaps this will encourage judges of courts in the USA to hand down similar opinions.

[Hargow20]

The FBI conducted teen prostitution crackdown. The operation was aimed at getting child prostitutes off the streets and arresting their pimps. There is good chance that LE will be cracking down for awhile. So just be careful all.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57595942/fbi-105-sexually-exploited-children-rescued-in-operation-cross-country-vii/ )

[Param Ahmad]

*** I think some of you guys *** jump to way too many conclusions. Or you are all lawyers. Last time I checked, when a massage theripist puts their hand on your dick they are breaking the law. ***

My careful reading of the prostitution statutes in North Carolina and Massachusetts convinced me hand jobs you pay for are legal in those states. In other states that is not true, however, so go on-line and read the prostitution statute for the state where you are, and in those states be especially careful how you phrase your requests. All states now have their statutes (laws) on the Internet.

[Hargow20]

The key to winning to a traffic ticket case is to drag your case out as long as possible. Ask for 30 day extension a few days before your appearance date. In many courts you can get your court appearance extension online. Plead not guilty and ask for a trial declaration by mail. You will have to post the bail amount however. Basically you write your side of the story why you are not guilty to the judge. If you plead not guilty and appear in court the cops are required to appear and receive 3 hours of mandatory over time pay at least in San Diego. But the cops are not paid to respond to a trial declaration by mail. The trial declaration by mail typically takes 60 to 90 days and the cops must respond within 60 days I believe. So you have drawn out your case by 6 months so far. So if you lose the case you can ask for a request a new trial. So there is another chance that the cop has retired or won't show up. Even if you lose your case you can always request traffic school if you are eligible.

The lesson here is that the system is looking for a easy conviction and fine. If you get busted for a prostitution related offense the key is find a lawyer who make it hard for the the. I had such a lawyer and the the dropped the case without going to court.

A little off the beaten path but worth the read. Had reason to be in SC for traffic court and made the following observations.

1-The uniform traffic ticket used by SC clearly states on the back you can request a jury trial in writing before the appearance date on your ticket. This will release you from having to go to court on the date designated on the ticket.

2-The judge said in opening remarks that defendants will be asked how they plead. He also said you can plead guilty, not guilty and have a single judge trial, or not guilty and request a jury trial. He advised those who would consider a jury trial to consider seeking legal representation for such a trial.

3-In some instances, after the judge listened to the ticketing officer testify to what happened he then asked the defendant what their side of the story was. He conveniently forgot in a few occasions to ask how they plead first. After the defendant told his side of the story the judge found him guilty and issued a fine that was often reduced from the maximum fine he could issue. I guess they think this takes the sting off being found guilty.

4-In one instance the ticketing officer asked, after the defendant gave his side of the story, for permission to cross examine the defendant. The judge of course granted permission. This does not happen often. However, the defendant has the right to cross examine the officer too but no one asked for that opportunity. This is too often overlooked by defendants in traffic court.

5-Every single defendant responded to the judge's inquiry about his or her side of the story. Not one said I plead not guilty and request a jury trial. One defendant in a group of four pleaded not guilty and then proceeded to tell his story. He didn't realize, as the rest who appeared that day didn't realize, that if you plead guilty and begin telling your story, you are testifying and have acquiesced to a single judge trial. When he was fined, he said incredulously, 'but I pleaded not guilty your honor. ' The judge said, 'I know, and I found you guilty based on your testimony and that of the officer. ' End of story. Should have said I plead not guilty and request to be placed on the jury trial docket.

6-There are reasons to request a jury trial in a traffic case but if you do not, listen very carefully to the judge's opening remarks and remember them. Then use them to your advantage.

7-Reasons for requesting a jury trial are you will be able to ask for discovery. You may find out there is no tape of the alleged violation or of the stop. You may find out that the vision of the camera was impeded by larger vehicle if you are charged with something that may have occurred while the officer was behind the larger vehicle and you were ahead of it. This is especially important if you have witnesses who disagree with the officer's testimony.

8-Based on what I saw in SC, do not think that you will receive much if anything in the way of a break. Not from the officer and not from the judge.

9-Read the front and back of your ticket carefully. Be sure the date and day are correct, even if it doesn't help your case. In a jury trial it may help in closing to prove the officer is sloppy in his or her work so how can you (the jury) be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that anything else he did or has said is reliable. Also, be alert to how the weather or condition of the pavement is described on the ticket. If it had rained at 7 in the morning but when you are stopped at, say. 10 AM and the pavement is barely damp but the officer describes the weather as rain or the road as wet versus damp, find a way to prove the description is wrong. The local paper, radio station, TV station can probably provide you with this information. Start preparing your defense as soon as the stop is over. Get witness statements right away.

10-Look up the law you are charged with having violated. Some laws are so ambiguous as to give ticketing officers probable cause for just about anything. For instance, Chapter 56-5-1900 is ambiguous enough to give an officer probable cause to pull you over for changing lanes. That can lead to a lot of other things.

11-It's been posted many times here before but be very careful what you say when stopped if you say anything at all. Be cooperative and respectful but don't be tricked by a friendly officer who asks you how you are doing today, then asks where you were going, then says in a very friendly voice can you tell me why you rolled through that stop sign, or why you changed lanes without signaling? Answering those questions, especially if the stop is being recorded, could amount to an admission of guilt. You may not have rolled through the sign and you may have signaled but the officer didn't see it. By the time you get to court you may very well have forgotten just whether you did or did not stop or did or did not signal.

12-Being firm in standing your ground may be uncomfortable and may raise the ire of the officer. It will be up to you to decide if you want to say in a respectful way that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. You will probably be met with the response 'what do you have to hide? ' You can say you have nothing to hide but you have just answered a question without an attorney present and that can lead to further answers you did not intend to give. You can also answer that question with the same response that you prefer not to answer any questions without an attorney present. Be prepared for a lengthier stop and even some pressure and intimidation by the officer, so you need to be sure you really want to do this.

Going to traffic court can be frustrating and one can feel they can do nothing even if they are convinced they are not guilty. But before you decide that, read the ticket front and back, determine if you think a jury trial is the better forum, and most of all determine if you need legal representation. The cost of representation may be more than the fine but it's a right we all have and we have the freedom to choose or not choose legal representation. Most of all be very careful what you say during a stop.

[Hargow20]

If you are arrested you can have your attorney to have all court mail sent to his office. I am not sure if all courts will do this, but San Diego will.

[Hargow20]

Busted mugshots.

http://www.bustedmugshots.com/

Here is a good way to see if a girl is in jail. You can search by name or view by state.

WARNING: Please abide by Jackson's rules and do not post the mug shots to this site!

[SoCalMonger]

i think the federal human trafficking task force https://www.ovcttac.gov/taskforcegui...e/default.aspx) money is being misused by local police dept's. the money is supposed to be used for combating human trafficking / human slavery and minors involved in prostitution. the documents refer primarily to women that are brought into the us for prostitution. about 99. 99% of the sw's are us citizens. now there are some **** prostitutes on the streets. so if this the problem why isn't the cops and the feds targeting these people. la has a estimated 120, 000 gang members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gang_population ). we often here how the cops are undermanned. so why are they wasting so much resources on working girls. the answer is because it's a much more low risk crime to enforce. prostitutes do not carry guns. very rarely do you hear of a sw pulling a gun.

[Hargow20]

Loitering with intent to solicit 653.22 case outcomes?

I was wondering how successful people have been in fighting intent to solicit cases. Some lawyers have told me that the the will usually drop the case when they see that guys are willing to take the case to a jury trial.

[IrishMale]

The best advice has been posted frequently and it remains the best policy for everyone stopped or questioned by a cop for any reason. Do not answer any questions but first make it clear you won't by respectfully saying you will not answer any questions until you have a lawyer present. It doesn't matter whether it's been 14 days or 14 hours, make it clear any time a cop starts asking you questions that you want a lawyer present before answering questions and then remain silent.

[Wallie]

That is not even close to what the article says. Did you read all of it? It does not say what you claim, they still have to give the warning, they may change wording so long as everything is covered. They can question you again 14 days after you have been released, without re-informing you of your rights.

NO WHERE does it say what you claim it says.

...In February, the court watered down the right to counsel. It ruled that a suspect who had invoked his Miranda right to an attorney could later be questioned by police without an attorney if they waited at least 14 days after the suspect was released from custody. Previously, the right had been presumed to continue in effect.

The court's revision makes it easier for police to make repeated attempts to question suspects without an attorney...

My understanding of the 14 day rule is that they still have to reinform you of your rights after the 14 days, you just have to re-invoke your Rights. Previously, it was understood that once you invoked your Rights, you could never be questioned again about what you invoked Rights on. Now, they can ask again after 2 weeks, and it's up to you to re-invoke.

Honestly, I don't see that as a terrible change to things either. I mean, really, does it make sense to invoke your Rights once, and the Police can never, ever question you again? Seems reasonable that they should be allowed to come back, and see if you have had a change of heart and want to talk to them now. After all, you can re-invoke, and they have to go away again.

Sure, you can make the case that that allows them to harass a person, but unless it's a major crime, once you re-invoke your Rights a few times, seems to me that they'll get tired of playing that game.

Wallie

[Brahmabull]

Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning
(http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/a...ON01/306039980 )
The US Supreme court ruled that cops no longer have to inform you of your right to remain silent. The cops can also try and question you repeatedly after you request a lawyer.

That is not even close to what the article says. Did you read all of it? It does not say what you claim, they still have to give the warning, they may change wording so long as everything is covered. They can question you again 14 days after you have been released, without re-informing you of your rights.

NO WHERE does it say what you claim it says.

For the third time this term, the Supreme Court has given police greater leeway in the questioning of suspects after they have been read their Miranda rights.

Under the Miranda rule, suspects must be told they are entitled to an attorney and have the right to remain silent or risk having incriminating statements used against them in a court of law.

In February, the court watered down the right to counsel. It ruled that a suspect who had invoked his Miranda right to an attorney could later be questioned by police without an attorney if they waited at least 14 days after the suspect was released from custody. Previously, the right had been presumed to continue in effect.

The court's revision makes it easier for police to make repeated attempts to question suspects without an attorney.


In that same week, the Supreme Court said that police did not have to use the same exact wording when informing suspects of their Miranda rights as long as the warning advised them of all their rights.

On Tuesday, the high court wrote an exception to the silence rule. In a 5-4 decision, the court said that suspects must specifically invoke their right to remain silent. It is not sufficient to just say nothing.

The decision arose out of a case in which Southfield, Mich., authorities elicited a confession from a suspect they had been interrogating in a murder case for three hours although the man had said practically nothing during that time. His answer was used to convict him.

"If (the suspect) wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to (the detective's) questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"After giving a Miranda warning," he wrote, "police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw the contradiction on that conclusion, noting that the requirement to "unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent ... counterintuitively requires them to speak."

Since Miranda was established in 1966, law enforcement officials have frequently complained about its restrictions that have often resulted in evidence being tossed out of court. Even legislative attempts have been made to revise it.

Now the Supreme Court has done so, swinging the pendulum back in favor of authorities.

[Zeuss]

Miranda warning (right to remain silent) cops are not required to give warning

(http://www.Watertowndailytimes.com/a...ON01/306039980)

The US Supreme court ruled that cops no longer have to inform you of your right to remain silent. The cops can also try and question you repeatedly after you request a lawyer.

I think that you misread it. The cops still have to read you your rights but if you want to invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak you must specifically tell them that you are doing so rather than just not answer their questions. In some ways it makes sense but it's one of those things that lawyers can find fault (and loopholes) either way. Safest thing is still to probably keep your mouth shut since their only goal is to get someone.