Its like every couple of days there's a post about screening.  If the ladies screen, all the rants from guys here isn't going to change that.  If they don't screen, all the admonishments from the ladies isn't going to change that.

Related to that, a question.  When can a client or provider get busted?  All the research I have done indicates that there MUST be some discussion about sex for money.  If there is never mention of sex, is there anything illegal being done?  Please, no opinions.  I would like to hear from lawyers or those with the facts.

you must remember that just because LE might arrest you, doesn't mean it will stick if you go to court.  

As Camille states, if you show up, they can bust you if they want, regardless of what has or hasn't been said, or what has or hasn't happened.  Then it would be up to YOU to *fight* it instead of just rolling and taking a plea to save time/money/embarrasment (as many often do...).

xoM

Sometimes you have to beat it long after it's dead in order to make it tender enough to swallow.  

Look at the post below.  Do you think those five women now wish that they had screened better?  Most of the screening posts and threads are easily identifiable.  If you don't want join in beating the poor, dead equine, then skip over.

Screening is essential.  Can't talk enough about it.

"Its like every couple of days there's a post about screening.  If the ladies screen, all the rants from guys here isn't going to change that.  If they don't screen, all the admonishments from the ladies isn't going to change that."

He wrote this after a post title of "Is the horse dead yet?"

That was what I was responding to.  Actually, I am a lawyer and could answer his next question, but you had already done that as well as anyone could.  As you said, it doesn't matter what happens if they have targeted you on either side of a sting.  You will get arrested, which may or may not have anything to do with the subsequent criminal case.

In the Fed situation described below, the Feds are involved in what would normally be a regular LE sting of CL providers so that they can milk them for any information about possible pimps, procurers, or other collateral scumbags that might be involved in predatory practices regarding children.  Once they arrest the girls, they can intimidate and threaten them into providing information regarding the darker side of the hobby.  

They concentrate on CL because that is where the underbelly of the sex trade tends to market and hide in amongst the regular providers and hobbyists.  It's more of an intelligence gathering thing than anything else, but once they are done with the women they busted, the BPD will take over on the prostitution charges.  In that situation, no matter what they may or may not have done or said, they were going to get arrested.  I have a feeling that it would not have even made the papers if the shocked guest hadn't made a stink about it.  Keep in mind that the article said that three of the ladies were busted outside the hotel, so the Feds had to have been waiting for them - which suggests that they had been specifically targeted due to some perceived connection to the predators.  In this situation, I feel bad for the women, but hope they catch all of the predators out there and castrate them with a dull butter knife.


I always read you posts with a British accent in my head.  Makes me

Camille do you know for a fact this is true?  Do you know of specific instances or case law where someone has been arrested without any mention of sex?  In everything I have read, including the article below, the person was arrested for "promised sexual services."  One might argue that some of the CL ads satisfy that argument, and some of the ladies websites that advertise specific services.  But an ad or website that states simply "I am here for you", is that illegal?  Seems to me LE needs SOMETHING to prosecute a case. As I understand it, it is perfectly legal to give a person money for their companionship, in fact, providers are "escorts" because escorting is a perfectly legal business.

Again, I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint here.  Any lawyers out there know the specifics of the law?

As to verification, my point is this, the same points have been brought out again and again and again, ad nauseium. You want to verify, then go ahead.  If you don't want to give info, then don't.  I just think its time to move on.

A direct quote from the article:

"The first three women to show up were arrested outside the hotel"

Do you honestly believe that they arrived at the hotel, just happen to walk up to an undercover cop, and said "I promise you sex acts if you pay me."

Camille did answer your question. If you have been targeted on one side of a sting or another, you WILL be arrested for just showing up no matter what you do or say.  If you are approached after a session, you will be arrested or summons if you open your mouth and make an incriminating statement (or if you cop and attitude with the cop and piss him off enough to lie).

Being arrested and being prosecuted are two different things.  Most of the time, the client is arrested for humiliation reasons (as a deterrent) and the arrests stick because not many guys will pay a guy like me $5K - $10K+ to fight it.  Prosecution of the crime rests with the DA, and that's where your words and actions will come into play.

Now, if you want some further advice, I charge $325.00 per hour and would be happy to either help you or refer you to someone on the Cape.  Free advice is not in my business plan.  I do suggest, however, that you check out the Legal Corner Board, where your issue truly has become a dead horse.

its your word against theirs. Once you get there you are already too late to prevent an arrest.
It then becomes your job to prove you are innocent and good luck to you.
The judge tends to side with law enforcement in these and most cases....get a good lawyer and say nothing but your name without one.

I know of a lady that had an appointment with someone that she knew was a cop the moment he walked in the door.  She stayed dressed, never offered him anything illegal, refused to take his money, offered him a reiki session, and the whole time he kept saying things that made it seem like she was soliciting during their conversation to try and set her up.  In the end it was his word against hers...she was arrested even though she did not discuss anything illegal, did not touch him inappropriately, did not disrobe, and did not accept his money.

This was not in Boston, but none the less is an illustration of what CAN happen.

xoM

you will get responses that are confusing at best bc you have not distinguished between offenses.

          Engaging in sex for a fee, agreeing to engage in sex for a fee, or offering to engage in sex for a fee are  all distinct crimes in Massachusetts with distinct elements needed to convict. LE may arrest for any of these crimes without a warrant if the officer has “reasonable cause” to believe the defendant has committed those crimes.

         There is certainly no requirement that the defendant explicitly offer, or explicitly agree to pay for sex or provide sex, as a prerequisite for an arrest for any of these crimes, and strictly circumstantial evidence may always be used to arrest and convict.

       But this sort of begs the question since you are left wondering what other evidence could meet the reasonable cause standard. This would differ depending on which of the three crimes you are talking about.

        I’m going to address only the crimes of offering to engage in sex for a fee, and engaging in sex for a fee. If the arrest is for offering to engage in sex for a fee, I do not see how an officer could have reasonable  cause to make the arrest, unless there was some verbal, written, or other communication from the lady to the client, or to the world, from which an offer could be inferred. Somehow both sex and money, and sex for money, must be expressed in some way. They can’t arrest her for what she’s thinking.

       I don’t think a magistrate would find that the mere maintenance of a web site offering time for pay is an illegal offer, especially where the web site contains the “this is not an offer of prostitution” disclaimer.

      Many observers who contend, without qualification, that these disclaimers are worthless miss this point – the disclaimer should be effective to keep the web site alone from being treated as an illegal offer, unless the web site contains contradictory language or – and I have seen this from even the most articulate and loquacious lady on TER – if the lady makes a  post on the regional boards that can be construed to make such an explicit offer and links it to her web site. Not smart.

        So I think you are correct, for all practical purposes, that there must some discussion, or other communication about sex for money, if the crime is offering to provide sex for money.

      If the crime is engaging in sex for a fee, it is a completely different story. If officer learns that client has walked into a room, places in bathroom an envelope with money that just happens to match lady’s hourly fee, and lady and client have sex, he most certainly can arrest both of you even though no discussion of sex or money between the two of you ever took place. “Officer I was just paying for her time and she just happened to really like me” is not going to save you from arrest in this situation. The law penalizes what you do and not how you label it.

       But that’s just my view. You should consult a licensed Mass atty for a legal opinion.

      Remember Camile that the arrest is not left totally to the judgment of the arresting officer. Within 48 hours, the officer must present an affidavit of probable cause to the magistrate detailing the specific facts that led him to conclude that there was reasonable casue to believe a crime had been committed. In the example you gave"


"All the two parties have to do is show up. LE are not that daft, they have usually done their homework prior t making a bust and collected posts, reviews, etc prior so it's a done deal."

      Just “showing up” would never pass a magistrate’s scrutiny, even if the two met in hooker’s alley. LE would have to have knowledge of some prior communication between the two that could reasonably be construed to be either an offer or agreement. Past reviews would not do it. A explicit offer in the post would get the lady but they would need some evidence that the guy had responded to the post to get the guy. Unless they have some wiretap on both -which would require a warrant - I don't see how that could happen.

     I predict that if you investigate the specific cases you mentioned you would find other facts that did give the officer probable cause to arrest other than showing up.

    Really, Camille it is not as bad you think. The law has very strict requirements that must be met for these kind of arrests.
And in most jurisdictions the misdemeanor must occur in the officer's presence before he can make a warrantless arrest. Mass by statute has changed this for sex for pay arrests.

But in most other states this is the rule.

and as you alluded to before, Massachusetts law applies, there is no requirement for a Magistrate review of arrest.  If arrested, you are arraigned on the next court date and the case starts.  Upon arraignment, you have a record that cannot be expunged and can only be sealed under very limited circumstances (basically, the Virgin Mary has to squat and give birth to a tractor).  Any argument to a judge only happens after the charges are read and the arraignment has taken place (which means the record is there).

In this area, the arrest and the prosecution are completely, utterly, separate.  If you show up to a sting, you will be arrested.  

This isn't law school unfortunately, and what's right is so very different than what's real.

Licensed Mass Attorney

“Massachusetts law applies, there is no requirement for a Magistrate review of arrest.  If arrested, you are arraigned on the next court date and the case starts.  

         My friend, unless my geography is way off and Boston is in fact located in East Germany, the procedure you described would be unconstitutional. Our Constitution requires that a neutral judicial officer review any warrantless arrest shortly after the arrest to determine if there was probable cause for the arrest and, if not, the arrestee must be released.

       Fortunately, before seeking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to have the entire Massachusetts warrantless arrest procedure declared unconstitutional, I looked at the criminal procedure rules to see if you were correct. It was no surprise to discover that Mass does indeed require a probable cause determination by  a neutral judicial officer within 24 hours of the arrest:



(a) No person shall be held in custody more than twenty-four hours following an arrest, absent exigent circumstances, unless:

 (i) a warrant or other judicial process authorizes the person's detention,

 (ii) a complaint has been authorized under Rule 3(g), or

 (iii) a determination of probable cause for detention has been made pursuant to subsection(b).

 (b) A determination of probable cause for detention shall be made by an appropriate judicial officer. The appropriate officer shall consider any information presented by the police, whether or not known at the time of arrest. The police shall present the information under oath or affirmation, or under the pains and penalties of perjury. The police may present the information orally, in person or by any other means, or in writing. If presented in writing, the information may be transmitted to the appropriate judicial officer by facsimile transmission or by
electronic mail or by such other electronic means as may be found acceptable by the court. The determination of probable cause for detention shall be an ex parte proceeding. The person arrested has no right to appear, either in person or by counsel.

 ….
 (f) If there is no probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed an offense, the judicial officer shall order the person's prompt release from custody.

Mass. R. Crim Pro. 3.1 (a)(b) & (f).

      The probable cause hearing is totally distinct from “the case” –i.e., the trial - itself and, indeed, the defendant is not even entitled to be present and evidence that could not be used at trial such as hearsay can be considered to determine probable cause.

     If a Rule 3(g) complaint is filed, the defendant likewise has the right to a probable cause hearing which is entirely separate from the trial itself.


      I never argue with Camille, so if she says they are arresting guys and gals just for showing up I believe her. But, if this is happening without a warrant, a neutral officer will review in 24 hours and order release unless a probable cause showing is made, unless your entire system is corrupt.

You also lost me with this statement:

"Upon arraignment, you have a record that cannot be expunged and can only be sealed under very limited circumstances (basically, the Virgin Mary has to squat and give birth to a tractor)."

     Dude, you are having a bad day. In fact, if there is a dismissal for no probable cause by the court, the record gets sealed as a matter of law. you do not even have to ask for it:


G.L.c. 276, § 100C. Sealing of records or files in certain criminal
cases; effect upon employment reports; enforcement.

 Section 100C. In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found
not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or A FINDING OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COURT, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his flies [sic] and the clerk and the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their flies. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if the defendant makes a written request to the commissioner not to seal the records of
the proceedings.

that is, you are arrested without probable cause - you will have a civil action against the police officer for damages for violation of your constitutional rights and, if there is a pattern and practice of this going on, against the entire police department that is permitting this unlawful conduct to continue.


      The civil action serves as a major deterrent to this kind of conduct which is why I am reasonably confident that the arresting officer is making the arrest on something more than just showing up at the sting.

            What may be happening is that an undercover officer is making an explicit sex for money offer to a guy over the internet and tells him to meet at such and such address and then they arrest him when he arrives. But here the probable cause arises from his response to an explicit offer. They could not lawfully arrest someone else who just happened to walk thru the same area.


     Of course, that's just my opinion as an unemployed porn star. Unemployed porn stars have a lot of spare time to spout off on issues.  For a  legal opinion, consult a licensed atty.

exactly...screen gals screen.
Like I said...screen to the hilt. Once you are there with LE as far as th they are concerned, Its already too late and they will finagle their case which ever way they wish to arrest you.  I would not put anything past them.  Once you walk into the room you are as good as arrested even if you never take off your clothes or talk about sex or handle or talk about $$. Basically once you are there you are fucked.