Printable View
[blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]
[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely argumentative[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue]
I saw this one walking and watching traffic on Clarcona-Ocee and Edgewater just now. I also saw an unmarked pick up truck near by. No clue if those have anything to do with one another, and I'm not willing to find out.
Huge Ass Peaches is unavailable. Damn.
Missionary Man.
LaLa is unavailable. Good Pussy.
Missionary Man.
[QUOTE=Grain56;6343281]NEW TOOL AGAINST BCBJC: The new tool seems to be charging them with Loitering for Unlawful Purpose. They can pick them up and take them on Vacation for the charge. In a casual search, it looks like it can be up to a $500 fine.
No more needing to do a sting. It appears that they can simply "identify" someone that is somewhere doing something that a normal law abiding person would not be there or doing and charge them...
Grain 56.[/QUOTE]Uncle continues to use this charge since last reported on last week. They aren't using it near as often, but it is apparent the girls being charged are BCBJC Girls as they are all somewhat attractive, from out of town and is happening in the Greater Mall area down to the OQ.
From what I am seeing, this statute is from the 2022 session (so appears to be new) and covers many forms of loitering, drunkenness, house parties, prowling, etc. In reading the Statute, I interpret that they can charge you if they "think" you are somewhere you don't belong or somewhere you shouldn't be, based solely on their opinion. I would take this as even being in or at a Trap House or other hood-house of ill-repute.
You are allowed to "explain" to LEO why you are there, if they don't buy it or you refuse to answer or flee, they can charge you as well. This part seems to contradict the fact that you don't have to speak to LEO, just show identity. If you aren't under arrest, you should be allowed to leave quietly.
Whatever the end result of this new tool LEO has, it doesn't appear any dudes have been charged with this specific charge to date, just ladies. I am still trying to read more specifics on the girls they have snagged so far, but the most of the check-in paperwork is still under lock and key at the front desk on Orange Ave. It has been requested to be viewed. Maybe in another day or two we'll see those details.
I am not a lawyer, maybe one of our well-known "Legal Eagles" on USASG (that's you Vincent Gambini) can shed some light.
Grain 56.
[QUOTE=SpaceCoast2;6343373]Where can you usually find this little beauty? So so sweet! I don't go on safari very often, but I would venture out into the wild for this rare treat..[/QUOTE]Is an awesome date. I know many you have seen her and none were disappointed. That's the good news! Now for the bad news. I guess she's actually too good. A guy I know as well as her decided to do a LTR. So I don't know if and when she will be available again.
RP.
[QUOTE=Grain56;6346177]Uncle continues to use this charge since last reported on last week. They aren't using it near as often, but it is apparent the girls being charged are BCBJC Girls as they are all somewhat attractive, from out of town and is happening in the Greater Mall area down to the OQ.
From what I am seeing, this statute is from the 2022 session (so appears to be new) and covers many forms of loitering, drunkenness, house parties, prowling, etc. In reading the Statute, I interpret that they can charge you if they "think" you are somewhere you don't belong or somewhere you shouldn't be, based solely on their opinion. I would take this as even being in or at a Trap House or other hood-house of ill-repute.
You are allowed to "explain" to LEO why you are there, if they don't buy it or you refuse to answer or flee, they can charge you as well. This part seems to contradict the fact that you don't have to speak to LEO, just show identity. If you aren't under arrest, you should be allowed to leave quietly.
Whatever the end result of this new tool LEO has, it doesn't appear any dudes have been charged with this specific charge to date, just ladies. I am still trying to read more specifics on the girls they have snagged so far, but the most of the check-in paperwork is still under lock and key at the front desk on Orange Ave. It has been requested to be viewed. Maybe in another day or two we'll see those details.
I am not a lawyer, maybe one of our well-known "Legal Eagles" on USASG (that's you Vincent Gambini) can shed some light.
Grain 56.[/QUOTE]I don't believe they would push this on dudes simply because of the fact they don't know who this dude maybe until it's too late for them. The ladies they are hitting with this they pretty much are aware of who and what they are but this could eventually backfire on them as well. I have always wondered how this is not a violation of a persons fundamental right to be anywhere they wish to be without a reason. Eventually this law will bite them in the ass when they arrest that one person who is just hanging around bored and they have deep pockets to fight and drag the city thru the mud.
[QUOTE=Mikaeles;6346711]I don't believe they would push this on dudes simply because of the fact they don't know who this dude maybe until it's too late for them. The ladies they are hitting with this they pretty much are aware of who and what they are but this could eventually backfire on them as well. I have always wondered how this is not a violation of a persons fundamental right to be anywhere they wish to be without a reason. Eventually this law will bite them in the ass when they arrest that one person who is just hanging around bored and they have deep pockets to fight and drag the city thru the mud.[/QUOTE]It won't really bite them that hard.
They are suing this to send a message and make drug arrests.
They are only charging them with municipal ordinance violations which aren't really worth the time or inconvenience of fighting.
This is the same as the old Cruising law.
If you passed by a spot three times in a given time period they could assume you were cruising and pull you.
It took a little while for the negative press to hit and they stopped using it.
But as far as I know it's still on the books.
Trail was empty last night. Saw one hot spinner out by the mall, guess she caught LEOs attention when she was talking to someone in a truck. Circled around a few times until LEO had taken the driver and the girl. Check this morning and saw the girl had a Loitering for Unlawful Purpose charge. This is just disappointing.
I saw that spinner you're talking about funny thing she was with 2 other girls dressed in a similar way when I passed them the first time, circled back and she was standing alone in the parking lot where she was later arrested. It's looking like the mall area will be dry for a few weeks or until LEO decides to do something else.
[QUOTE=Carl3666;6347380]Trail was empty last night. Saw one hot spinner out by the mall, guess she caught LEOs attention when she was talking to someone in a truck. Circled around a few times until LEO had taken the driver and the girl. Check this morning and saw the girl had a Loitering for Unlawful Purpose charge. This is just disappointing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grain56;6346177]Uncle continues to use this charge since last reported on last week. They aren't using it near as often, but it is apparent the girls being charged are BCBJC Girls as they are all somewhat attractive, from out of town and is happening in the Greater Mall area down to the OQ.
From what I am seeing, this statute is from the 2022 session (so appears to be new) and covers many forms of loitering, drunkenness, house parties, prowling, etc. In reading the Statute, I interpret that they can charge you if they "think" you are somewhere you don't belong or somewhere you shouldn't be, based solely on their opinion. I would take this as even being in or at a Trap House or other hood-house of ill-repute.
You are allowed to "explain" to LEO why you are there, if they don't buy it or you refuse to answer or flee, they can charge you as well. This part seems to contradict the fact that you don't have to speak to LEO, just show identity. If you aren't under arrest, you should be allowed to leave quietly.
Whatever the end result of this new tool LEO has, it doesn't appear any dudes have been charged with this specific charge to date, just ladies. I am still trying to read more specifics on the girls they have snagged so far, but the most of the check-in paperwork is still under lock and key at the front desk on Orange Ave. It has been requested to be viewed. Maybe in another day or two we'll see those details.
I am not a lawyer, maybe one of our well-known "Legal Eagles" on USASG (that's you Vincent Gambini) can shed some light.
Grain 56.[/QUOTE]Someone call for me? No problem, here's my two cents!
The State of Florida has had a loitering and prowling statute on the books for years, the current form of the statute has been in place for at least 25 years. As to that statute, it's a second degree misdemeanor, the lowest level of criminal offense we have in Florida. For an arrest, LE needs to observe a person in a place, at a time or manner that would be unusual for a law abiding citizen and under circumstances that warrant a reasonable cause for concern for the safety of persons or property.
I've got a lot of cousins, seems one or the other is always getting arrested. One of my cousins was arrested awhile back and charged with loitering. He decided to go to trial and have the State prove up the charges. To do so, the prosecutors would need to prove two things beyond any reasonable doubt to the jury, that my cousin was in a place at a time or in some manner that was unusual for a law abiding citizen and that said loitering warranted justifiable concern for persons or property. In my cousins case, he was in the alleyway behind a shopping plaza at about midnight when all the businesses had closed hours before. LE saw him turn a few door knobs on the back doors of some businesses and also look up for security cameras. Then, when LE drove up, my cousin tried to hide behind a dumpster. He was found guilty at trial and filed an appeal. The appellate court ruled that my cousins actions were sufficient to leave the conviction in place.
It seems like legal challenges are more likely to prevail with city or county ordinances. I was at a pool hall in Tampa a few years back. The guy I was playing wanted to challenge a city ordinance. Seems Tampa had passed an ordinance outlawing loitering for purposes of prostitution. That ordinance made it unlawful to be standing by the roadway and talking to other people or waving at cars going by. As I was sinking the 8-ball and taking his money, I told him he had a great issue to challenge, the court should rule that the actions contemplated by the ordinance could easily be actions taken by normal, law-abiding citizens.
On the next table, my girl Mona Lisa was working some other sucker. Seems he had been arrested recently for violating another Tampa ordinance. Much like the prostitution one, it made it a crime to loiter for purposes of selling, purchasing, possessing or transferring controlled substances. Having helped me with legal research, Mona Lisa knew to tell that guy, as she was working him for a couple Franklins, that he should challenge his arrest too. She told him that this ordinance also possibly made it criminal to beckon, stop, wave or call to passers-by, actions that could be taken on any given day by any number of law-abiding citizens. Sure, he lost a couple hundred bucks to my girl, but he got a valuable legal lesson, while the state law on loitering has been upheld many times, cities and counties have had a difficult time taking that law and crafting something stricter, something geared towards other specific crimes such as prostitution or drug sales.
Unfortunately, none of the local ladies were at the pool hall so I didn't have the chance to chat any of them up or get the details on how / why they got arrested. If anyone has looked up those details yet, I'd certainly be interested!
Again, the state law is a second degree misdemeanor, something prosecutors typically don't much care about. I'd guess most prosecutors will want to get rid of that charge as quickly as they can, probably just court costs and nothing more. As to LE, they likely continue to make the arrests because they can. It gets the suspect off the streets at that moment in time, has them processed through the jail and then, potentially, has them think more about their actions the next time. Combining these things, I'd say LE looks at it as a tool to use to "clean up" the streets, regardless of what the prosecutors do on down the road. In fact, wouldn't surprise me if, at some point, some chief or sheriff makes a statement about how his agency is doing everything it can to "rid our city" of this criminal element but the damn prosecutors keep giving away plea deals like candy. Age old way to pass the buck! If you're looking to avoid an arrest for loitering, don't do what my cousin did, don't be in a place where there's no legitimate reason to be there, don't test door knobs on closed businesses, don't hide behind the dumpster. If you're just walking along, or driving along and keep on moving, you should be fine. If you get stopped anyway, be prepared with a plausible explanation. While there's no way to guarantee you won't get arrested, those things should go a long way towards avoiding it.
[QUOTE=VincentGambini;6347551]Someone call for me? No problem, here's my two cents!
The State of Florida has had a loitering and prowling statute on the books for years, the current form of the statute has been in place for at least 25 years. As to that statute, it's a second degree misdemeanor, the lowest level of criminal offense we have in Florida. For an arrest, LE needs to observe a person in a place, at a time or manner that would be unusual for a law abiding citizen and under circumstances that warrant a reasonable cause for concern for the safety of persons or property...
...while the state law on loitering has been upheld many times, cities and counties have had a difficult time taking that law and crafting something stricter, something geared towards other specific crimes such as prostitution or drug sales....
...As to LE, they likely continue to make the arrests because they can. It gets the suspect off the streets at that moment in time, has them processed through the jail and then, potentially, has them think more about their actions the next time. Combining these things, I'd say LE looks at it as a tool to use to "clean up" the streets, regardless of what the prosecutors...Age old way to pass the buck! [/QUOTE]Thanks for your input. Welcomed info as usual.
The interesting thing, just as you mentioned that other jurisdictions have tried to up the ante, is that with these BCBJC Girls they are using a County Ordinance (CNTY 26.51) that appears to be "stricter" and more aggressive than the good old fashioned FL statute (FL 856.021) that they usually use or were using. The county statute specifically mentions loitering for Prostitution, assignation or lewdness; Soliciting / procuring another to commit prostitution; Panhandling or solicitation; Gambling; Sale or purchase of a controlled substance. So it goes after everything from a WG, the Pimp, a Beggar, a High Roller to the DB and user.
Just to see if it's been the norm to use this County Ordinance before, I went back randomly for about a year to others that were charged with "county loitering" and didn't see any others that were charged with this "stricter sounding" County Ordinance until this last week's activity.
Makes sense what you said that it looks like it's being used more as a deterrent than anything. Pulls them off the street, makes them go to see Uncle's Resort, makes them pay early check out fees, puts them on the hook for a return visit (maybe, if it even sticks) and maybe gets some fines and fees collected. Enough to maybe get someone to go back to Texas where they came from.
No matter how this all unfolds as time goes on, everyone as always, needs to stay on their toes and proceed with caution at all times when on the hunt. Especially when approaching one of the girls that hang out in the large savannah's aka parking lots, hotels, and all areas in the Greater Mall area.
Grain 56.
P.S. It's good to see you and Mona Lisa are still together. Send her my best.
Really appreciate Grain 56's insight. These older laws emerge as a temp solution to business complaints. Take for example WaWa's recognition as a pick-up point, nearby bus stops and some our personal favorite strolls after business owners complained when their own pleas fell on deaf ears. They often lead to unintended consequences and more work for both police and city until their cries are heard - -please stop.
Take for example a similar law that came to enforcement in 1993-4 in San Antonio, Bexar County TX. Especially as it related to pandering, loitering and solicitation. The smart puppies simply went down to the city and got a small business license to sell water. A short time later you had these girls all standing at stop lights, along corners selling water out of styrofoam containers. In time clothing became exceptionally provacative as competition to sell water heightened. Clothing became a symbol of their presence in much the same way some wing houses offer. Their argument for standing in a particular area was that they had a sales license. Unless I'm mistaken, there was a similar response in Tampa near and around Buc's stadium.
Not all of our puppies are smart enough to take this approach, I'm not counting on the die-hard candy girls, but I'm waiting to see if an enterprising pimp steps out to get licenses and then uses them with his employees. And when a car turns the corner, the driver pops the hood, it's not to solicit or pick up a girl, it's to take her to refresh her supply and return her to her prefered sit.
Just saying as this whole thing develops.
RT.
[QUOTE=Grain56;6347756]Thanks for your input. Welcomed info as usual.
The interesting thing, just as you mentioned that other jurisdictions have tried to up the ante, is that with these BCBJC Girls they are using a County Ordinance (CNTY 26.51) that appears to be "stricter" and more aggressive than the good old fashioned FL statute (FL 856.021) that they usually use or were using. The county statute specifically mentions loitering for Prostitution, assignation or lewdness; Soliciting / procuring another to commit prostitution; Panhandling or solicitation; Gambling; Sale or purchase of a controlled substance. So it goes after everything from a WG, the Pimp, a Beggar, a High Roller to the DB and user.
Just to see if it's been the norm to use this County Ordinance before, I went back randomly for about a year to others that were charged with "county loitering" and didn't see any others that were charged with this "stricter sounding" County Ordinance until this last week's activity.
Makes sense what you said that it looks like it's being used more as a deterrent than anything. Pulls them off the street, makes them go to see Uncle's Resort, makes them pay early check out fees, puts them on the hook for a return visit (maybe, if it even sticks) and maybe gets some fines and fees collected. Enough to maybe get someone to go back to Texas where they came from.
No matter how this all unfolds as time goes on, everyone as always, needs to stay on their toes and proceed with caution at all times when on the hunt. Especially when approaching one of the girls that hang out in the large savannah's aka parking lots, hotels, and all areas in the Greater Mall area.
Grain 56.
P.S. It's good to see you and Mona Lisa are still together. Send her my best.[/QUOTE]Despite visiting various and sundry pool halls throughout Florida, Orange County included, I've not yet encountered an individual that challenged ordinance 26.51. That said, I did compare it to the ordinance from the Tampa area. In Tampa, the ordinance included language such as "repeatedly beckons to, stops, or attempts to stop, or engages passersby in conversation, or repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms, or any other bodily gesture for the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting, or procuring another to commit an act of prostitution. " That's the language that led to the appellate court ruling against the prosecution. The Orange County ordinance contains no such language. Instead, the Orange County ordinance seems to rely more on LE observing a "known prostitute or panderer" engage in certain actions, the "known prostitute or panderer" defined as a person that has a prostitution related conviction within the past year, that conviction being known to LE at the time of the observation.
Certainly possible someone may challenge this ordinance at some point, perhaps someone already has and I'm just not aware of it. But, as detailed previously, it's a second degree misdemeanor that is usually quickly resolved, maybe even dropped. Should a person get arrested and spend a day or two in the county jail, the prosecutor may well offer credit time served and the case is done. Even without any jail time, this low level offense would typically be resolved with little more than court costs. That being the case, from a financial perspective, or even a time commitment perspective, it's often not worth the hassle to challenge such an ordinance.
P.S. Mona Lisa said to say "thanks" to you! Despite our disagreements, frequent and loud though they may be, that girls my ride or die! Really should marry her one day! Maybe after I win my next case!
I took a couple strolls through the Northern Half from the NQ to the Teen Streets. Didn't see Uncle out anywhere in the North. I did see a couple handful of girls mostly in the 20's & 40's. Nothing worth writing home about in the Teens / 20's other than Sharday, who was at her post on 23rd. She amazes me how she never seems to age in her face. Her skin is so smooth and silky looking.
I did see a few girls I had never seen. Mostly around the Sands. They were thicker (not BBW) WSWs, probably in their 30's. Neither of whom I would normally go for though. A few of the regulars from Buck-toothed Breen to Goldie were out and about.
In the 40's I parked at the 39th Street 7-11 for a bit, as it was close to check out time across the street. I saw several surface from the Zada NoTel. Some of the girls looked quite decent, especially a petite Hispanic girl that if I had the opportunity, I would have cleared my schedule to spend some time with. As I was watching the parade at check out time, I saw several of the Pimps escorting their ladies across the street as they were going to get a nutritious 7-11 breakfast. All of these scrawny want to-be Pimps make the Quasi-Pimp and Pimp-Quasi we all know look like Superfly and The Mack. One of them was a 110 lbs at best white dude with a long stringy ponytail showcasing with his extremely thin hair and sporting a 1970's looking fedora. The handlers had one or two each in tow.
I also talked to BSW Viola for a couple minutes. Holy Buckets, she looks like death warmed over. She can't weigh more than 75 lbs now. Her top was falling off her body exposing her boob. She was sitting on the sidewalk scarfing down a 1/4 lb hot dog from 7-11. As I approached her, she looked at me and asked if she knew me and that I looked familiar. I bluntly told her, "yeah, I fucked you before". LOL. She paused for about 2 seconds and said, "oh, yea, you want to hang out"? As she grabbed her crotch. I passed. She is bad, bad bad looking.
There were 2 girls passed out along the road on my travels. One was on a metal plate / cover for a utility pit off 44th with her full ass on display and KK aka Roger the Alien passed out along Rio Grand at 23rd. Must be some strong stuff out there.
Grain 56.
P.S. Back on the recent snags. Looks like a few more were taken on Vacation yesterday for various charges. The heat stays on as the sun warms up.