Ended up picking up Christina b
Found her by the wawa by Starbucks. Was good for the price. I might repeat but not tonight.
5-6 new names all new girls
[QUOTE=Casey3939;6342295]Uncle must not be updating the website. No new vacations posted since the 14th.[/QUOTE]There are at least 5-6 new girls for loitering charges in the last three days. Looks all of them are the mall area out of town girls.
The New Tool Being Used Against the BCBJC Girls
[QUOTE=Casey3939;6342295]Uncle must not be updating the website. No new vacations posted since the 14th.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GhostRider50;6342663]There is a lot of paperwork so mostly write warnings for minor stuff and tell them to stay out of the area.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WindyMan;6343127]There are at least 5-6 new girls for loitering charges in the last three days. Looks all of them are the mall area out of town girls.[/QUOTE]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. Although all the check in paperwork for the new round up isn't completed at the Orange County Corporate Office for all the violators yet, the one that was available shows that the person was wearing fishnet clothing and according to her limo driver, her areola was exposed making her now someone that was there specifically for prostitution purposes.
Kind of looks like it's a new tool they are using to not only get them off the street just for being provocative or standing in a dark alley, but to actually punish them with a trip to the resort and a fine. If this tactic actually holds up, may be a true deterrent to the BCBJC Girls from being out there in practically no clothes or being so blatant.
The BCBJC may have some harsh push back from Uncle going forward. The paperwork I saw mentioned not only the Wawa, but also the LaQuinta as Hot Spots for their known illicit activities.
Grain 56.
New Loitering Charges Continue
[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.
There won't be any charges filed
[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.
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]I can assure you the only crime here was committed by the deputies which is called false arrest. They already pulled this shit by arresting girls during police checks where nothing was said except asking to see their little dicks. This does not meet the probable cause proof in any way as nothing about sex for anything of value was mentioned to remotely satisfy the requirements. Some of the girls arrested for these police checks were Sara, Green Eyed Jess, Barbie and our beloved Ice Pick Ashely (just to name a few). State refused to file charges on any of these girls arrested for prostitution as their police check did not meet the probable cause requirements even the slightest. Nor do the recent loitering arrests unless they admit to it. Loitering is usually a tack on charge for a crime that was done just like resisting arrest. It's rare to be charged with it alone unless the person arrested admitted to a crime. As for Tampa's loitering for purposes of prostitution charge to be valid short of the WG openly admitting / confessing to the crime they would have to prove they were hanging out to offer sex for anything of value; which is simply impossible unless the WG was holding a sex for sale sign or the LEO overheard a deal between a john.
Bingo! LEO hates anyone that has the ability to fight back
[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]That's why they target these poor drug dependent girls and other low hanging fruit. All false arrests are actionable and once the LEOs and county starts getting sued in the federal court and victims submit complaints to the DOJ and FBI's div of corruption things will change very rapidly, but not until then. Might even get a few LEOs arrested as well. It's in the constitution that you have the right to roam free. Fight these fucking assholes back.
The tide is turning towards legalization
[URL]https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/new-prostitution-and-jaywalking-laws-taking-effect-in-california-on-january-1/article_4faa7acc-7cbc-11ed-8d95-5373198028c2.html[/URL]
This is where the problem lies, few bother to fight
[QUOTE=VincentGambini;6348741]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![/QUOTE]This is where the problem lies, few bother to fight and when you don't fight you lose every time. Unfair laws only get changed by fighting and challenging them. Admitting guilt to them only encourages to prosecute even more. Remember the counties that arrest for prostitution also do it as a money maker and once these cases start getting dropped by the state or won by the defendants in court it will become a liability. As mentioned before the burden of proof has to be met of an actual crime committed before any arrest is made, no one can be arrested just for nothing. Not legally anyway. At the end of the day it's going to be up to the jury. Do you think they give a fuck about 2 people fucking over money? I bet they'd be pissed to be there to hear such BS charges. It only takes 1 juror to side with you and with the majority these days believing this to be a non-criminal offense are really shitty odds for the prosecutor. During Prohibition, juries who disagreed with alcohol control laws often acquitted defendants who had been caught red handed smuggling alcohol. In reality it would never get to court with a competent attorney. Think the state has time to answer a ton of questions from the interrogatories? You'll never get the answers back on time. What about a depo for an entire day? Not happening on a 2nd misdemeanor charge as the prosecutors don't have time to even handle felony charges on their other cases. When was the last time a defendant with a competent attorney found guilty by a jury over prostitution charges in the last 10 years?
