The ongoing education of the monger, aka Law and Order for the real world!
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6726954]That your premise of Lawful activity being used as evidence for Unlawful activity is actionable in Court regardless of it being a Criminal or Civil Court is a false premise.[/QUOTE]That is incorrect. "Lawful activity" is used all the time as "evidence for Unlawful activity" in court and, in turn, does not, in and of itself, become "actionable in Court" as the basis for some lawsuit. Using the ongoing example of a DUI, it is legal to go to an establishment where the primary business is the sale of alcoholic beverages, it is legal to consume alcohol and it is even legal to consume alcohol and drive a car. As a note, it only becomes illegal to drive a car if the consumption of alcohol has caused the person to become impaired or blow over the legal limit. That said, each and every one of those "lawful" activities will be used as evidence against the accused in a trial for DUI, they went to a bar, they bought alcohol, they consumed that alcohol, they then left the bar, got in their car and drove away. All legal actions, all will be detailed in court.
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6726954]Secondly, that in any sting operation the cops by definition of it being a sting are going to try to coax Intent to commit illegal activity from you so that they have actual evidence of a crime. Escorting is legal activity & since we are Innocent Until Proven Guilty then there is no Intent to commit a crime by engaging in Lawful Behavior. Everything that you listed is Lawful activity, which is why the cops would be incentivized to try to get you to agree to illegal activity so there would be grounds to effect your arrest upon arrival. If the provider that you are texting starts getting specific about activities for money then that's when you stop responding & don't go there. She would have no incentive to engage in illegal activity with an unknown person anymore than you are incentivized to engage in illegal activity with an unknown person.[/QUOTE]Also incorrect, or at least hugely misleading. While being an "escort" is lawful, as stated in my previous post, assuming we're all being honest here, we're not actually perusing those ads, contacting the numbers in those ads and setting up dates and times to meet because we want to be with an "escort" for a half hour or an hour. And again, reading the ads on STG or LC or wherever else, is completely lawful. So too is contacting the person at the other end of the phone number, even legal to set up a "date" with that person. The activity only becomes illegal upon the discussion (or actual action) of exchanging money for sex. But, just like in the trial for the DUI charge, all those "lawful" activities will be detailed in court. While I would agree (just as I did in the very first post) that you should "stop responding & don't go there" if the texting "starts getting specific about activities for money" that does not make the rest of your statement accurate.
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6726954]I was most definitely placed under arrest since I make sure to ask as soon as the handcuffs come out whether I'm under arrest or just being detained. Since He said I was under arrest then I was able to force him to subject me to the Blood Test since he was refusing to do a breathalyzer that I requested on me. My goal there was to remove any Subjective opinion from him by refusing to dance like a monkey doing his field sobriety tests & forcing an Objective fact from a Breath / Blood Test in this regard.[/QUOTE]Incorrect here too. You cannot "force" LE to do a blood test in a DUI, blood draws do occasionally happen in a DUI, but it is rather rare and, again, cannot be "forced" by the defendant. While a commonly held belief, this is simply not true. After being arrested for DUI, nearly every defendant will be requested to submit to a breath test, breath will nearly always come before urine or blood. As to urine, this will typically be requested if the person blows below 0. 08 or where LE believes the impairment is from drugs, rather than alcohol. As to blood, this will typically be requested where there is serious bodily injury or death or where the defendant is taken to a hospital for some reason, perhaps a car crash. By law, LE otherwise would only do blood where breath is impossible or impractical, not simply because it was requested by the defendant. Keep in mind, nearly every LE agency will have an intoxilyzer at their precinct, a machine that is operated and maintained by LE. Meaning, relatively quick, simple and easy to use and, should the case go to court, easy to get all relevant witnesses to court to testify. Conversely, blood would involve medical personnel and be sent to someone for testing. Not only does the mere collection and testing take more time and effort than breath, but courtroom testimony is logistically more difficult as well as the prosecution will need to bring all those individuals to court. In short, breath is much easier for LE, and the prosecution, than blood. In turn, the court system hugely gives LE the ability to determine whether to request breath, urine or blood.
As to the part about "refusing to do a breathalyzer" that you had requested, I admittedly have to speculate a bit as I was not there for your arrest and you did not provide a great deal of detail as to what occurred. Regardless, from what you've stated thus far, my guess is you were arrested and a breath test was requested by LE. After that, something occurred that led to LE considering it to be a refusal, regardless of whether you, in fact, believed you had refused. This is a fairly common occurrence, perhaps the defendant will get into a debate with LE, maybe LE requests breath three or four times and never gets an actual "yes" or "no" to the request, or maybe the person blows into the instrument insufficiently and the instrument indicates "VNM" for "volume not met" or "NSP" for "no sample provided" both likely leading to a situation where LE considers it a refusal to submit to the breath test.
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6726954]Just because you are "arrested" doesn't mean that you are processed and charged. Moving from being Detained to being Arrested is just one step on that process, a serious step but not the end of the steps necessary for you to be formally charged with a crime by the State. Hence why I made sure to do a lot of mocking towards him in my statements since they would all be necessity become part of the Court proceedings as under Miranda Rights then "anything you say can and will be used against you in court. "[/QUOTE]Another commonly held misconception is that the Miranda warnings are read at every arrest. Not true, Miranda is probably read in about a fourth of the arrests that take place. As to DUI, Miranda is almost never read. Well, at least not in a standard DUI arrest. By "standard" DUI, I mean one that does not involve a crash, serious bodily injury or death. Additionally, the Miranda warnings would likely not be a part of the analysis for whether the statements you reference would be admissible in court. The "mocking" statements you made would be considered voluntary, thereby making Miranda irrelevant. The issues here would be whether the statements would be relevant to any crimes charged and, if so, whether the probative value of those statements would outweigh the prejudicial effect. In my opinion, they would be considered admissible in court as they might be considered probative as to whether you were, in fact, impaired while driving your vehicle. Again though, Miranda would be irrelevant in that context.
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6726954]Obviously I didn't file any civil lawsuit against illegal arrest since I was never charged or processed. I was annoyed for an hour & repaired that annoyance by making fun of the cop during that time period with the certain knowledge that he was going to get hazed about it by his colleagues for a while. My point being that even if an overzealous cop in the field makes a mistake by doing an illegal arrest, if the arrest is illegal than back at the station it will be prevented from actually becoming an actionable civil case by completing the process of charging & processing (there's no "Reputational Damage" since it is never a matter of Public Record since no charges were filed & punitive damages is where you make the real money in a civil case.).[/QUOTE]Whether you file a civil lawsuit is, of course, entirely up to you. However, whether you were "charged or processed" would not be dispositive on the filing of such a suit. Based on your statements, you were subject to a traffic stop, you went through a criminal investigation, you were arrested and taken to a LE precinct. Clearly you were inconvenienced, at a minimum, you had time taken from you and, arguably, you were "injured" in some form or fashion. In theory, that's the basis of a civil lawsuit. While I have no idea whether you would prevail, or what recovery you might obtain, certainly you had a legitimate claim to pursue.
I will again suggest a ride in the "way, way back machine" so as to address the original issue, that being the comment of it being "really easy" to avoid arrest by merely not doing "anything illegal" while hobbying. As I've stated previously, it isn't quite that simple. First, and again assuming honesty, there is an expectation of an activity occurring at some point that would be considered illegal. Second, even when no actual illegal activity occurs, an arrest may take place and, in that situation, the arrested person will need to decide how vigorously he (or she) wants to pursue legal remedies available through the court system, especially where (as detailed previously) LE's actions were reasonable in light of the factual allegations, even when no actual "unlawful activity" took place. Taking your statement of "don't do anything illegal" as completely literal, then sure, that should permit you to avoid an arrest. But, the mere fact that you (along with the rest of us, myself included) are on this site posting reviews that include details that go well beyond the scope of "escort" type services (recent reviews of Mercedes and Stacy come to mind) would indicate that your statement was not, in fact, meant to be taken entirely literally.
