[QUOTE=HowardSprague;2715867]It all comes down to the level of control the alleged trafficker has over the alleged victim. Does the accused control where the victim works, lives and sleeps, her transportation? Does the victim have valid identification (meaning, is she in the country legally)? They have a checklist and if they think they can answer yes to enough of the questions there's a trafficking charge. As well, cops are trained to charge an accused with as many crimes as they can find even a little evidence to support. They throw everything and see what sticks. It's a lovely tactic which makes life more difficult for EVERYONE else involved, including the prosecutors, and bogs down the criminal justice system.[/QUOTE]Skatar018 - I have read about tactics like this being used by the authorities. I want to say in Oregon a woman violated a new federal law which makes it illegal to aid in anyway a minor involved in the sex industry. So a stripper was charged under this law for giving a ride to another stripper who was underage. This federal law was designed as a way to go after the customers of underage prostitutes. It was specifically written to appear to target pimps but the ultimate goal was to make the penalties so harsh on the customers that all prostitution would end. The penalty under this was is a $5,000 fine, which is to go into a fund for the victims of human trafficking. So far only petty pimps, some of them women, have been charged. This was passed in the 1st quarter of 2015 and there was a buzz as to why Jarrod of Subway fame was not charged under the new law. Lawrence Taylor could have been charge if this law had been in place when he was arrested.
