And the wheels keep turning
[QUOTE=OrlandoMonger;6350769]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.[/QUOTE]It's not a false arrest where there's a statute or ordinance in place allowing such an arrest. Does not matter if said statute or ordinance is later overturned, if the law was in place at the time of the arrest, the arrest itself was still valid. Also, keep in mind that the loitering for purposes of prostitution would not necessarily require "sex for anything of value" to be mentioned. In theory, the arrest could come about based on a "known prostitute", meaning conviction within the past year, being in an "area known for prostitution, pretty much all of OBT, and waving at drivers as they pass by. Please keep in mind we're talking about an ARREST, not a CONVICTION. For the conviction to occur, certainly a prosecutor would want more.
[QUOTE=OrlandoMonger;6350788]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.[/QUOTE]Probably some truth to that first sentence about low hanging fruit. As I stated previously, LE often looks to effectuate an arrest even when there is not a certainty of conviction, after all, that gets the person off of the streets and, as Grain pointed out, it certainly may discourage the ladies from going right back to those some locations. As to the rest of your post, certainly debatable. As I stated above, if there is a statute or ordinance in place, these are NOT false arrests. Even if charges are dropped later, does not make it a false arrest. Huge difference between what LE needs, probable cause, and what a prosecutor needs, beyond any reasonable doubt. As to suing anyone in federal court, that is not an easy, or inexpensive, thing to do. These are second degree misdemeanor offenses. The provider gets arrested. She's taken to the county jail. She appears before a judge. The prosecutor says they'll offer the provider credit time served and she's done. Is the provider going to accept that offer and be released or is she going to stand her ground, dispute the charges and later on sue in federal court? COULD this happen? Sure. WILL it happen? Seems like the vast majority of people would take option 1, credit time served and done.
[QUOTE=OrlandoMonger;6350789][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][/QUOTE]That's California. This is Florida. Governor there is a Democrat. Governor here is a Republican. I'd submit that they are complete opposites. I'd also point out that, in your article, he clearly states that they are NOT legalizing prostitution. Probably not the best article to support the argument for prostitution being on the cusp of legalization.
[QUOTE=OrlandoMonger;6350875]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?[/QUOTE]So right and so wrong all at the same time. True, laws get changed based on people challenging those laws. Also true that the prosecution has the burden of proof and that a defendant, or his attorney, need only convince one juror to avoid a guilty verdict. Otherwise though, I'd disagree with many of the comments. I'd suggest one issue is simply the reality of the court system. I had a cousin once (yep, a lot of cousins getting arrested) that was charged with prostitution. He had a great case, he never mentioned money or sex, never took off any clothes or exposed himself in anyway and never touched the UC in any sexual way. His attorney suggested he should go to trial because he believed he could get a not guilty verdict. However, my cousin had a plea offer for a reduced charge and decided to take that instead of going to trial. He made that decision because he didn't want to pay the attorney a trial fee and then be in court (you know, open to the public) where there would be testimony that he contacted a UC to get laid in exchange for money. He had a wife and kids and didn't want the embarrassment that could come from a public trial. And as to the comment of whether people give a fuck about people fucking over money, yes, plenty of people do. Rest assured, a fair portion of the jury pool will be staunchly religious, or they'll believe the hype about trafficking or they'll have some other reason, whether real or imagined, to think prostitution is morally wrong or, more relevant, legally wrong.
Bottom line, play smart, follow the rules we all know, including educating oneself with the shared information available on these boards and you should be fine, yes, SHOULD be fine. If you want a guarantee you'll never visit with Uncle LEO, probably time to change hobbies.
Spinning your wheels going no where is more like it, I stand by what I said
If what you said was true they'd easily have hundreds of arrests by now under that law. Unlike you, I have actual experience in prosecuting 2 different sheriff depts in 2 different counties in Federal court. I bet you never filed a single suit there. So under your logic if I, or an Uber / Lyft driver picks up a "known prostitute" as you say, we go to jail or if a prostitute walks by the area to get food she goes to jail. How the fuck would an Uber driver even know? That would easily defeat a mens rea requirement. The WG has a federal / constitutional right to live and walk to the store, bus stop, friends place, etc. Use your fucking brain, you honestly think the poor WG can't walk or sit anywhere to eat her food? Sorry that's just wrong, not legal in the least bit and violating the most basic fundamental constitutional rights. Even one of the last guys commenting states it is not illegal even if she was a convicted prostitute and case law supports this. It does, he's right and so am I. A false arrest is the restraint or detention by one person of another without lawful justification. There is law, then there is case law. Many laws are not prosecuted that are on the book. Law Vs case law Ex; Per statue in FL I can't have Anything on or covering my license plate. Per case law I can indeed have a cover on my plate, even a tinted one, as long as you can read it at a certain feet. In the event the victims sue the county and the deputy under this loitering law, let's see it get dismissed by the judge, it won't be. If you were my attorney I'd fire you then sue you to get my money back. How about you actually sue the county or the Sheriff's dept then get back to us.
[QUOTE=VincentGambini;6352906]It's not a false arrest where there's a statute or ordinance in place allowing such an arrest. Does not matter if said statute or ordinance is later overturned, if the law was in place at the time of the arrest, the arrest itself was still valid. Also, keep in mind that the loitering for purposes of prostitution would not necessarily require "sex for anything of value" to be mentioned. In theory, the arrest could come about based on a "known prostitute", meaning conviction within the past year, being in an "area known for prostitution, pretty much all of OBT, and waving at drivers as they pass by. Please keep in mind we're talking about an ARREST, not a CONVICTION. For the conviction to occur, certainly a prosecutor would want more.
Probably some truth to that first sentence about low hanging fruit. As I stated previously, LE often looks to effectuate an arrest even when there is not a certainty of conviction, after all, that gets the person off of the streets and, as Grain pointed out, it certainly may discourage the ladies from going right back to those some locations. As to the rest of your post, certainly debatable.[/QUOTE]
Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is protected by the 14th amend
Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and is part of our personal liberty. The way the ordinance defines "loitering" is too vague. There are good reasons why a person might be standing on the street that might not be apparent to a police officer. Loitering laws are often challenged for vagueness and being overly broad.
A statute can be declared "void for vagueness" if it fails to inform the average person of what it is that the law prohibits in a clear and objective manner or fails to provide law enforcement officials with clear and objective standards for its implementation. And it may be declared unconstitutional due to overbreadth of intent and application if it prohibits activities unprotected by the Constitution but might also be used to prohibit constitutionally protected activities.
The first significant challenge to general loitering laws was Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972).
Jacksonville, Florida, passed a law that prohibited loitering and defined loiterers as "persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object."
Loitering laws can have chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Based on Jacksonville's definition of loitering, the USA Supreme Court declared in a decision written by William O. Douglas that the law was simply too vague to allow the average person to discern what is prohibited and what is not. Taking a daily walk could be considered loitering, subjecting an innocent person to arrest. Such vagueness in the law raises a second concern: "the net is cast large," resulting in the individual police officer having virtually unlimited discretion to decide who is loitering and who is taking a walk.
With no objective standards of guilt, the law not only permitted but even encouraged police to apply the law in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner against "the poor and the unpopular. ".
The Court also found the laws to be overly broad. While the First Amendment does not specifically mention the right to walk or loiter, it does protect a right to free speech, a right to assemble, and a right to petition the government. Jacksonville's definition of loitering was so broad that it could be used to either deny these rights or to have a "chilling effect" on their exercise by threatening an arrest.
Some loitering laws have been rewritten, still been challenged. As a result of Papachristou, most loitering laws were rewritten to include specific offenses associated with loitering — "loitering-plus" ordinances. Nevertheless, those revised laws are subject to the same judicial scrutiny as the previous, more generalized, loitering laws.
Therefore, as I have previously stated loitering is mostly an add on charge to another criminal offense. The law clearly states LOITERING FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, not just LOITERING.
This means the LEO would have to have probable cause of that said UNLAWFUL crime. If it is prostitution that the LEO declares is the crime (which is assumed to be the majority of these arrests), then that LEO had better have proof of sex for money / something of value per statue. If that officer / deputy does not have the REQUIRED PROOF under that prostitution statue and makes the arrest anyway, then an illegal arrest has been made IE; a false arrest which is absolutely actionable. It is the job of LEO to know the law, that's what they get paid to do. Suing the county and LEO individually will help educate them and reward you for the suffering and embarrassment they put you through. It is everyone's duty to follow through with this and file a complaint with the DOJ.
Is that one-legged Jenny? No, it's not!
After a hour long session with a regular I have on speed dial, I took a quick pass by through the Norther Half of the Trail. The Teen-Streets & 20's Streets were about as usual. A few of the regular slags and a few of the normal regulars. I saw Sharday (again) and Sherri B both out. I hadn't seen Sherri out in a while.
In the 40's I saw a few, especially around the 7-11 including something that made me do a double-take and made me regret I had just spent a pretty active hour with another provider and was not ready to go for round 3 at this moment.
I saw a smaller Hispanic girl with frizzy hair in a Wheel Chair rolling around the 7-11 area. She was missing her left leg, just below the knee. My first though was it was Jenny, but I knew that Jenny is currently on Vacation from a couple of days ago and this girl was dressed too nice and much healthier looking to be Jenny. I didn't know if this was a possibility to partake or was just a coincidence of it being a civi out and about. I rolled up on her as she was passing behind the 7-11 and when I saw it wasn't Jenny, I said, "oh, I thought you were Jenny" & "do you know Jenny"? She said no and quickly turned her head and her wheel chair away and started leaving my vicinity quickly. I pulled into the DG and asked her again. She fled and was now looking like she was crying. I think I spooked her.
I hung back for a bit with a few passes and saw how she moved around and would approach people for handouts and such. She would talk to some people through car windows, so now I knew I spooked her. I parked at 7-11 and watched her avoid my car like the plague.
Now, she is probably the best looking person I had seen out there in ages. I mean she is cute as a button, nice petite build, wearing clean clothes, clean hands, clean feet (I mean foot), bright white teeth, the whole shebang. Now I knew I needed to find out more. I went inside the store to buy a soda and on my way out, I grabbed one of the Parking Lot Concierges. I asked him if the chick in the wheel chair tricks or what. First thing out of his mouth was, "she's got the cutest little titties"! He said she is up for play. I told him she thinks I am a cop, so she won't talk to me. He said she wouldn't think so and would talk to me if he told her to come over to me. He was insistent on going to get her right now. He also commented that she is fresh and ripe. LOL.
I told him I wasn't ready to make the snag right now, but wanted to know for later. I gave him a small gratuity for his help. I circled one more time and made it back to my parking spot. My concierge saw me again and without hesitation, went and got her to come close by my car. He told her I wanted to help her out and that I wasn't a cop. After a few reassurances, she opened up some. I asked her name. She said it was Madison. I asked her if she was from around here. She said no. I told her I would like to help her but can't right now. She asked my friend if he thought I wanted head or something? He told her I was safe and it's OK. I then told her I just wanted to make sure that she was going to be around later on.
After some more pleasantries and getting the intel, I tipped the concierge again and gave Madison a Lincoln.
The only thing I saw that was a concern was that she appeared she may have been candy sick / dope sick at that time. Just before she came up towards my car another patron bought her a soda. After he gave it to her and while my friend was talking with her about coming to see me, she kind of threw up some clear liquid. It wasn't food coming up, it was clear. Not a lot, just seemed strange. She started crying about it and was being consoled. I don't know if she was scared or actually sick. Either way, I had that concern.
I put this out there as if you are in that area and see a girl with one leg in a wheel chair (and it's not Jenny) and are bold enough to take a chance, I would recommend giving her a shot. Especially before the streets eat her up. I didn't see a handler with her or anywhere around her, so I don't know that status. I mentioned in an earlier report that I saw a very cute, petite Hispanic girl in a car the other day leaving the Zada, this could have been her.
I plan to go back and see what's what after I prepare my safest spot for a visitor, although this one's probably not going to run off with anything in my spot. LOL.
Grain 56.
