If a girl posts an escort ad (the prosecutor will be happy to explain to the jury that "escort" is a euphemism for prostitute if it comes to that), and the girl in the hotel connects herself to being the girl in the ad, they have enough for a bust, although they would prefer to get something more explicit on tape such as agreement for specific sex acts or the need for a condom (which is only necessary for a sex act).
These are actual police stings in Fargo, ND I found on the web. Am I correct in saying that these guys got busted because they equated money with sexual favors. If not, what was the thing they said to get them arrested. How could they have handled the situation differently. I've asked a lady if she was a cop and she said no, and she wasnt.
was so bad, that I couldn't quite make out most of what was said; but from the text of the article, these are stings of providers, not clients.
It seems pretty clear what the providers did wrong, and that is that they did not screen properly. When you are in a room with LE, you're busted no matter what you say and do, pretty much.
If a girl posts an escort ad (the prosecutor will be happy to explain to the jury that "escort" is a euphemism for prostitute if it comes to that), and the girl in the hotel connects herself to being the girl in the ad, they have enough for a bust, although they would prefer to get something more explicit on tape such as agreement for specific sex acts or the need for a condom (which is only necessary for a sex act).
FPD Video 5:
-Undercover cop is the guy.
Escort: "You know how this works right.....we both get naked" Then he asks if "everything" is included, and says "what would it take..." they discuss whether he'll get sex, and then when they find out there's no condoms, he comments "I don't want to go get one if I'm not going to get to use it." Then she says "I usually charge $100 to $150 more for sex." Then, "So, $340 for sex with both of you?" The girls eventually get nervous about the questions regarding their specific services, but not soon enough. Note that the cop does get naked with the girls (though not visibly on the video), and suggests that the girls themselves are cops. He then asks if the girls got the cash, and again discusses specific amounts.
FPD Video 6:
-Undercover cop is the girl
-She pushes him to describe what he wants for the money. She's not naked, but clearly dressed in lingerie of some sort.
FPD Video 4:
-Undercover is the guy
-She says, "It's $150 for an hour, and we work for tips, so...." "The more you tip, the more I can do," "$300 for sex." And then he hands her the money directly.
FPD Video 3:
-Undercover is the girl
-She continually pushes him to say what he wants. He says "full service" she pretends not to understand. He keeps asking if she's not a cop, and even comments that he's never had a girl ask him those kinds of questions....
FPD Video 2:
-Undercover is the girl
-Again, she pretends not to know what "full service" means, asks for the money directly
FPD Video 1:
-Undercover is a girl
-Same as above, gets money directly from the guy.
Just because you asked a woman if she was a cop, she said no, and she wasn't, doesn't mean you won't end up in the same situation as these guys and gals. No cop has to be honest with you about whether they are LE. In addition to the blatant discussion of the exchange of money for sex, the prosecutors will use the industry language in the ads to bolster their case.
The biggest mistakes these folks made:
1. No screening, of either client or provider
2. Not walking away immediately when the specifics of money and sexual acts were discussed.
Did not have time to watch all of them but I can say that discussions about money should never happen. The general rule is treat the situation like a real date. Money is never to be discussed.