Ok, emails of an enticing nature are one thing, but isn't it possible the number you called is a cel phone?
My biz partner lives in the 818(San Pornando Valley) area code, but his cel phone is a 619 (San Diego area) area code.

Say we are talking about LA to Vegas (about 300 miles or so).
If this WERE an LE sting in progress, would it not be easy to use a 702 (Vegas) area code celphone in the LA area and claim to be willing to "drive 300 miles"?

Just a thought.

by J. D. Obenberger, Attorney at Law

© 1998 J. D. Obenberger

There is a lot of dangerous misinformation about arrest and police conduct that I have heard from clients over the years, and it is important that you have an understanding of what the law actually says. It is not my intent to get into the philosophy of whether it is right or wrong for the police to use dishonest of deception, but instead, just to candidly report to you what the law permits peace officers to do.

Police Deception in Detecting Crime

There is a widespread belief out there that police officers are required by the law to act like Boy Scouts, that they can never lie, that if they do lie, it means that you can beat a case, that they have to read you your rights and if they don't do it, you can beat the case, etc., etc. and more etc.

It is simply not true that a police officer has to tell you the truth if you ask him (or her) whether he (or she) is a police officer. It is simply not true that a police officer will not take off his clothes in a prostitution investigation of massage or escort. It is not against the law for a police officer to proposition a prostitution suspect for sex for money. It is not necessarily entrapment for an attractive female decoy to dress provocatively at night on the streets, make eye contact with drivers, and beckon them, and try to induce an agreement for commercial sex. I have not read many reported decisions in which the Courts have been enthusiastic about trick, deception, and artifice by law enforcement personnel, but the Courts do understand that in the real word, a world in which crime loves darkness, stealth, and concealment, crime can sometimes only be detected and prosecuted through those same means.

It is not entrapment for the police to provide someone with an opportunity for a crime. Entrapment only exists as a defense when it can fairly be said that the government actually created the crime. The focus of the entrapment defense is on the state of mind of the accused. If he or she readily accepts an invitation to break the law, it shows pre-disposition to commit the offense, and so it cannot be fairly said that the government created the crime. Police Deception in Interrogation

The use of deception, trick, artifice, and dishonesty in interrogation is not a mere aberration or fluke that sometimes happens. It is simply routine in almost every law enforcement agency, and it remains routine because it is effective


Because most courts take the view that deception is acceptable in custodial interrogation so long as it is not likely to elicit false statements from a suspect, it is a widely accepted practice to tell the suspect untruths about his case. He will be told that his co-arrestees have made a statement and have identified him as the ringleader, even when they have remained silent. He will be told that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene even when it is not true. None of this will make his subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible against him at trial.


It should be noted that just as life is not always fair, the law is not always fair either. You do not have any reciprocal right to lie to a police officer

The most important rule to remember, if you are arrested, is that nobody ever got hanged for what they didn't say.  When Miranda was first decided, police officers and chiefs, from coast to coast, predicted that law enforcement would become unworkable, because suspects would heed the warnings, make no statement, demand a lawyer, and refuse to cooperate. Well, needless to say, the sky did not fall in on law enforcement. That is because the suspects kept talking.

It is actually rare for a suspect to invoke his Miranda rights and refuse to answer questions. The reasons are complex. Some people think that they can talk their way out of an arrest or out of jail. Some people feel the need to confess guilt. Some respond easily to a police officer who comes across like a friend. Some are convinced that they will go down anyway, and that "things will go easier" with a statement. For whatever reason, the police were amazed and chagrined to learn, that rights warning or not, defendants kept singing like canaries and manufacturing cases against themselves.
No matter how bleak the situation seems to you at that moment, you should make no statement about the offense you are being charged with or investigated for until you have consulted with a lawyer. Do not consent to the search of your vehicle or your house, or anything that belongs to you until you consult with a lawyer.
But do not consent until you have talked to a lawyer. This requires courage, because the presence of the officer and his partners, and your uncertain situation, impels you to want to get on the right side of the officer. The situation is inherently intimidating. Do not believe a statement that the officer can get a warrant anyway. If he didn't want your consent, he wouldn't ask for it. Maybe he needs it, maybe he doesn't. You don't know. But, if you have the choice, and he has, after all asked you to make a choice, your choice is "With respect, officer, I'll have to decline to give that consent until I talk with a lawyer." You can give that response whether or not you have been advised of your rights.

Joe Obenberger is a Chicago Loop lawyer concentrating in the law of free expression and liberty under the United States Constitution. His firm has represented many owners, employees, and customers of adult-oriented businesses, both online and in the “real world”. His practice extends to First Amendment cases, municipal zoning and licensing, the law of privacy, criminal law and civil rights. He can be reached in the office at 312 558-6420 or paged at 312 250-4118 in any emergency. His e-mail address is [email protected]

i.e you pay for a separate adjoining room for her driver ???????!!!!!!!!!????????
Are you F-ing nuts ????????

The possibilities for this ending badly for you are multiple !!!!
Let's see ...

1.  Very worst case.  Driver sneaks into your room thru adjoining door and robs you at gunpoint, shoots you so there are no witnesses. You are dead.  

2.  Bad case, not as bad as #1:  You get robbed of all your cash, credit cards, watch, car keys, etc. either by driver, or your cutie who escapes with conveniently located driver in adjacent room.

3.  Semi-bad case:  You give the 4-hour $$$$$$ amount envelope to cutie, who says, "I'll just give this to me driver next door for safe keeping, I'll be right back ..."  She, of course, exits thru the adjoining room door, obstenibly for just a moment, and ...... never returns, they're off to the next john at the next hotel.  At least you only lost your fee.

4.  A really bad case, where you keep your money, and lose everything elese, like your dignity, wife and kids:  The cutie is LE and the adjoining room for which you so generously and conveniently paid is used by the LE surveilience team who uses your paid-guest room to audio & video tape you and then use the adjoining room door to enter your room and arrest you.

The second room is going to be occupied by either her pimp or LE, neither of which is worth the risk.

Think about it: If the gal WAS planning a robbery using an accomplice, what does she gain by letting littlehead know she is bringing a driver? Wouldn't she want to do everything in her power to lull the mark into complacency, rather than raising his suspicions as well as allowing him to take certain precautions? (e.g. -- watching the driver provide his ID to the desk clerk.) There are so many ways to plan the robbery without using an extra room or even letting littlhead know that she's bringing a "friend." Also, I can't imagine LE getting this elaborate. The fact that her safety seems to be a priority adds a degree of legitimacy to the scenario. It's still an extremely risky venture, however, and I'd proceed with EXTREME caution and abort the mission at the slighest hint .