Several reviews did mention an exchange of money. However, is that truly probable cause? I was of the understanding that what is said on this site, in the reviews and otherwise, is protected by the First Amendment.
For example, if I subscribed to High Times magazine, do the police have probable cause to enter my home looking for drugs based solely on the fact that I subscribe to a publication that talks about marijuana?
A client came to my home. After the "Hello" and "How are you" I offered him a seat on the couch, and I went into my bedroom to make my bed. He followed me into my bedroom, unasked, and started chit-chatting.
Never, at any time, did I discuss sex in exchange for money. But he took money out of his pocket and set it on my entertainment center. Several minutes later, he got up to use the bathroom, but I see him walking in the opposite direction, toward my livingroom. He asked if he could help himself to a glass of water. I said I would get it because he was the guest. I go into the kitchen, and I see him unlock my front door and let 3 police officers into my home.
They tell me to sit down, one officer stays with me and the others go into my bedroom, and take pictures. Then they have me stand up so they can take a picture of me.
I did not consent to the officers coming into my home, they had no arrest warrant, they did not even let me get out of my chair: all this without telling me why they were there. Finally, right before they leave, they tell me I am being cited for solicitation and Mirandize me. But I did not go to jail.
Any legal advice or insight would be greatly appreciated.
if you were in a residential area, they may have just wanted to scare you.
It is very dangerous to do your job out of your real home. You could end up dead next time. A relative or even a client may have tipped them off but you may very well go w/o any charges on you since you didn't go to jail.
They might have also been looking for drugs and was more interested in that since many escorts do that too
I am not a lawyer ....please don't get offended. I have spent a year trying to do research on prostitution since I have a prelaw degree and free access to the legal library at my law college.
LE does not need a warrant if they have probable cause.
Do you have reviews? Does the profile page link to your page that has pictures? Do the reviews talk about money exchange (ie, "after we took care of business..." or "after I laid down the envelope...)? All these can add up to probable cause.
Police can make an arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause, but this is not the test for conducting a search. Probable cause is more or less what the police have to demonstrate in order to GET a search warrant, so it would make no sense to say that probable cause makes a warrant unnecessary.
There is such a thing as a search incident to a lawful arrest, and no warrants are required for such a search. The scope of such searches is limited, and normally would not extend beyond the room(s) the defendant is in while the police are present.
If one of the newly-arrived cops entered your bedroom, that might be a technical violation, but it would be considered harmless because the undercover cop had already seen what was in that room. The fact that you didn't invite him in might make a difference, but chances are the officer will say you led him in there and the judge will believe the cop's story over yours.
Several reviews did mention an exchange of money. However, is that truly probable cause? I was of the understanding that what is said on this site, in the reviews and otherwise, is protected by the First Amendment.
For example, if I subscribed to High Times magazine, do the police have probable cause to enter my home looking for drugs based solely on the fact that I subscribe to a publication that talks about marijuana?
The First Amendment says that the government cannot penalize you for what you say. It does not mean that the government has to completely ignore what you say. If it did, then confessions made by criminals to the police could not be used against them even if the officers gave Miranda warnings. These folks end up being punished, but the punishment is for what they did and not what they said. An innocent person could say exactly the same thing and would not end up in jail because the statement is not illegal. Even if the statement says he committed a crime, he can't be prosecuted unless there is other evidence to back up the claim. This is called the corpus dilecti rule.
When police think you have committed a crime, things you have said (even things you said before they became suspicious) will often be useful as evidence against you. There is no reason the law should prevent them from using such statements.
Let me get this straight: You let a client into you residence and then you went into the bedroom to make the bed? The police detained you in one room and then search the other rooms in your residence? Did they actually cite you, or just say they were going to cite you? If they did cite you, look on the citation and see what penal code section you were cited for, along with the definition, and when you were cited to appear in court. When you say Mirandized you, did they actually admonish you of your right to remain silent? If they did admonish you, what kind of questions did they ask you? Did they ask you for identification? If these people were the police, the incident sounds very strange to me to say the least. By the way, where did this happen?
The livingroom is diagonal to the bedroom, less than five feet away. So I would have been able to see where he was at all times. But he followed me into the bedroom.
Next to the kitchen is the diningroom, but I have my computer desk there. They made me sit down in the desk chair, and while one of the cops was watching me, the rest of them went through the livingroom into the bedroom.
They didn't tell me why they were there. I had to ask the cop who was watching me and he said I was being arrested for solicitation. By this time, the other cops are already in my bedroom. Then they asked me for my driver's license and took a picture of me. They said that they weren't going to take me to jail because "I seemed nice" and they didn't want my dog to have to be alone overnight.
When they Mirandized me, they did tell me that I had the right to remain silent. They asked me if I wanted to talk and I said no. I did get a citation, and it says 647(b) Solicitation of Prostitution. My arraignment was just this past Tuesday.
Don't I have a certain expectation of privacy in my own home?
"Don't I have a certain expectation of privacy in my own home?"
Not after you've been caught by an undercover cop, no. It's a crime scene.
BTW, I'm not saying that the DA will have enough evidence to charge you or that if you are charged that there is enough to convict you. I'm only pointing out that once a suspect is in custody (and you were definitely in custody if they Mirandized you and told you they were arresting you) they can conduct a search of the premises for related evidence.
Now, if during the search they opened up a closet and in there found a shoe-box with a handgun that they later determined to be a murder weapon for an unsolved homicide then I would say that the DA might not be too happy with them unless they had a search warrant and it specified weapons. It might still be accepted as evidence by a judge but there would surely be legal wranglings over that.
-- Modified on 3/13/2005 9:18:31 PM
The law protects your reasonable expectation of privacy in your home, but when you invite someone in you are permitting him to see what would otherwise have been private. You can't keep things private from someone whom you have allowed to observe them. That the person you let in happened to be an undercover cop doesn't change the fact that he was there with your permission.
If the fact that something happened inside a home made it private, then people could commit ANY crime at home and get away with it. Murder, espionage, big-time drug deals, or just about any kind of crime can be carried out inside one's home, and there is no reason why the location of the crime should prevent the government from prosecuting it.
I agree that this story has some credibility problems. The biggest one I see is with the idea that the police talked to you for a while and then Mirandized you right before they left. The whole point of a Miranda warning is so the prosecutor can use statements you make after you have been warned. There is no reason for cops on their way out the door to Mirandize anyone. Ever.
If the police continued to question you after you were Mirandized then warning you would have made sense, but you should have invoked your right to remain silent.
It is also very unusual for a suspect to be Mirandized when the police are not taking her into custody. (To the other lawyers here, I am using "custody" in the generic sense and not the somewhat broader legal definition.) Sometimes officers give the warnings and decide later that the suspect doesn't have to come with them, but if Mirandizing you was the last thing they did then this isn't what happened.
The whole situation seems strange.
First question: what do they mean by "cited" in your jurisdiction?
Were you provided with a ticket calling for you to go to court at a later date? Did they display real identification that they were, in fact, the police?
As far as the entry into the apartment, a minimal intrusion to make an arrest, where the probable cause is the officer in the apartment letting them in, would pass constitutional muster. If the undercover had left the apartment, then there would have been an issue about their later entry, if it was made without a warrant. The ley is that the undercover, who already has permission to be in the apartment, allows these officers in.
Photographing the bedroom, etc., and the seizure of any items in the apartment would appear to be beyond what would be allowable.
But remember, the issue would be suppression of the items seized from the apartment and the photographs taken therein.
As far as Miranda is concerned, it appears very arguable that three officer entering and displaying identification would qualify as placing you in "custody" such that Miranda warnings would be required before any questioning. Again, it is a suppression issue.
You should certainly consult with local counsel in your jurisdiction, even if you are not required to go to court, just in case something develops in the future.
I don't think it is "very arguable that three officer entering and displaying identification" is enough to trigger Miranda. There have been some cases in which a defendant was found to have been in custody when police questioned him/her at home, but the facts in those cases went far beyond the police walking in the door and identifying themselves.
Maybe these police also went far beyond walking in and showing their ID, but the original question didn't describe anything like what it would take before a Miranda warning was required.
And besides, Miranda only matters when the police are questioning the suspect. The original message does not say they asked her even one question. If they don't ask her anything, there is no Miranda issue.
from a laymans perspective the whole thing reaks of rippoff/intimidation or cash for protection. If I were this lady I'ld be running to the real estate office looking for new housing as far away as I could get. If they were real cops they could be dirty and looking for cash flow. signed Paranoid Now where did I put those rolling papers?
As I noted, jurisdictions may differ in this area. In New York, based on these facts, it would be my opinion that we would consider her in "custody"-- in the deep south, who knows!
Which is why I recommend local counsel, and not a NY liberal attorney. LOL
"As far as the entry into the apartment, a minimal intrusion to make an arrest, where the probable cause is the officer in the apartment letting them in, would pass constitutional muster. If the undercover had left the apartment, then there would have been an issue about their later entry, if it was made without a warrant. The ley is that the undercover, who already has permission to be in the apartment, allows these officers in.
Photographing the bedroom, etc., and the seizure of any items in the apartment would appear to be beyond what would be allowable.
But remember, the issue would be suppression of the items seized from the apartment and the photographs taken therein."
If an undercover officer thought he had enough evidence of solicitation to then bring in the rest of his team then her entire place is considered to be part of a crime scene. This is no different from a MP getting busted through an undercover sting.
There is something fishy here, although maybe you didn't realize how important it is to recite the facts exactly as they occurred. I'd also like to know where this occurred. Oh, and unless you plan on pleading guilty, retain a reputable criminal defense attorney immediately. If you can't get an appointment right away, write down everything that happened, from your initial contact with the "client" to the police leaving, and do it in as great of detail as possible, so you don't forget anything that your attorney may find important. Write down everything and let the attorney decide if it is legally significant...don't edit anything out because you don't think it is legally significant.
There would be more forensic questions..did he call and book a appointment..did you take this call on a cell phone or your regular line. There is cause for intent..even if you did not pick up the money.
I would suggest you prepare yourself to get a good lawyer..who has trial experience..chances are that this could go a way..if your lawyer..can work with the DA office.or .or if you more receive information from the DA.
Good Luck
This does sound very strange. Did they have any ID that they were in fact officers? Down here I have seen busts and raids and they have some kind of ID that they are officers like badges around their necks. I don't know if they were or not but it could be all kinds of things. I have been doing this and I have seen the most outrageous things including other providers in the area setting up providers. I knew a woman who ran a massage brothel and she openly advertised it like ads that said, come play with our pussies, stuff like that and another place close to her opened up and she send her friend over there to raid the place except her friends weren't cops but they intimidated the girls and they left. I am not saying that this is what happened in your case but like I said I have seen some crazy shit go on. You would want to talk to a lawyer ASAP. Did they take anything? Are you leaving anything out?
David Conn in Los Angeles on Wilshire Blvd. Excellent lawyer. Former D.A. on the Menendez Brothers Case. Worth the $!
FYI to all who don't know...Long Beach PD frowns upon "activity" and used to send around fliers in the upscale neighborhoods encouraging residents to report any "working girl" activity they might suspect.
See- this is why you need to screen, screen, screen! Clients may not like it, but it's your life and your livelyhood. Yes, LE has ways of getting around screening BUT you may find that ONE little detail they didn't cover...
Good Luck Girl! 
... telling you that you had to show up in court on a certain date? Were they unifromed officers? Did they show ID? DO YOU HAVE A LAWYER?