Printable View
I am sure if you are in public they can video you. You are in the public eye, you do not expect privacy.
If they use confiscated security camera footage I am sure they can use that.
The going to your house is a scare tactic.
You have to freak out and admit to any wrong doing before they have you.
Lawsuit, well that will get you newspaper time and maybe some camera time.
I know I have gone to AMPs for a real massage and some are damn good.
I paid the door fee and a small courtesy tip of .2 .
[QUOTE=Samgyupsahl]Can't you sue the police department for using the video camera to catch you?
This seems like an invasion of privacy issue to me.
And if the police disclose those information in front of your family, and your wife divorces you, for instant, isn't that also a lawsuit right there?
And how accurate are the video cameras in seeing your faces?
Furthermore, just because you walk into the establishment and your face is on the camera, doesn't mean that you're there for sex.
You can be a clue-less person and go there just for a massage. Although it really is ridiculous for a person to go to an MP or AMP solely for a regular massage w/ out HJs or other extras.[/QUOTE]From what I read it was the AMP's camera when you went in. I guess in case of a robbery or whatever. They have my/your faces and said something about having the license plate numbers so maybe they had one in the parking lot as well? My thing with AMP's is I always park away from them and walk
[QUOTE=Samgyupsahl]Can't you sue the police department for using the video camera to catch you?
This seems like an invasion of privacy issue to me.
And if the police disclose those information in front of your family, and your wife divorces you, for instant, isn't that also a lawsuit right there?
And how accurate are the video cameras in seeing your faces?
Furthermore, just because you walk into the establishment and your face is on the camera, doesn't mean that you're there for sex.
You can be a clue-less person and go there just for a massage. Although it really is ridiculous for a person to go to an MP or AMP solely for a regular massage w/ out HJs or other extras.[/QUOTE]Do they use video evidence for bank robberies, convenience store robberies, kidnappings from malls? Do tv show like dateline use video to bust child predators? Do they have video cameras placed throughout the city streets to catch crimes? Didn't the gun store that was robbed use video to catch the thiefs? How is it an invasion of your privacy when you are breaking the law? They also stated they had papertrails. Its known knowledge that the oriental MPs are usually offering other services. If you go to these you are looking for trouble.
The last high profile bust they did in Carmel they sat across the street and videod license plates and men going in and out. The newschannels also taped video of men going to the MP and used them on the news.
Thing is if you break the law they have a right to use any evidence they can get on you. Rarely do you see any business without videocameras. You go in knowing you are being taped.
1986: Big Brother is watching. If you don't want busted then protect yourself against that. Don't go where you could be busted.
[QUOTE=Firedigg]Have they showed up at anyones house yet? I saw another post saying they were going to be knocking on doors. They come to my house they better have a video of me getting laid if my better half is around. Remember one thing guys no cameras in the room. You hurt your back moving something in the garage and saw a massage place to try to releive the pain.[/QUOTE]Do we ever consider our better halfs until we are caught?That is the risk we take.I know my better half wouldn't buy a hurt back story and would wonder why I didn't go to an legit MP.
Another reason I do not go to MPS.They have said for years they use the cameras as evidence,papertrails and going to your home to embarrass you into not doing it again.Some states and cities post your picture in a local paper or website when you are caught with prostitutes.It is amazing how some posters seems upset at the police etcetc when you were in the wrong.You do not want busted then dont play sloppy.Stay clear of video cameras etcetc.
This board for one posters post strippers names,locations,pictures of SWs,names of MPs and exact locations.I think that is an invasion of privacy.How many girls are upset to find their pictures,names etcetc here?How many of us have been told off due to the posts here?You also put these working girls at risk in posting their faces,names etcetc.You put men at risk that go see them.What would we do if the working girls started posting our pictures,names etcetc.So why do we do it to them?Bragging rights?
Perhaps it would be better not to be so out in the open with bragging and keep specifics private.If not dont blame le or anyone else when you are popped.How many times have we seen this website used on tv or N*vo with shots of the screen in the reports?Yet we still have other men crying and whinning when they are busted.
We may not like how they conduct bust on MPs or the outcome but I have children at home and would not want one in my neighborhood.2 sides to every problem in life.we dont like le for busting us when we do wrong but they are trying to keep families and neighborhoods nice for our children etcetc.if you can't pay don't play.But keep it under wraps for those of us that play safe.
[QUOTE=Hobbyist6543]Do tv show like dateline use video to bust child predators?
1986: Big Brother is watching. If you don't want busted then protect yourself against that. Don't go where you could be busted.[/QUOTE]And didn't that phoney NBC TV show get tons of lawsuits against them for slandering the people caught on camera?
I mean come on. There are tons of child molesters and predators out there who don't get their faces shown on national TV.
I'm glad the attorneys got on the a$$es of NBC and that corrupt predator TV show.
The quick-and-dirty answer to the questions over the last couple of days.
1. Images that were taken by the police while in a public place in surveillance of a location where a suspected criminal offense can used to gather evidence and to prosecute suspected violators.
2. Images taken by the police inside a business while investigating a suspected criminal offense can be used as evidence if they 1) were taken while the police were inside on official, legitimate police business or 2) were obtained using a valid warrant.
3. Recordings of images seized as evidence during the apprehension of suspected criminal offenders may be used as evidence if they were properly seized during the apprehension. Even if the images were improperly seized, it would be hard for the client to assert the illegality. The people at the business were the ones that could assert that they had their property improperly seized and not the client. The police didn’t take the images, a third party did. Whether there might be grounds for a civil action against the third parties would depend upon the circumstances, but it is unlikely that there would be any cause of action against the police.
4. Questioning witnesses that may have information concerning a suspected criminal offense is proper. If that witness happens to be the individual’s spousal unit, that’s not a problem. Admissibility of the statements from a spouse might be inadmissible in court if the spousal privilege can be asserted, but that would depend on what the statements were, whether they originated with the defendant, how they were made, etc.
5. You can always file suit. Whether you have basis to recover is another matter. In the situations described in the earlier posts, it’s unlikely that you would have a viable law suit.
6. As to the images, while they may be admissible in a criminal prosecution, they would be insufficient proof of the offense by themselves unless they actually recorded the illegal act itself. On the other hand, they could be substantiating evidence if one of the parlor folks testified against a client concerning alleged illegal activity.
Z
Hobbyist6543,
The issue regarding privacy and details involving our posts has already been deliberated. New Forum rules, or posting guidelines or even their discussion was given a thumbs down. If you go back 6 months or so you'll find the details. You will find no better example of your concerns than what prompted that discussion then. However, you seem a little newbieish, with posts that provide little toward the purpose of the Forum, to be the facilitator of change.
What is the purpose of this Forum?
The purpose of this Forum is to facilitate the exchange of information between men who are looking for sex with women.
It would seem that the Forum is not meeting your needs. Maybe there is another that can benefit from your insight?
Nothing personal.
I made an appointment for an Asian massage with the place that advertises on c-list. Woman that answered the do did not look good (kind of chunky with acne all over her face... at least I hope it was). But she didn't give the massage. Another lady, a bit older (probably in her mid 30's), but slender and nice enough looking provided the massage. The massage was decent and on the flip she dove right into the standard handshake. Hands were free to roam up top and bottom (but limited there, since she was wearing pants, not a skirt).
Damage was .7 for the hr and .4 for tip. Nice enough and I'll probably go again and see what else is on the menu.
[QUOTE=Hobbyist6543]Do we ever consider our better halfs until we are caught?That is the risk we take.I know my better half wouldn't buy a hurt back story and would wonder why I didn't go to an legit MP.
Another reason I do not go to MPS.They have said for years they use the cameras as evidence,papertrails and going to your home to embarrass you into not doing it again.Some states and cities post your picture in a local paper or website when you are caught with prostitutes.It is amazing how some posters seems upset at the police etcetc when you were in the wrong.You do not want busted then dont play sloppy.Stay clear of video cameras etcetc.
This board for one posters post strippers names,locations,pictures of SWs,names of MPs and exact locations.I think that is an invasion of privacy.How many girls are upset to find their pictures,names etcetc here?How many of us have been told off due to the posts here?You also put these working girls at risk in posting their faces,names etcetc.You put men at risk that go see them.What would we do if the working girls started posting our pictures,names etcetc.So why do we do it to them?Bragging rights?
Perhaps it would be better not to be so out in the open with bragging and keep specifics private.If not dont blame le or anyone else when you are popped.How many times have we seen this website used on tv or N*vo with shots of the screen in the reports?Yet we still have other men crying and whinning when they are busted.
We may not like how they conduct bust on MPs or the outcome but I have children at home and would not want one in my neighborhood.2 sides to every problem in life.we dont like le for busting us when we do wrong but they are trying to keep families and neighborhoods nice for our children etcetc.if you can't pay don't play.But keep it under wraps for those of us that play safe.[/QUOTE]Dude, who the heck are you? You sound like uncle LEO or something.
how come you know all these BS law excuses as if you're not trying to help us genuine hobbyists here?
anyhow, it's very weird how the cops here in Indianapolis, specifically the carmel or hamilton cnty police, have time on their hands to sift through video surveilance cameras to prosecute people, when in fact, any joe shmoe can be seen on a video camera and not be receiving illegal sexual activity.
Sorry buddy. I don't have the same mentality as you do.
Just because the police department seizes a video recording from an MP and sees various or millions of different face on their video camera, doesn't mean that they can prosecute the million of faces or people that they find on camera.
There's just something bogus about your logic pal.
[/QUOTE]1986: Big Brother is watching. If you don't want busted then protect yourself against that. Don't go where you could be busted.[/QUOTE]
Not to be a dick, but I think you mean 1984... Thanks to everyone for the legal info. Be careful out there.
I can find no independent verification that there was an arrest at Studio 421. This sounds like disinformation from a rival spa owner. The claim that the bust required "10 police cars and a fire truck" seems ridiculous. "A chainsaw was used to cut open the money box", did anyone actually witness this? Why aren't there any pictures of this massive emergency vehicle motorcade?
As far as I know, Studio 421 is still in business. Someone posted about their dissatisfation with a 2-girl session involving Lacey and Mariah. I have never had a session with Mariah so I can't comment on her. But I have had several sessions with Lacey and she's a real sweetheart. If the poster found Lacey & Mariah to be "60 pounds overweight", well no one is forcing you to buy a session with them! Calling Studio 421 an "ugly whitegirl clubhouse" smacks of reverse racism. Not everyone has the same tastes; not everyone gets turned on by a skanky BSW or Asian masseuse. As for Studio 421 being a "cashout machine", sometimes you get what you pay for. You can't pay the price of a rusty bicycle on a street corner and expect a Cadillac from the showroom! And no, I don't work for Studio 421!
There was actually a bust at Rebecca Davis' Back In Time spa on 96th St. As has been well documented. Rebecca stupidly videotaped the sessions (to collect a percentage of the women's tips), thereby creating evidence against herself!
Think they were actually thinking of OU812, that was the one with Orwell singing instead of Roth.
[QUOTE]1986: Big Brother is watching. If you don't want busted then protect yourself against that. Don't go where you could be busted.
Not to be a dick, but I think you mean 1984... Thanks to everyone for the legal info. Be careful out there.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Randumb6]Think they were actually thinking of OU812, that was the one with Orwell singing instead of Roth.[/QUOTE]Yes I was thinking 1984 which was a "futuristic" look at gov't and surveilance cameras everywhere including inside homes.
[QUOTE=Randumb6]Think they were actually thinking of OU812, that was the one with Orwell singing instead of Roth.[/QUOTE]Actually Hagar was the singer on ou812
[QUOTE=Randumb6]Think they were actually thinking of OU812, that was the one with Orwell singing instead of Roth.[/QUOTE]Oh damnit, it was a joke. I get it. Sorry