General Information

A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa... ...There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?[/QUOTE]
In that case, who knows. However, UC LE can, and will, break the law when undercover. After all, that's often times the only way to get an officer deep UC during, say, a drug investigation. UC (and non-UC Officers, can legally lie when working.) After all, as we all know, the "are you a cop" question so often asked by SWs after being picked up offers absolutely no protection at all.

Or, they may have actually participated and left, both happy, and with "evidence" of the "crime".

Check this out: [url]http://www.unknownnews.org/060214stinkybadges.html[/url]. I have seen other stories like this one before, this was the just the first I found doing a quick Google search. This does contain a nice discussion about the "right" and "wrong" of pursuing a Prostitution Arrest by having sex with the accused though. Some good stuff in there.

Now, as to whether the charges will stick if the UC [i]did[/i] have sexual contact with the masseuse or not, that is a different question. A skilled attorney could probably get the masseuse off (no pun intended) with an entrapment, or coercion defense, unless, of course, the UC had a wire of some kind, (digi-tape recorder, wireless mic, etc.) planted in their clothes, say, in a pocket of their jeans, which captured any negotiating that may have gone on before the sex took place.

Wallie

I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]A report on the York forum describes the bust of Tranquility Spa. In reading the names of those arrested it would appear that this was a spa staffed by American women. There was a very interesting statement in the newspaper article referred to in one of the posts:

"The current investigation took several months, and included trips to the spa by undercover officers who allege they were offered sexual services with massages for extra cash."

OK, so does that mean the officers did or did not accept the services? If they did not accept the services were the ladies not curious about it? If the UCs did accept services will the defendants raise that issue at some point before or at trial?

One has to wonder if the writer of the article attempted to interview the defendants. There is no indication in the article whether interviews were attempted. Wouldn't you think that a journalist would be very interested in asking the women if the UCs actually took advantage of the alleged services offered?

Just some food for thought.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.

[QUOTE=Broome333]I'm by no means a lawyer, but my impression is it depends on the rules of the specific jurisdiction what they are and are not allowed to do. I remember reading of one case where the accused got off because the officer went to far with the transaction. Specifically he was allowed to have sex to a certain point to prove guilt beyond any doubt but was not allowed to orgasm (but did). Other jurisdictions don't allow the officer to have any contact making it very hard for them to be convincing as a UC. Most fall somewhere between the two. Of course we all know that LE doesn't always follow their own rules, much less the law they claim to uphold, so I would not be suprised if he did bust her after he got a piece or two.[/QUOTE]

I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]That's pretty much my understanding too, Broome. My curiosity is if, as the article says, LE went there SEVERAL times before the bust then what were they doing when they were there? And, if they would let the provider touch them but not orgasm, weren't the providers thinking there was something strange about it? But to my original question, I just don't understand why these writers who call themselves journalists don't attempt to interview those arrested. I have yet to read an article or column where a provider was interviewed to get the other side of the story. And, if by some unusual chance the writers are attempting to get an interview but are denied, why aren't they noting in the article or column that the provider(s) declined to comment? As long as the various writers around the country write just what LE wants them to write, it will always be a lopsided story that is not necessarily filled with facts.[/QUOTE]

I think you missed my point, Broome. It wasn't that the person arrested would be released, it is about the fact that every time this happens, the journalists take the boiler plate press release from the police and don't even make an attempt to see what the other side has to say. In any other issue that would make it into the press they would fall all over themselves to get a quote from the person arrested and if they couldn't get a quote they would make note that they tried but the person declined. The unmentioned point is that LE has been proven to lie in these situations in the past and seem to have carte blanche with the press to say anything, whether it's true or not. I would just like to see one newspaper article or TV news story in which the journalist made an attempt to at least ask the person arrested if they are an illegal alien, if they are being forced to work in this business, and if they are forced to stay in the businesses day and night. And I'd like to see just one journalist have the testicular fortitude to ask one if any of the officers patronized the place or accepted any of the services offered. It's not a big deal, but it's a pet peeve of mine that those in the media seem disinterested in seeing if the other side might or might not have something to say.

[QUOTE=Broome333]I would think that the accused would not want the publicity of doing an interview. I mean why go on tape and say something that might come back to haunt you? Its not like the DA is going to read the article and release her just because she says she is innocent. To my suprise I did see a AMP owner on the TV news recently talking about the bust that just took place at their establishment. This was following a bust in Milan IL that you can read about in the Quad city forum in the Iowa section (Its right on the border). My only guess on why the officers had to go back several times is that they didn't get what they were after the first or second time. I have been lucky and always got what I wanted on the first visit, but I have read reports from guys that were told to come back and it would be more fun the next time. The other possibility is that the provider was real good and the UC wanted another piece before he took her down. Who knows?[/QUOTE]

I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?

[QUOTE=Hizark21]I was stopped by a cop for talking to a SW.. The cop asked me if I had been arrested for solicitation and I did not answer because I was busted back in the 80's when I was a new to the game. So I refused because I thought this could be used against me . Am I required to answer this question..?? I don't believe so under my miranda rights. If I had answered yes then how or can this be used against me...?[/QUOTE]

[URL]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=490658&postcount=419[/URL]

[URL]http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal-rights/your-rights-miranda/arrests-interrogations-faq(2).html[/URL]

Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??

I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?

[QUOTE=Hizark21]Thanks for info PsyberZombie, but can you be more specific please..??

I am assuming that the cop was asking if "i have been arrested?" Then this could have been used as probable cause for something else..?[/QUOTE]
You always have the Right to Remain Silent. You don't have to answer [i]any[/i] questions asked of you. [size=-2](Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.)[/size]

Your protection of any of your Rights [i]can not[/i] be converted into a crime. [size=-2]("The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.)[/size]

The Right to Privacy includes the "Individual interest in avoiding discolsure of personal matters". [size=-2](Whalen v Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).)[/size]

You may refuse to provide LE with ID or Information. [size=-2](US v Brown, 731 F2d1491 (1984); Moya v US, 761 F2d322 (1985); Brown v Texas, 443 US 47 (1979)[/size]

Specifically though as to whether a previous arrest for solicitation could be used against you... In court, probably, but maybe not. There are many cases which deal with "prior bad acts", and some have allowed such evidence in, under the theory that it shows a pattern, other cases have severely limited introduction of "prior bad acts" as evidence. An interested one, found here: [url]http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2006/14652.pdf[/url], involves a murder case, and the court considers the various "prior bad acts" cases, and the court found against the use of it as presented in [i]that[/i] case. IMHO, your best bet is to do what you did, and not answer at all.

However, a previous "bad act", again, IMHO, has nothing to do with why you were stopped "today" if you will. I say this because an Officer's questions must relate to the purpose of the stop, or detention is unreasonable. [size=-2](US v Barahona, 990 F2d (1993).)[/size]

Wallie

[size=-2][color=red]I am not an attorney, and this was not legal advice.[/size][/color]

I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.

I had the same problem. The officer charged me with obstruction of justice for not answering questions and because I did not answer the questions fully he considered me lying!
As the lawyer told me this was a BS charge because he did not find anything.
J

If you answer any question it's possible that it could be bogusly construed as obstruction of justice since the officer may try to claim you were lying to him. If you tell him you are choosing the right to remain silent this another matter altogether. If the officer tell you he is arresting you for obstruction of justice then tell him you want his captains name and you are going to file a complaint. Also tell him you want a lawyer.

This will probably stop him unless he is dumb and a jerk.

[QUOTE=Hizark21]I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, that is standard MO. They try to get you to confess to something to make their life easier. Otherwise, all they can do is threaten and cajole.

Wallie

[QUOTE=Orlando J]I had the same problem. The officer charged me with obstruction of justice for not answering questions and because I did not answer the questions fully he considered me lying!
As the lawyer told me this was a BS charge because he did not find anything.
J[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hizark21]If you answer any question it's possible that it could be bogusly construed as obstruction of justice since the officer may try to claim you were lying to him. If you tell him you are choosing the right to remain silent this another matter altogether. If the officer tell you he is arresting you for obstruction of justice then tell him you want his captains name and you are going to file a complaint. Also tell him you want a lawyer.

This will probably stop him unless he is dumb and a jerk.[/QUOTE]
Unless your answers provide PC (Probable Cause), you are free to go. Unless an arrest is made, once your documentation is returned to you, you are free to go. [size=-2]{ Parker v Strong, 717 F. Supp 767 (1989); US v Soto, 988 F2d 1548 (1993) }[/size]

Association with criminals by proximity, conversation or companionship is insufficient to support PC to arrest. [size=-2]{ US v Munoz, 738 F. Supp 800 (1990) }[/size]

You may verbally challenge an Officer's actions/ask for his ID. [size=-2]{ Gainor v Roberts, 973 F2d 1379 (1992) }[/size]

If LE falsely arrests you with no PC, they have no "qualified immunity" against suit/prosecution. [size=-2]{ Malley v Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986) }[/size]

Police Supervisors are liable if they authorize or approve Unconstitutional Conduct of offending Officers. [size=-2]{ White v Farrier, 849 F2d 322 (1988); Ghandi v Detroit P.D., 747 F2d 338 (1984); Stokes v Delcambre, 710 F2d 1120 (1983) }[/size]

Wallie

[size=-2][color=red]I am not an Attorney, and this is not legal advice.[/size][/color]

Here's another fairly well written item that I reposted on my Home Thread. Check it out: [url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=483609&postcount=708[/url]

Wallie

It's is very rare that a cop will make a deal with the prostitute to get her to implicate you. In fact I have never heard of such a case. I have only heard second reports of this.

The cops are more interested in getting the SW's off the street. Chances are she has been arrested before and this is a good way to lock them up for awhile. A lot of SW's have warrants and a cop would much rather go after someone with outsanding warrants because it's adds another notch to their employment record.

This also why it is a good idea to drive a few blocks away before you negotiate with them.

One lesson I have learned since then it is best to pick up a SW with your car facing the street she was walking on. This way it makes it easier to see if a cop is around.

I agree with you all and actually Hizark21 this report triggered me[QUOTE=Hizark21]I am still very irritated that the cop tried to lay a guilt trip on me for exercising my constitutional right to remain silent. The fact that the cop gave some lie about how the SW admitted to solicitation makes me very angry. I knew this was a line of bull and the SW later told me that the cop tried the same line. I realize this is goes on all the time with cops, but is very unethical. The cop also gave me some line about how he arrest me and see if it flew in court.[/QUOTE]

Now read these scenarios and the bolded italic portions that I added:

Let's say I pull over and invite someone into my car. We drive away and an officer pulls my vehicle over. I haven't committed a crime

The officer might have just cause to pull me over. What he witnessed was a female who he knows to be a prostitute enter a males vehicle in an area that is "infested" with drug dealers and prostitutes. What he witnessed was "Suspected"; he has "Just Cause" to investigate.
[b][i] you need to cooperate[/i][/b]

So he turns on the Christmas tree lights and you pull over...

LESSON 1: DON'T ADMIT TO ANYTHING - EVER!

The officer probably will leave you in your vehicle and ask your young friend to step to the back. Depending on the SW, and your relationship with her she's going to do one of two things. LIE is one of them. She DOESN'T want to go to jail. And if she get arrested she would appreciate it if the officer charges her with the minimal statute. She likely to cooperate with the officer. So if the two of you talked pay-for-play she'll "implicate" you.
[b][i] you also need to cooperate. Give simple short answers
I just offered her a ride...[/i][/b]

Hopefully you just said hello and didn't get into any $$$ yet. As far as you're concerned you haven't done anything illegal. The officer isn't stupid. He knows you haven't broken the law - and, he knows exactly why you picked up your new female "friend." HE will start a little speech about prostitutes, drug dealers, STDs...yada yada yada... and inform you that your new friend has been arrested numerous times for prostitution and possession...Don't answer anything but, "I haven't done anything wrong. I just offered her a ride...she looked like she needed a lift." REMEMBER - THE OFFICER IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.

So let's say you just picked her up; she hops in, does a Jimmy check and the two off you start talking half-and-half, ben - jackson and abe...and then the cop take you down. I'd be real worried about then 'cause she's not going to attempt to lie her way out of it to save your ass. You're both probably going for a ride. If she's lucky with minimum charges if she's not holding any dope. If you're lucky it will be your 1st offense - it still will hurt your wallet.

LESSON 2: THE COP ISN'T YOUR FRIEND Don't give him (or her) too much information. If your friend hasn't already admitted to "solicitation" or your "offer to" then all the officers can hope for is for you to ADMIT YOUR GUILT.
[b][i] that's when the officer would start pushing you. The officer will tell you "you are lying to me" "you are challenging my intelligence" "tell me the truth so I can help you"
Here are some more lies they may tell you:

* "You're not a suspect -just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."

* "If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"

* "If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."

* "All of your friends have cooperated, and we let them go home. You're the only one left."

this and that "now that you did not tell me the truth I am placing you under arrest" [/i][/b]
[QUOTE=Wallie]Unfortunately, that is standard MO. They try to get you to confess to something to make their life easier. Otherwise, all they can do is threaten and cajole.

Wallie[/QUOTE]
If your friend has already "implicated" you, the officers are probably trying to get you to implicate yourself. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! DON'T ADMIT ANYTHING! EVER!!!
Even though she's a known prostitute her accusation alone might get you arrested - it might not get you charged. You might be released without charges at your arraignment. If both of you admit your involvement your both in trouble and will probably be charged.
[b][i]The officer might charge you with obstruction of justice but the lawyer knows this is a BS charge.[/i][/b]
[url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3280[/url]

1.The cop may have reason to investigate, but you are not obligated to give any info. Your 5th amendment rights remain no matter what.

2. I doubt most cops will do this. If he persists tell him you want to speak to top person on duty at that time. Also tell him that you are going to file a complaint.

Say LE somehow finds out that it is you posting about sw's. Could they use what you have wrote as a confession in court. Or do you have to be caught in the act? Say you take a pic. of a sw in your car and she finds out you posted it, then reports you. Can this be used?

Dave

While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:
[QUOTE=Wallie]
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer [b]will not[/b] go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their [i][b]FIRST[/i][/b] loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the [i][b]LAST[/i][/b] thing they are loyal to.

For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.
[/QUOTE]
Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
[url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424[/url]

It is incorrect that because a lawyer is an officer of the court that they are not supposed to do anything that displeases the court. Lawyers are officers of the court and are bound by the rules of the court, which are procedural in nature, and by the law. They are not supposed to do anything to violate those rules or the law, but if you ever watch a trial in person you will see that attorneys frequently do things that displease the court. They have a cannon of ethics and certain legal obligations to a client that they must follow or face malpractice suits and/or disciplinary action from the bar. As an officer of the court, they cannot condone or participate in a defense they know violates laws, court rules, or that constitutes knowledge of perjury by the defendant. It is possible that an attorney may not go out of his or her way to make sure your rights were not violated during an encounter with LE but if you are the one making the assertion that your rights were violated then the burden of proof falls upon you to prove they were violated.

Attorneys have a number of legal and ethical obligations to their clients. That obligation may be fiduciary, may be an obilgation of confidentiality, and/or one of an aggressive defense. An aggressive defense does not include perjury or other illegal actions to beat a charge. If an attorney determines that a client might perjure himself or otherwise violate the law or court rules, then the attorney has an obligation to advise the client against it. If the client will not cooperte then most attorneys would refuse to take the case or withdraw as the representative.

Like anyone else you do business with - doctors, auto mechanics, contractors - or lawyers, if you have bad vibes or are dissatisfied you need to look for someone else to do business with.


[QUOTE=Orlando J]While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:

Originally Posted by Wallie
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.

For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.


Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
[url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424[/url][/QUOTE]

I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.

Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.

Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.

This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.

Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!

BBB

[QUOTE=Bad Bad Boy]I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.

THIS SEEMS TO CONTRADICT YOUR NEXT SENTENCE. IF SO MANY LAWYERS HAVE WOUND UP IN JAIL, DISBARRED OR PENALIZED IN SOME MANNER, DOES THIS NOT INDICATE THAT THE SYSTEM OF ETHICS AND RULES WORKS? ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ONLY A FEW HONOR THE CODE OF ETHICS AND COURT RULES OF PROCEDURE, THEN WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF LAWYERS NOT IN JAIL, DISABARRED OR OTHERWISE PENALIZED?

Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.

YOU COULD ALSO SAY THAT ABOUT DOCTORS, MECHANICS AND MANY OTHER PROFESSIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT PARTICULAR ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DEFENSE YOU RECEIVE YOU CAN ALWAYS SEEK OUT A SOLE PRACTITIONER WHO HAS NO PARA-LEGALS OR OTHER PARA-PROFESSIONALS AND WORKS FROM A SMALL OFFICE. THEY WON'T HAVE THE OVERHEAD AND THE PER HOUR CHARGE WILL BE LESS. HOWEVER, THAT LAWYER'S EXPERIENCE MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO CHARGES THE LOCAL MARKET RATE FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND HIS ATTENTION TO YOUR CASE MAY BE DISTRACTED BY DEMANDS FROM OTHER CASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU JUST MIGHT GET A HELL OF A LOT MORE PASSION ABOUT YOUR CASE FROM HIM THAN YOU MIGHT GET FROM A LARGER LAW FIRM.

Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.

WHETHER OR NOT A MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS IS IN THE EYE OF THE DEFENDANT. IF IT IS KEEPING THE DEFENDANT OUT OF JAIL OR PERMITTING THE DEFENDANT TIME TO GATHER MONEY TO PAY A FINE (AND DEFENDANTS KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OF CHARGES OR NOT) THEN THE MOTIONS MAY NOT BE AS FRIVOLOUS AS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT MIGHT THINK. AS FOR DISCOVERY, I SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T WANT MY LAWYER GOING INTO COURT IF HE FEELS FULL DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN MET. AND IF IT HASN'T, THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE PROSECUTOR, NOT THE DEFENSE LAWYER. AS FOR SENSLESS HEARINGS, HOW ABOUT THE HEARINGS IN WHICH CERTAIN EVIDENCE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CASE GETS QUASHED OR THE PROSECUTION IS OTHERWISE HAMSTRUNG A LITTLE MORE? WOULD A DEFENDANT THINK THAT WAS A SENSELESS HEARING?

This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.

THAT'S LIKE SAYING AN ACCOUNTANT CHARGES BY THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE. WHAT IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO RECEIVE A REFUND, SHOULD YOU NOT BE CHARGED FOR THE WORK THAT PERSON DOES? LIKE ACCOUNTANTS, ATTORNEYS HAVE A MINIMUM FEE AND IF HE HAPPENS TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE YOUR CASE QUICKLY THEN HE MAKES OUT. HOWEVER, THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOU WILL INDEED BE CHARGED BY THE HOUR FOR THE WORK. AS FOR THE FINANCIAL ASSETS, THE ATTORNEY FOR BOTH SIDES IN A DIVORCE CASE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE BOTH PARTIES COMPLETE ONE. THE JUDGE REQUIRES IT. NOT TO PROVIDE IT WOULD PUT THAT ATTORNEY IN A POTENTIAL POSITION TO BE DISCIPLINED BY THE COURT. IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN OVERCHARGED COMPARED TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHERE YOU LIVE WHO HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND THEIR CASES TOOK THE SIMILAR TIME AND ATTENTION AS YOURS, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OR WRITE TO YOUR STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL. OF COURSE YOU CAN INSIST THAT HE NOT DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GO TO COURT FOR YOU BUT HE WILL PROBABLY NOT CONTINUE TO REPRESENT YOU.

Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!

SOME ARE INDEED RICH AND SOME ARE NOT. IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CHARGE, IT'S NOT LIKE A RETAIL OPERATION WHERE YOU MAKE THE INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THEN JUST REPLENISH YOUR INVENTORY AS YOU SELL IT. LIKE ANY BUSINESS, THOUGH, ATTORNEYS HAVE OVERHEAD THAT INCLUDES RENT OR OFFICE MORTGAGE, ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWER, PROPERTY TAXES, PAYROLL TAXES, PAYROLL AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE LEGAL RESOURCES THEY NEED. LAW BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED JUST ABOUT EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND TO NOT BUY THEM EVERY YEAR WOULD BE POTENTIAL MALPRACTICE IF HE FAILED BECASUE HE DIDN'T HAVE UPDATED RESOURCES. HE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RESOURCES LIKE WESTLAW OR OTHER SOURCES AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PRACTICE, THAT CAN AMOUNT TO SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ITSELF. I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE WHAT AN ATTORNEY CHARGES ME BUT I'M REALISTIC ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND RESEARCH THEY HAVE TO CONDUCT, THE COST OF MANAGING A BUSINESS, AND THE ALTERNATIVE OUTCOME I MIGHT FACE THAT IN THE LONG RUN WOULD COST ME A GREAT DEAL MORE MONEY. IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL LAWYER, THE END RESULT COULD BE THE LOSS OF YOUR FREEDOM IF YOU DON'T USE ONE OR IF YOU HAMSTRING HIM IN DOING HIS JOB.

Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/QUOTE]

Warshak v. USA

Update On 6/18/07: [b]Sixth Circuit issues opinion upholding district court's injunction against secret warrantless seizures of email[/b]

In Warshak v. USA, EFF is fighting to make sure that your email is as safe against government intrusion as your phone calls, postal mail, or the private papers you keep in your home.

This case was brought by Steven Warshak to stop the government's repeated secret searches and seizures of his stored email using the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). In a landmark ruling, the district court held that the SCA violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing secret, warrantless searches and seizures of email stored with a third party.

The government, which has routinely used the SCA over the past 20 years to secretly obtain stored email without a warrant, appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is now primed to be the first circuit court ever to decide whether email users have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their stored email.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, EFF and a coalition of civil liberties groups argue in support of the district court's ruling. Email users clearly expect that their inboxes are private, but the government argues the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect emails at all when they are stored with an ISP or a webmail provider like Hotmail or Gmail. EFF disagrees and argues that the Fourth Amendment applies online just as strongly as it does offline.
Legal Documents

* Circuit Decision Upholding District Court's Injunction [PDF, 3.5M] June 18, 2007
* District Court Order Enjoining Government from Secretly Seizing Email Without a Warrant July 21, 2006
* Government's Opening Brief to Sixth Circuit October 11, 2006
* Warshak's Brief to Sixth Circuit November 13, 2006
* Law Professors' Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 85K] November 21, 2006
* EFF, ACLU and CDT Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 95K] Nov 22, 2006
* Government's Reply Brief to Sixth Circuit December 13, 2006

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the
travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/QUOTE]
The USSC made [i]exactly[/i] the right decision.
[QUOTE=The Aforementioned Article][size=-2][url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url][/size]

...Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. [b]The state has since conceded there was no basis to stop the car.[/b][/QUOTE]
I added the emphasis to the above quote from the article.

Detention [b]must[/b] be based on specific, articulable facts, and rational inferences. "Unaparticularized suspicion" and "inarticulate hunches" are not enough. A valid "investigative stop" [b]must[/b] be based on "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS). [size=-2]{ US v Briggman, 931 F2d 705 (1991) }; {US v Strickland, 902 F2d 937 (1990) }; { US v Strahan, 984 F2d 155 (1993) }[/size]

Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Ammendment [size=-2]{ US v Eldridge, 984 F2d 943 (1993) }[/size]
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply...[/QUOTE]
Not "might apply". It [i]does[/i] apply. That's exactly the point Justice Souter made.

Wallie

And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.[/QUOTE]
I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.

You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.

However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.

Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.

Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.

A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.

The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.

[size=-2][i]I can already see the flames headed my way from this....[/size][/i]

Wallie

All excellent points, Wallie, and very germaine to the subject. I think we think the same, just in a little different way. People absolutely should know their rights and if appropriate, stand up for them. Having said that, however, in some instances it can be a very expensive fight to do so. I agree that far too many people don't know their rights, don't understand their rights, or feel that because they think they have the right to do something then they must have the right to do that something.


[QUOTE=Wallie]I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.

You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.

However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.

Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.

Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.

A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.

The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.

[size=-2][i]I can already see the flames headed my way from this....[/size][/i]

Wallie[/QUOTE]

There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.

So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.

[QUOTE=Hizark21]There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.

So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.[/QUOTE]
Hizark, can you convert it to PDF, and post it here for us to check out too? Or, is there an online version we can check out? (Or, just list that case name, and court ref, and I can find a copy, although a PDF would be great.)

Wallie

Wallie, you are going to love this one. A Louisiana attorney was acquitted on charges of failing to file income tax returns. [url]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321[/url]

While it was a federal court making the decision, I wouldn't hang my hat on it just yet. It's possible that the IRS will want to get it into the Supreme Court. If it does go to the Supreme Court and gets overturned, everyone who used this case as support for not filing income tax returns will probably pay some stiff penalities.

This video was made in Canada. More recently, these systems have begun to see use in the United States to quickly pick out vehicles without insurance, unregistered, reported stolen, involved in crimes, etc… that have been entered into a database.

Combined with the ever growing camera surveillance program, it would appear that Big Brother is trying to make our sport harder to play than it already is.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGY1CD9y_4]Link[/url]


Benchseats Rock

I know it's been said here before and possibly in different ways, but the best thing one can do if they are stopped in their car is this. Respectfully and without anger or confrontation simpley say when stopped, "Am I under arrest? If I am I would like an attorney before answering questions. If I am not under arrest, please allow me to leave." There is no law prohibiting you from saying that over and over and over again every time another question is asked. The reason you say it respectfully and without anger and confrontation is because police officers are trained in the art of questioning you, cajoling you, and instigating you to get frustrated, angry, or confrontational, thereby blurting out something you should not say.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]All excellent points, Wallie, and very germaine to the subject. I think we think the same, just in a little different way. People absolutely should know their rights and if appropriate, stand up for them. Having said that, however, in some instances it can be a very expensive fight to do so. I agree that far too many people don't know their rights, don't understand their rights, or feel that because they think they have the right to do something then they must have the right to do that something.[/QUOTE]This post I am sure will keep me from forgetting any info in the future but I used to be a state trooper until I retired due to an on the job injury at the ripe old age of 25. Nothing like a medical retirement throught he state drawing 80% plus allowed to get a civiliian job.

In training for the state police (I am unsure about city/county) they went over court cases with us wins for LE and losses for LE so we could learn the right way and the wrong way. This included everything from murders to traffic stops. I know Where I was a trooper the academy was 37 weeks 9 oclock Sunday night until they let you go home on Friday. They took us out and did all kinds of things. I entered the academy before I was 21 turned 21 while I was there and they used me to buy liquor and beer from bars to strip clubs to stores. They had multiple vans carrying my 32 classmates with a wire on me. After each time (about 20 a night for 2 weeks) we went to the acadamey and went over everything I said clerk did etc with the DA from the county the academy was located. This is the type training some departments get so never think you know more about your rights then I do. There was an incident where a gentleman I pulled over on the interstate for sppeding refused to sign the citation. You must do this or the police officer has the right to take your before the judge right then and there. Needless to say a little pepper spray later he was before the judge and sentto jail until trial (he was from out of state) no bond and his vehicle was impounded. Verdict? Guilty for failure to follow a lawful order, failure to sign a citiation, resisting arrest, speeding, improper exhaust, improper display of a license plate, unsigned registration card, no proof of insurance, and several other charges I can't remember. The total was 21. There is not one vehicle on the road to day that is 100% legal according to state laws. Anytime an officer wants to cite you or pull you over there will be probable cause. Who knew a license plate holder was against the law?

Fact is most cops are trained and trianed right to beat you in court. Small towns excluded. Yes I participate in the hobby no they don't have to tell you they are a cop, yes if you ask them to touch you they can and if you ask to touch them and they say yes you can. Dosent matter if you offer to pay you are busted even if you both have been touching? Reason why? It was recorded and consentual. The best way is to just say do you need a ride? Looking for a date? Etc and don't talk about anything sexual or money until you are SEVERAL blocks away. Most if not all depts. Will not let a femal officer into a car for a period of time for that long if at all due to safety. They will find a reason to stop you to get her out if she should get in your car if you don't make an offer quick best of luck guys and stay safe. If you have any questions about this please feel free to PM me.

[QUOTE=Firedigg]This post I am sure will keep me from forgetting any info in the future but I used to be a state trooper until I retired due to an on the job injury at the ripe old age of 25. Nothing like a medical retirement throught he state drawing 80% plus allowed to get a civiliian job.

In training for the state police (I am unsure about city/county) they went over court cases with us wins for LE and losses for LE so we could learn the right way and the wrong way. This included everything from murders to traffic stops. I know Where I was a trooper the academy was 37 weeks 9 oclock Sunday night until they let you go home on Friday. They took us out and did all kinds of things. I entered the academy before I was 21 turned 21 while I was there and they used me to buy liquor and beer from bars to strip clubs to stores. They had multiple vans carrying my 32 classmates with a wire on me. After each time (about 20 a night for 2 weeks) we went to the acadamey and went over everything I said clerk did etc with the DA from the county the academy was located. This is the type training some departments get so never think you know more about your rights then I do. There was an incident where a gentleman I pulled over on the interstate for sppeding refused to sign the citation. You must do this or the police officer has the right to take your before the judge right then and there. Needless to say a little pepper spray later he was before the judge and sentto jail until trial (he was from out of state) no bond and his vehicle was impounded. Verdict? Guilty for failure to follow a lawful order, failure to sign a citiation, resisting arrest, speeding, improper exhaust, improper display of a license plate, unsigned registration card, no proof of insurance, and several other charges I can't remember. The total was 21. There is not one vehicle on the road to day that is 100% legal according to state laws. Anytime an officer wants to cite you or pull you over there will be probable cause. Who knew a license plate holder was against the law?

Fact is most cops are trained and trianed right to beat you in court. Small towns excluded. Yes I participate in the hobby no they don't have to tell you they are a cop, yes if you ask them to touch you they can and if you ask to touch them and they say yes you can. Dosent matter if you offer to pay you are busted even if you both have been touching? Reason why? It was recorded and consentual. The best way is to just say do you need a ride? Looking for a date? Etc and don't talk about anything sexual or money until you are SEVERAL blocks away. Most if not all depts. Will not let a femal officer into a car for a period of time for that long if at all due to safety. They will find a reason to stop you to get her out if she should get in your car if you don't make an offer quick best of luck guys and stay safe. If you have any questions about this please feel free to PM me.[/QUOTE]

Firedigg, I mean no disrespect to you or any other person who earns an honest living enforcing the law. I think most of us believe that there are many important laws to be enforced. However, based on the fact that you concede having worked in LE and partake in the hobby, I suspect that you and many others both active and retired, probably feel the same deep down as we do. When it comes to AMPs, which in most of the experiences here you will see are found by hobbyists to be clean, as safe as having sex with another person can be, and discreet, tax money could be much better spent on other legal issues.

I've never read or seen on television any reports (nor have I experienced them my self in the AMPs I have visited or for that matter with any of the ladies I have developed some kind of relationship with (including live in), problems with selling drugs, taking drugs, mugging, or even stealing. I'm not saying stealing does not occur but it has never happened to me in many visits to many different AMPs.

Having said that, what would have happened to the individual you pulled over on the interstate if he had said to you, "Am I under arrest? If I am I would like a lawyer before answering any questions. If not, may I go?" Would you have pepper sprayed him for saying that? If you asked him to sign the citation and he said, "I am unwilling at this point to sign the citation so if you need to take me before a judge now I am willing to cooperate and go before the judge," Would you have pepper sprayed him?

Or, in fact, did you pepper spray him because he became combative and escalated the incident to the point where you had to pepper spray him to protect yourself and quite possibly him? If this is the case, those facts are far different than what we have talked about in this particular part of the forum.

I want to be sure that no one is mistaking what you are saying. So, I'm asking again for no other reason than clarification, did you pepper spray this person because he refused to sign the citation or did you pepper spray him because he acted like an ass and became combative and potentially dangerous? This is a very important distinction.

This is not about how smart you are or how much you know about the law and rights, it's not about how smart I am or how much I know about the law and rights, nor is it about how smart anyone on this forum is or about how much they know about the law and rights. It's about not foolishly putting yourself in the position of saying or doing something that can create other problems for you than just having visited an AMP.

As for streetwalkers, if you believe you have probable cause to stop someone because you saw them talking to one, thereby giving you the probable cause, what will you do if they say to you in a calm and respectful manner, "If I am under arrest I would like to have a lawyer before I answer any questions. If I am not under arrest, can I please leave?" If that's all you get out of the person, will you pepper spray him?

If you write him a citation for, say, freqenting a known area where prostitution is solicited (assuming only strictly for the sake of discussion here that is a legitmate charge) and he says, "I am sorry but I am unwilling to sign the citation at this time," will you pepper spray him?

And if you then say to him, "If you won't sign the citation I will take you to a judge right now," and he responds, "If you have to do that I will cooperate and either follow you to the Judge's location or ride with you there," will you pepper spray him?"

If you read back through this forum you will see two things. First, you will see some angry posts or posts by individuals who are frustrated and learn after the fact that they perhaps should have handled the whole thing differently than the idiot you stopped on the interstate. Second, you will see responses to many of those posts urging the angry or frustrated posters not to get carried away, be more careful how they conduct themselves, and to not, repeat, not go toe to toe with an officer of the law.

That, my friend, is far more about what this particular forum is about than anything else.

If you or some other cop happens to stop me for not having a license plate holder (whether my state has or does not have a law requiring one), I may or may not agree to sign the citation. However, if I do not sign it, I will be and will continue to urge others here to be respectful to the officer, not express anger or be confrontational, and stick to the simple words, "I am sorry but I am unwilling to sign the citation at this time." If told I must accompany the officer to see a Judge at that very moment I will say, again with respect and without confrontation, "I am willing to accompany you now to see the judge."

I suspect that you are unable to find any law or cite any case law that gives you unfettered authority for pepper spraying me or anyone else who is being cooperative. I also suspect that if you do pepper spray someone under the circumstance I'm outlining here you and/or your department would face charges of excessive force. Whether you win or lose will probably be more a province for a court to decide than it will be for you or the department to decide.

The operative word in your post is MOST, as in, "most cops are trained..." What about those who are not? What about those who ignore their training? What about those (and everyone is human) who allow their anger and frustration to carry them away? What about those who eventually turn out to be rogue cops?

And, if all or most cops are trained not to lose, why do defense lawyers make so much money? Why do some of the cases (traffic or otherwise) make it in to the court? Why do some of them get resolved in favor of the defendant? In fact, if cops are correct most or even all of the time, then why do we even need courts? We need them because there is that pesky thing called a constitution. And the basis for this thread is - be aware of your constitutional rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

And let's face it Fire. It matters not one whit how smart you think you are, or how smart I think I am, or how smart anyone else on here thinks they are, or how smart any Chief of Police or State Police Commander thinks they are, or how smart any judge thinks he or she is. We are all human. We will all make mistakes throughout our lives. It's just the nature of the human condition.

Everyone should watch the video on this page, and be ready to assert your Rights if needed.

IMO, this is a very well done video, and outlines some of the information we have talked about here previously.

[URL]http://iwantmylawyer.org/busted.html[/URL]

Wallie

In its ongoing efforts to rid the state of Florida of anything related to sex, police have now arrested ad executives for accepting adult services ads. Read the story at [url]http://www.miamiherald.com/775/story/277880.html[/url].

QUOTE: "In Sweden [where paying for sex was criminalized only in 1999], men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days' salary, or a six-month jail term."

[Again, that's 40 *DAYS* salary! Talk about Draconian.]

"Street prostitution has reduced by up to 80 per cent, officials say."

Here's the full article from the Daily Mail ( [url]www.dailymail.co.uk[/url] ):

Buying sex should be illegal, says Women's Minister Harman
21st December 2007

Paying women for sex should be outlawed, Harriet Harman said yesterday.

Her remarks put her at odds with the Government, which is considering relaxing the law to protect vice girls.

At present, it is illegal to solicit sex, or to kerb-crawl, but not illegal to pay a woman for sex.

Women's Minister Miss Harman, an avowed feminist, said a ban is needed to stem the demand for sex workers which encourages human trafficking.

She said Britain should follow Sweden, where paying for sex was criminalised in 1999.

"My own personal view is that's what we need to do as a next step," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Just because something has always gone on, it doesn't mean you just wring your hands and say there's nothing we can do about it."

In Sweden, men who flout the law face a fine of 40 days' salary, or a six-month jail term.

Street prostitution has reduced by up to 80 per cent, officials say.

But the [British] Government's recent prostitution strategy suggested that allowing more than one woman to work from a brothel could improve their safety.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who is responsible for the issue, said a review would begin early next year with a visit by ministers to Sweden.