[QUOTE=Rosco2]
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.[/QUOTE]
That's it. I'm running for office. The field trips are definitely worth it. ;)
Bench
Printable View
[QUOTE=Rosco2]
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.[/QUOTE]
That's it. I'm running for office. The field trips are definitely worth it. ;)
Bench
[QUOTE=Philly Daily News]
[b]Massage-parlor probe rubs judge wrong way[/b]
Associated Press
ALLENTOWN - State police engaged in "outrageous" conduct when they paid an informant to have sex with employees of a spa on four occasions as part of a prostitution investigation, a judge has ruled.
State police investigating the Shiatsu Spa in North Whitehall Township paid the informant $180 and gave him money to pay for sexual acts in the spa in 2006.
"We conclude that the decision to send the citizen into Shiatsu Spa on four occasions for a smorgasbord of sexual activity violates the principles of fundamental fairness," Lehigh County Judge Robert L. Steinberg wrote.
Steinberg dismissed prostitution charges against the spa's owner, Sun Cha Chon, 53, of Cross Kill, N.J., agreeing with Chon's allegation of "outrageous government conduct" on the part of the police.
"Does the public want their tax dollars to be used to pay some guy money to get sexual intercourse four times? It is disgusting," said Chon's attorney, Maureen Coggins.
State troopers have testified that they had been trying to determine if prostitution was going on at Shiatsu Spa and that although having sex is not the preferred method, it is not prohibited as an investigatory tool.
But Steinberg said that police could have made an arrest after the spa's employees offered sex for money.
"We expect more from the police and demand that they conduct their investigations and utilize their resources without resorting to such embarrassing investigative techniques," he wrote.
District Attorney James Martin said he will appeal the Jan. 24 ruling. *[/QUOTE]
Original article can be found at [url]http://www.philly.com/dailynews/national/20080206_Massage-parlor_probe_rubs_judge_wrong_way.html[/url]
How very refreshing to find a judge who combines fairness with justice. Not to mention takes into consideration how the police spent other people's money. The judge made a such a valid point when he said the police should have stopped as soon as sex was offered for money that the sentence should be taken from the transcript and sent to every police agency in the country.
That's why it's very unlikely the ladies ask for tip money upfront that automatically puts them in a incriminating position for solicitation of prostitution.
If the police really followed the law it would be very difficult to bust these ladies.
Give federal law enforcement their due. They don't seem to discriminate when it comes to policing the world's oldest profession. With Governor Spitzer on the chopping block, some who may be in relationships with providers may want to review what they will and won't do for the providers. Spitzer may very well be charged with a violation of the Mann Act. The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 38, Part I, Chapter 117, subsection 2421. The text is pretty simple:
"Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
If your favorite provider asks you to take her the next state over for her next gig, you may be violating a federal law. Just something for hobbyists who have become close with providers to think about.
The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 18, not Title 38. My original post had the typo in it so if you went looking for the law you didn't find it. My apologies.
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Give federal law enforcement their due. They don't seem to discriminate when it comes to policing the world's oldest profession. With Governor Spitzer on the chopping block, some who may be in relationships with providers may want to review what they will and won't do for the providers. Spitzer may very well be charged with a violation of the Mann Act. The Mann Act is found in US Code Title 38, Part I, Chapter 117, subsection 2421. The text is pretty simple:
"Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
If your favorite provider asks you to take her the next state over for her next gig, you may be violating a federal law. Just something for hobbyists who have become close with providers to think about.[/QUOTE]
I can tell you about a undercover cop that was getting orally serviced and he went to the wrong place they were suppose to conduct the sting. So he had to unfortunately get completely orally serviced without busting or blowing his cover as a LE.
It was on the local news a few years back. I was like heck I bet they do that more times than they tell the public.
Happy Hunting..
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]How very refreshing to find a judge who combines fairness with justice. Not to mention takes into consideration how the police spent other people's money. The judge made a such a valid point when he said the police should have stopped as soon as sex was offered for money that the sentence should be taken from the transcript and sent to every police agency in the country.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wallie]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[/QUOTE]
I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. He asked if I had any illegal drugs in my car, I said no (this was true). He asked, "Then you don't mind if I search your car ?" Well, I had embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff in the car, like condoms, plus I didn't want to be bothered, so I thought I'd exercise my Constitutional right against unreasonable search, and I answered "I don't consent to any searches." According to a video I saw, this should make the cop give up, but I now think that was naive. This cop had a hunch, so he called a K-9 unit and about 5 other cop cars. It was a circus ! The dog jumped at my car, which apparently gave the cops "probable cause" to gain entry to my car. But the dog was wrong, as I've indicated. The police ended up reading me the Riot Act and then let me go. This is what I was hoping to avoid, but it happened anyway, just delayed and with more cops.
During the ordeal I was calm and only talked to answer questions. The police will ask why you are there (it was an area with a lot of crime), where you came from, where you are going. You need a story, like visiting a friend in the area. They won't believe anything you say anyway, but they are looking to confuse you with inconsistencies and maybe trick you into some admission, and probably they just want to know you are sober/sane. I knew some street names and said my "friend" was from there. They wanted to know the name and address of my friend, which I politely refused to give (of course, there was no friend). Overall I was cooperative and polite, and I think this is VERY important: your goal is just to get out of there and not piss them off or give them an incentive to arrest you.
I think next time I'll just let them search the car. That's what I normally have done. Constitutional rights are easy to trample on the mean streets. In my case, they just needed a dog trained to jump at my car. If their hunch is right, they score a bust. I was actually a little worried the cops might plant some drugs, but fortunately they were not corrupt.
IMO, you still did the right thing. Sure, it may have been inconvenient, but still, you have the right to do what you did.
LOL, I never said it would be painless !!
All joking aside, it is up to each of to decide if defending our Rights are worth the effort it takes to do it, and I would never tell anyone else that they should do what you did; although I applaud the balls [and it does take some to do it when you are there and it is happening] to do what you did.
I know a person who is involved in Research into/Defense of our Rights, who will allow himself to be arrested if necessary, go to jail, and then fight the charges/sue the city to make the point needed, and make abuse of a given Right end. Obviously, this is a hard-core commitment for him, and he is able to properly present his case/defense in court.
Again, I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but even what you did is a piece of the effort that helps to keep the police/government in the box they are supposed to be in.
Wallie
[QUOTE=Snake27]I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. He asked if I had any illegal drugs in my car, I said no (this was true). He asked, "Then you don't mind if I search your car ?" Well, I had embarrassing (but not illegal) stuff in the car, like condoms, plus I didn't want to be bothered, so I thought I'd exercise my Constitutional right against unreasonable search, and I answered "I don't consent to any searches." According to a video I saw, this should make the cop give up, but I now think that was naive. This cop had a hunch, so he called a K-9 unit and about 5 other cop cars. It was a circus ! The dog jumped at my car, which apparently gave the cops "probable cause" to gain entry to my car. But the dog was wrong, as I've indicated. The police ended up reading me the Riot Act and then let me go. This is what I was hoping to avoid, but it happened anyway, just delayed and with more cops.
During the ordeal I was calm and only talked to answer questions. The police will ask why you are there (it was an area with a lot of crime), where you came from, where you are going. You need a story, like visiting a friend in the area. They won't believe anything you say anyway, but they are looking to confuse you with inconsistencies and maybe trick you into some admission, and probably they just want to know you are sober/sane. I knew some street names and said my "friend" was from there. They wanted to know the name and address of my friend, which I politely refused to give (of course, there was no friend). Overall I was cooperative and polite, and I think this is VERY important: your goal is just to get out of there and not piss them off or give them an incentive to arrest you.
I think next time I'll just let them search the car. That's what I normally have done. Constitutional rights are easy to trample on the mean streets. In my case, they just needed a dog trained to jump at my car. If their hunch is right, they score a bust. I was actually a little worried the cops might plant some drugs, but fortunately they were not corrupt.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Wallie, but for different reasons. If you're innocent, you want the search conducted with many witnessing officers and civilians, and preferably on videotape. You don't want the cop (or worse, cop and his partner) that stopped you to "find" something in your car that he brought to the scene himself. Of course, if you're "riding dirty" you're screwed either way -- in which case, make them work for it. This is a pain, but as you saw they will construct a way to search your car if they really want to. Making things as complicated as possible gives them more opportunities to make mistakes, which would seem to increase your chance of invalidating the search in court (IANAL but I wonder if that police dog was really trained for drug sniffing -- search might not have ultimately held up in court?!)
[QUOTE=Snake27]I had a chance to try some of this out, and it did not work very well. It is better to cooperate fully if you have no illegal evidence, but don't admit anything.
Not long ago, an undercover narcotics officer stopped my car. ...[/QUOTE]
Actually, unless you have some "significant other" reason to play it low it might be worth investigating the training of said dog. Drug dogs are not usually taught to "jump".
If the dog is not trained, or did not provide the right signal, a civil suit could pay your mongering bills for a while.
I have more experience with these police stops than I care to admit, and I think the police in the USA are generally honest and follow procedure. But they are humans and they have a tough job, so they can get angry or disgusted. The worst I've encountered was very aggressive questioning -- one time a cop said that I "must admit I was looking for prostitutes" or he would arrest me ! After thinking hard for a minute about calling his bluff, I humbly admitted. He read me the Riot Act, no doubt proud of his moral superiority. And he let me go.
Assuming they are honest, then the best policy would be to let the one or two officers search your car. Usually they call backup anyway, so then there are more witnesses. The key goal, I think, is to be cooperative and not piss them off. Because if I'm not mistaken most towns have laws against cruising with the intention of finding prostitutes, and then it's a judgement call on the part of the police officers to arrest you for that. The more you cooperate, the more lenient they will be. Simple human nature. I suspect it would be difficult to get conviction for such an arrest, but for many guys (like me) just the arrest would be a huge problem. And I've never been arrested.
One other comment: streets are to be avoided. I still cruise sometimes out of old habit, but rarely pick up anymore. Not much out there. Instead, CL, eros, and AMPs are the way to go. Far less chance of these police encounters.
The Editor suggested that I add this posting to this area of the forum to benefit all the readers. I had posted the following as an answer to the basic question:
"If LE catch you picking a girl up or driving around with her won't they pull you over and arrest you? Do they give you a ticket or do they call the hook and lock you up?"
Here is my response:
Please read the entire posting.
Technically, prostitution, is defined as sex for hire.
That being said, just driving around with a prostitute in your car, having not discussed sex or money should technically get you scared at best, if you are stopped. BUT:
The LEO can make life hell for you if they desire. Some posters on this board are well aware of that. Even though they did nothing illegal.
If the SW is wanted for anything or has illegal drugs in her possession (which is not uncommon amongst SW's), they can arrest you for possession and depending on the amount of drugs possibly confiscate your vehicle.
If she is wanted for anything, you could be considered harboring a criminal. You can be ticketed for loitering (and maybe more).
Ticketed for picking up a hitchhiker (if not allowed in that area).
You can get a ticket for almost any made-up charge also, like running a stop sign or a red-light, an illegal u-turn or simply reckless driving.
There is no limit to what you can be stopped and ticketed for.
Odds of getting hauled off to jail and losing your car would only happen in a "sting" type operation. Or if you solicit a cop.
The problem with all the other potential violations that you could be written up for is that you are presumed guilty (similar to a speeding ticket) until you prove yourself innocent in court (or pay a fine. Which goes on your record).
If you are smart and know the area that you are in, and also know how to approach a SW and verify that they are not LE, most likely you will have no problem.
Remember. A LEO posing as a SW will almost never get in your car due to the risk that the LEO would be taking.
Also, depending on the city and whether it has had complaints about a certain area can cause extra pressure to crack down on SW's and their customers for a while.
There is no exact specifics that define what LE can or cannot do. If they want to make your life hell for a while, they can. Period.
If you have a good SW that you see on a regular basis and are pleased with the service and price, Stick with them. On the other hand, if you are looking for something new and play the game correctly, you should not run into problems.
Actually, I think some of us like the cat and mouse game along with finding that new SW. The pursuit may seem more rewarding than the conquest.
Bottom line is think with your brains and not your dick. If you feel uncomfortable, get out of the situation or don't say anything that will get you in trouble. Stay alive to play another day.
LE has more important things to do than to pull you over for having a known prositute in your car. In fact, if they get a call for something more urgent (before you a ticketed etc.) they will just leave.
You're question may sound simple but it is actually not an easy one to answer.
This news story originating from the Sarasota Herald Tribune shines a new light on the practice of using drug sniffing dogs to create probable cause for searching one's car. [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/21/me-drug-dog-results-can-be-spotty/[/url]
I have a question for legal beagles: there is discussion on the Providence escort board about the idea of getting a prepaid "monger phone" registered under a false name. Great idea, but strictly speaking is it illegal to register a cell phone under a false name?
[QUOTE=Vargr]I have a question for legal beagles: there is discussion on the Providence escort board about the idea of getting a prepaid "monger phone" registered under a false name. Great idea, but strictly speaking is it illegal to register a cell phone under a false name?[/QUOTE]
First, I would ask the service provider (not the salesperson) before you buy it. And then, I would check what they say with a call to your state's attorney general's office. You cannot be arrested for asking a question about what is legal and illegal. And, regardless of what the RI AG says, the answer in the other 49 states may be different.
Snake, I couldn't disagree more. Of course, when detained by a police officer always be polite, civil and courteous. Remember, one of the worst offenses in a cop's view is "contempt of cop, " which is a non-crime, but will lead to all sorts of really nasty retribution from the cop who is on the receiving end of it. And he can get away with it.
However, do not admit to anything. Ever! They will try all sorts of angles. Yelling at you, threatening you, shaming you, sympathizing with you, etc. , all in an effort to encourage you to incriminate yourself. Do not be fooled! They are not your friends, and they will use you if you let them. Exercise your right to remain silent. You cannot help yourself by talking. They are much better at this than you are, plus they have a huge tactical advantage over you when you are scared, alone and with a lot to lose.
Let them search your car? You do not have to give permission. Some would argue against it in any case. Others would say to allow it if you have nothing illegal in your car. But remember, a lot of things might be illegal that you would never think of.
You guys should spend a little time on Youtube. They have some very good and educational videos dealing with what to do if confronted by LE. Here is just one example:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch? V=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=related[/url]
I've run into the police twice in prostitution-related incidents. The first time was over 25 years ago, and I was stopped with a SW in my car. I was young and caved in to all their intimidation. They let me go and kept the girl. I was lucky. They could have busted me for the shit they found in my car. Don't know why they didn't, to tell you the truth. Instead, all I got a lecture and an "angry cop" performance. You might think that proves you should go along with what they want, but I repeat, I was lucky.
The next time I was older, and caught when the cops pounded on the door of an incall girl I was visiting. Looking back, they had no real grounds to barge into a private residence (hers) without a warrant and push us around, but they did. This time I clammed up, ignored their games, but was polite. They let me go this time too, and they were very cool once they saw I was on to their tricks. You know what? They asked me if I was a cop! I guess that means I played it smart the way a cop would have. You be smart too.
Woodrow, I agree with you, and if the reader examines our posts carefully they should find we basically agree. Stay polite and silent.
As in explained in one of my anecdotes, I did cave into police pressure and admit what I was doing (and didn't get busted) but I don't recommend that, I was just giving an example of things that can happen. Nowadays, I stay as silent as possible and only answer in a non-incriminating way. Actually, nowadays I am much better at avoiding these confrontations altogether. "Get a room", as they say. ;)
This statement was posted on CL
"LE cannot do anything that would be considered entrapment. Here are a couple of things that they CANNOT DO. They CANNOT post a nude picture. AND they cannot post a fee for services. Just like being out on the streets, YOU have to make the first fee offer. They can nail you for that."
Any part of this statement true?
This is good news. Hopefully this will force more girls to work the streets again. I am hoping that LE cracks down even harder on CL.
([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10084304-93.html[/url] )
"Craigslist will require anyone posting ads to the Web's site's "erotic services" section to submit a working phone number and credit card, the online classified publication said Thursday."
Joint Statement with Attorneys General, NCMEC
November 6th, 2008 by jim
"Joint Statement with NCMEC and over 40 Attorneys General Detailing Measures to Prevent Illegal Activity and Improve Safety
craigslist Files 14 Lawsuits Against Software and Service Providers who Facilitate Misuse of Site
November 06, San Francisco, CA - craigslist announced today it is implementing sweeping new measures, in close partnership with state law enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), to prevent its online communities and classified ads from being misused for the facilitation of human trafficking, child exploitation, and other illegal activities.
The measures were outlined in a joint statement signed by craigslist, NCMEC, and the attorneys general of more than 40 U.S. states and territories, representing a broad collaborative effort spearheaded by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The specific measures outlined in today’s joint statement were shaped during face-to-face meetings between Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, Attorney General Blumenthal, and representatives of NCMEC.
“Preventing site misuse and improving public safety are our highest priorities,” said Jim Buckmaster, CEO of craigslist, “and we are extremely appreciative of the encouragement we’ve received from the attorneys general and NCMEC.” He added, “The incidence of crime on craigslist is actually exceedingly low, considering the tens of millions of legitimate ads posted each month by well-intentioned users.” “But no amount of criminal activity is acceptable, and as craigslist has grown, we have become aware of instances where our free services were being misused to facilitate illegal activities.” Buckmaster continued, “We are unequivocally committed to stamping out misuse of the site and to improving safety for craigslist users, through preventative measures such as the ones we are announcing as part of the Joint Statement.”
Due in part to the growth of craigslist, businesses have sprung up selling software and other services designed to evade craigslist’s terms of use, and to circumvent its technical defenses against misuse, including phone verification. By offering services designed to undermine craigslist’s ability to enforce its terms of use, these businesses facilitate the placement of ads for illegal services that would otherwise be blocked by craigslist’s protective measures. craigslist has no tolerance for these activities and has filed 14 lawsuits and is sending “cease and desist” demands to numerous other companies and individuals offering such services. In addition, craigslist will investigate and provide information to state attorneys general for the prosecution of those engaging in and facilitating criminal activity.
craigslist is constantly working to improve its existing tools for enforcing its terms of use. In this regard, the company has continued to refine its protocols for blocking inappropriate postings and advertisements for illegal services. In addition, a flagging system accompanies each ad, so that inappropriate content can be identified by users for quick removal. craigslist has also implemented the industry standard PICS rating system for tagging adult content, to facilitate parental screening software on home computers.
craigslist recently implemented a telephone verification system for the “erotic services” section of the site, requiring a working phone number for advertisers, and enabling blacklisting of phone numbers for those who post inappropriate ads. Phone verification resulted in an 80% reduction in ad volume, and significantly increased compliance with site guidelines.
In addition to phone verification and other existing protective measures, craigslist will soon require credit card verification and a small fee per ad for posting in “erotic services”, to further encourage compliance with
site guidelines. Paid ads that violate site guidelines will be removed without refund. The company intends to donate 100% of net revenue generated from these ads to charity, with net revenue to be verified by an external auditor.
“Requiring credit card verification, and charging a fee to post in this category raises accountability to a point where we expect few illicit ads will remain,” says Buckmaster. “For those that do persist, telephone and credit card information will be available to law enforcement via subpoena. More than ever, those who would misuse craigslist to violate the law will find that craigslist is a very inhospitable place.”
The craigslist site is used by 40 million Americans each month, who represent a potent force for identifying and reporting illicit activity. In addition to participating in NCMEC’s Cybertipline program, and urging craigslist users to flag suspect postings and file a report anytime they suspect the exploitation of a minor or human trafficking, craigslist will work with NCMEC and the state attorneys general to further improve site messaging to build awareness of these important issues. Buckmaster added, “Human trafficking and child exploitation are despicable crimes, and in addition to working diligently to prevent such abuse, we want to do everything we can to raise awareness among craigslist users so that they will be even more vigila"
[url]http://blog.craigslist.org/2008/11/joint-statement-with-attorneys-general-ncmec/[/url]
Related to this topic, there's an interesting discussion on "Figueroa Street Walker Reports" on the Los Angeles board, especially posts from "Walter" who claims (somewhat credibly) to be a cop, and who provides entertaining insight into the police's motivations and methods, as well as info about the local scene.
Admin suggested they move their discussion here, but I suppose one reason this thread isn't more popular is that it's obscure. If you click on "All the Forums" from the main page and you will not see this thread in the "Special Interests" sub-forum unless you specifically click on "Special Interests" (only then do you see "Police Tactics & Legal Issues").
[QUOTE=Bath1234]This statement was posted on CL
"LE cannot do anything that would be considered entrapment. Here are a couple of things that they CANNOT DO. They CANNOT post a nude picture. AND they cannot post a fee for services. Just like being out on the streets, YOU have to make the first fee offer. They can nail you for that."
Any part of this statement true?[/QUOTE]
Most likely the truth or non-truth in this statement will be found in each different state's statutes. While every state has similar laws the statutes for each state are sometimes written slightly or largely differently. Case law (court decisions interpreting the law) is tailored to each state's statutes. So, what may be so in, say, New York may be very different in, say, Oregon.
I see a lot of bs about people getting and using prepaid CC with false info as not to trace back to them.
How stupid are they?
How many laws are they breaking?
I can think of a few federal laws such as money laundering and identity theft as possibilities.
At the least they could get you for unauthorized use, because that false person can not come forward and say you had permission.
To me this seems like a very foolish thing to do and add to your troubles.
The false phones are illegal in some STATES but the card is illegal everywhere.
I ran across this law today. This is another one of those ridiculous prostitution laws. I think this law was passed in lieu of impounding cars where the cops cannot prove solicitation. This law is still relatively easy avoid if you take the proper precautions and drive a good distance from where you pick up the SW. This the first time I have heard of such a law so I am uncertain how often the DA uses this. There are similar statutes in other states as well. The only good thing is that they can suspend you license for 30 days. The other option is for them to restrict your driving privileges for 3 months.
([url]http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm[/url] )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.
(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "
[QUOTE=Hargow20] ([url]http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13201_5.htm[/url] )
Driving Privilege Suspension: Prostitution
"13201.5. (a) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (b) of Section 647 of the Penal Code where the violation was committed within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle.
(b) A court may suspend, for not more than 30 days, the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of subdivision (a) of Section 647 of the Penal Code, where a peace officer witnesses the violator pick up a person who is engaging in loitering with the intent to commit prostitution, as described in Section 653.22 of the Penal Code, and the violator subsequently engages with that person in a lewd act within 1,000 feet of a private residence and with the use of a vehicle. "[/QUOTE]
This law looks burdensome on first glance but there is some wiggle room within it. First, there's the language in the first sentence of (a) that says the court MAY suspend. This is permissive rather than mandatory language. It gives the court or DMV lattitude to use its own judgement, and a defense attorney negotiating room.
In the same sentence are the words, "upon conviction." Therefore it's not a given that a license will be suspended upon arrest or citation. A conviction must first be rendered by a court and there would, I am assuming, need to be some proof offered during that conviction that the act did in fact occur as prescribed by the law, i.e., within 1,000 feet of a private residence inside a car. Therefore it would seem there is room for a challenge if, for example, someone drove their car up to a SW, was outside of the car and completed an act or, in the case of an aggressive cop, the person was grabbed in the crotch through the window or outside the car but no money exchanged hands. In any event, the operative words of this part of the law is "upon conviction."
Section (b) is interesting in that it also uses permissive rather than mandatory language. It, too requires a conviction under the penal code before it can be imposed, and requires that the person pick up a SW. However, it also seems to require that the act of picking up a SW be witnessed by a peace officer (which section (a) does not require) and that somehow the peace officer has knowledge of the SW's activities or can otherwise prove that the SW is in fact a SW or is working at the time as a SW. However, this section also requires that the person picking up the SW does in fact engage in a lewd act, which of course would have to be proved under the penal code, which is why this law is dependent upon a penal code conviction.
The most interesting part of this law is that it appears designed to punish a person twice for engaging a SW, once under the penal code and once under the motor vehicle code of the state. I'm wondering if at some point someone caught up in this scenario will have the money to hire a good attorney to attack this as double punishment.
The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law.
For many years, government considered a driver's license "A privilege. Not a right", and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that, recognizing that a licensee's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". Because of their value, then, they "are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". Good news some wiggle room, bad news its why most DMV's give hearings to challenge suspensions, including California.
[QUOTE=Poncho]The "may" suspend language stems from a Supreme Court ruling: Mathews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Basic a state cannot suspend a drivers license without due process of law. .[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0319_ZS.html[/url].
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]I'm not quite sure why you feel that case deals with driver's licenses. Researching the case I found that the case is about a disabled individual and his social security benefits. I did not see anything in the decision that mentioned driver's licenses. One can read the decision at this link [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0319_ZS.html[/url].[/QUOTE]
My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3[/url]
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3[/url]
Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:
[url]http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/176/176.F3d.1202.97-17006.html[/url]
quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).
17
In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license."--end quote
The key word in the quote is full administrative hearing satisfied due process.
For soliciting does the police in California give a notice to appear or promise to appear the latter with a finger print on the notice?
[QUOTE=Poncho]My bad. The argument was made in another case. You can use relevant case examples to support the legal authority. Quoted a cite that makes the same argument even though different subject. Its a tough argument to make.
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3[/url]
[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2005_sc/732493maj&invol=3[/url]
Or more applicable for an unsuccessful example in California:
[url]http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/176/176.F3d.1202.97-17006.html[/url]
quote from California example:"Miller does not have a fundamental "right to drive." In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right. See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).[/QUOTE]
This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.[/QUOTE]
The Washington and California State Supreme Court, used United States Supreme Court rulings to determine each case. My main point is the DMV does have to give a hearing before they can suspend your license. Requires less due process over taking your car, hence why they changed the law.
CA law on notification of pending action:
[url]http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13106.htm[/url]
I'm guessing that avoiding license suspension is a carrot to gaining plea deals. On regular notice to appear tickets, no finger prints are taken. Most people do not realize after the court receives the ticket and its put on the "system". The courts through out the paper copy of the ticket. Hence why in one year if the ticket is not on the computer system, its an automatic dismissal in California, "statute" of limitation, as it was not properly filed with the court. Therefore you can't fail to appear and they no longer have "evidence" with your "accuser" you broke the law. A traffic offense must be committed in front of a police officer by California Vehicle Code.
Sticky gray area. Notice to appear tickets, if you can avoid being detected over a year and fail to appear for that citation. I'll find the vehicle code, you can when brought before a magistrate "request show cause". That you in fact received a traffic ticket from a police officer. If they can't find the original paper ticket in 45 days they must find you innocent on face value of driving while suspended because you failed to appear on a past traffic ticket. They need the past ticket as evidence. Your screwed if they find the court paper copy.
This is why on promise to appear citations they make you put your finger print on the citation.
Oh, should mention I' am not a lawyer. Just a bad driver, who knows how to manipulate the laws to their advantage
Took some digging but here is California law on being "arrested" for failing to appear to a notice to do so:
[url]http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40500.htm[/url] "(e) (1) A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through his or her local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency providing this service may charge the requester no more than the actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless the court determines that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2) Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3) Upon receipt of the issuing agency's or prosecuting attorney's response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code if the court determines that there is insufficient evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or revocation of the person's driving privilege, the department shall immediately set aside the action.
(4) If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court determines that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of justice.
(5) The citation or notice to appear may be held by the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 93, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 467, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004." -- end quote
Most times after one year the original citation was tossed when entered on the "system". Its a risky move with "perjury", but my non-legal opinion, the cops lie on their arresting affidavits. So is it so bad to make them find your outstanding ticket?
Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]This is not to negate or minimize the citations provided here because they are certainly important. However, when someone notes "the Supreme Court," one thinks of the court on high in Washington DC that is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The citations provided are from the Washington State Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so they would not affect every state. Nevertheless, they can certainly be used in cases brought before a local court in those two states for application and precedent.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wallie]Published Case Law can, most times, be used in any Court regardless of whether it is a Federal or State Court.[/QUOTE]
True. So can other state law, rules and regulations, etcetera. As long as its on the same issue and under the Constitution.
It can if it's on point but if the state law is different, and on some issues state law varies widely, then it may not be very effective. Also, if a decision is noted as non-precedential or is an unpublished opinion it may also not be effective. The point is that the thread of this issue started with a citation that the US Supreme Court had ruled on the issue of driver's licenses and it hadn't in the case citation provided. As someone who has lived in at least 6 states and has had licenses from those states I learned that motor vehicle law is often very different in each state.
Well, actually the thread started with a post concerning a motor vehicle law in California that allowed the state to suspend a driver's license for engaging in prostitution. I carefully read the law as it was posted and believe there is wiggle room in that law for Californians but I also questioned then as I do now that enforcement of that law amounts to double punishment, one would be the conviction in criminal court and then losing one's license. It seems on the surface to be unfair but what the hey, that's why all those police officers, attorneys, and judges get the big bucks and we just monger on.
[QUOTE=Irish Male2] As someone who has lived in at least 6 states and has had licenses from those states I learned that motor vehicle law is often very different in each state. .[/QUOTE]
Actually motor vehicle law has become fairly uniform. In that its governed by federal law, but that is on a voluntary basis. So it could be argued that it is not binding on state domestic. All states volunteer to make it binding, cause they get fed funds for incorporating federal highway safety act(s) into their domestic law. So really traffic laws and infractions, have become giant revenue generation tools for the state. California has another act. That makes it so they can't convict you if your complying with federal law and regulations. I'd attempt to argue this as a due process issue that it is not in the governments interest in suspending your license is not public safety interest. Therefore, you have more interest in keeping your license for liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[QUOTE=Poncho]I'd attempt to argue this as a due process issue that it is not in the governments interest in suspending your license is not public safety interest. Therefore, you have more interest in keeping your license for liberty and pursuit of happiness.[/QUOTE]
Good luck with that one at the Supreme Court. Not too many people would have the money, let alone spend it and the time to chase it through the court system to get it into the Supreme Court. And, if they did, it is always possible the Supremes will not take up the Writ of Certriori. They only take up a small fraction of the cases that are submitted for consideration by the Supremes each year. And then there's that pesky legal term found in many decisions from many courts called "harmless error." The court agrees there was an error made by the lower tribunal or appellee but it was not harmful so - no harm no foul. That one is always a tough one for me to take.
[QUOTE=Irish Male2] And, if they did, it is always possible the Supremes will not take up the Writ of Certriori. They only take up a small fraction of the cases that are submitted for consideration by the Supremes each year. And then there's that pesky legal term found in many decisions from many courts called "harmless error." The court agrees there was an error made by the lower tribunal or appellee but it was not harmful so - no harm no foul. That one is always a tough one for me to take.[/QUOTE]
I agree. That it is actually very hard to fight on these grounds. Both, minor traffic offenses and even "criminal" misdemeanors are very unfair and impartial in how they are adjudicated. In that most times they will not toss you in jail when your not public safety risk. No jail "harmless error" are just not taken seriously by any court level.
It's almost the same as being robbed in the hobby. Rarely will someone call the police even knowing the location, the thieves are at. Most people want the easiest way out of being charged with a prostitution offense as a "john" because to fight you have to admit paying for sex. The states, via the courts have figured out a system that they can and will rob "defendants".
Take DUI. First time offenders barely over the limit and having good grounds to fight. The lower courts, skirt around your legitimate grievance and make it very hard and not worth fighting. Hence the plea deals when you show up for arraignment. Pay a small fine, plead guilty, might even keep your license, etcetera. Most of all no jail. Defense attorneys, love it as well. Cause its become standard to be offered very light "punishment". My local district court even has a pamphlet explaining the standard plea deal offer from the state. Takes time and money to fight, your lawyer doesn't want to work for the often flat fee they charge for these cases. Hired one for a past license suspension charge it was $750 flat fee, one case fits all. Even from the "defense" attorney side of things.
Its typical and become the standard procedure. Easy plea deal, takes maybe 20 minutes work for both sides, including standing before the "judge". Who makes sure in most cases that this deal if granted is best for you cause we could toss you in jail. Defense attorney has already scared you if you fight, cause you have a weak case. The prosecution, is giving the easiest fastest way out of the situation. Besides you can apply in the future to deffer/expunge most misdemeanors! Its all about the money, hence why most traffic court non-criminal penalty infractions are not tried in a court setting. Really an informal hearing. Misdemeanors, like low blood alcohol, not really drunk DUI, and even prostitution on the monger side are technically moving in the same direction. That is a profit center for the state, court sanctioned robbery.
State, court for non public safety risk area's. Are the McDonald's drive through window of blinders on one case fits all justice. Joe Pesci said it best in Lethal Weapon: "They F*ck you at the drive through!" UN less you have a history of being a bad driver, long time criminal, you'll get the new system of a cop gave a ticket, even if its a wrong application of the law(s) his reason is good enough to find you guilty! The entire reason why the Founders wrote The Constitution, make it hard for the government to extort and abuse its citizens. The Supreme Court to the state legislature have weakened the Constitution to an instrument that is twisted to make it far too easy for government to extort with threat of jail!
I made a post in the Philadelphia General Reports thread on this subject and the Editor suggested I re-post it here for the benefit of members interested in legal issues.
If you want to follow some other interesting information preceding this post on the same subject, you will also find it in the Philadelphia General reports thread.
ENTRAPMENT
I did a little research on Supreme Court entrapment cases. The last one was in 1992, which overturned the conviction of a man who received child pornography in the mail. The general concept of entrapment is whether a law enforcement agent was inducing a person to commit a crime which he otherwise would be unlikely to commit. This particular ruling focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a "predisposition" for committing the crime. Since the man in question had no other such material in his home, save what he purchased from the postal inspectors, the question was whether the idea was implanted in his mind and/or whether it was established that he wished to continue the purchases. So it would seem that behavior patterns are relevant before and after the commission of a "crime" induced by law enforcement to clarify whether indeed there was entrapment. In other words, it would be much more difficult to raise an entrapment defense after a previous arrest and/or conviction for the solicitation of prostitution (or if it can be proven that there was a desire to do it again) because "predisposition" has been established. Or, to put it another way, if you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, swear off cookies for life if you expect an entrapment defense to work.
[QUOTE=Supereloquent]
ENTRAPMENT
...The general concept of entrapment is whether a law enforcement agent was inducing a person to commit a crime which he otherwise would be unlikely to commit. This particular ruling focused solely on whether the prosecution had established that the defendant had a "predisposition" for committing the crime. Since the man in question had no other such material in his home, save what he purchased from the postal inspectors, the question was whether the idea was implanted in his mind and/or whether it was established that he wished to continue the purchases. So it would seem that behavior patterns are relevant before and after the commission of a "crime" induced by law enforcement to clarify whether indeed there was entrapment. In other words, it would be much more difficult to raise an entrapment defense after a previous arrest and/or conviction for the solicitation of prostitution (or if it can be proven that there was a desire to do it again) because "predisposition" has been established. Or, to put it another way, if you get your hand caught in the cookie jar, swear off cookies for life if you expect an entrapment defense to work.[/QUOTE]
From lectlaw.com: "ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents."
A search for the definition online leaves one with an almost universal idea of what is and isn't entrapment. Essentially, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. In order to be found to be a victim of entrapment, the entrapped person must have been ready and willing to commit the crime prior to the alleged entrapment. The mere providing of an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party.
I've been curious about seeing Craig's List, or other 'open' sites which list erotic services adds, containing a providers specification of race for her clients, "(insert specific racial group here) gentlemen only. " While I'm not advocating any form of discrimination, I am curious as to the legality of law enforcement's ability to use such verbage in a decoy add.
Would such a decoy add stand up to legal scrutiny? Of course they could use multiple adds each specifying a different 'racial' group; add #1, "type A gentlemen only, " add #2 "type C gentlemen only. " Wouldn't multiple adds offer up a subjective argument as to the dilligence the various 'racial' groupings targeted with the individual adds were prosecuted with?
Does the provider's specification, any other consideration aside, provide a, " not a decoy add guarantee?"