Here we have an interesting case on appeal that describes a female vice cops attempt to sell a blow job for forty dollars and bares her breasts, lets john feel them, and then grabs john's cock to prove she is a hooker. Not only does the john get arrested with blue balls but they try to jack his car as well. The appeal court affirms and his conviction remains but the blow job is never performed. Several other cases discussed.

Her http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20VACO%2020101026C42.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

-- Modified on 10/28/2010 9:23:45 AM

The appeals court sustained and refused to overturn the conviction, so he lost.

Opperative factor here:  Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee

Who else woudl spend this much state taxpayer funds on a case like this?  And he thinks Obama's health care is a waste of money.

Perhaps in Virginia it is not considered misconduct for an undercover police officer to engage in feeling up to make a vice arrest.   More surprisingly though, I would have thought the stigma attached to letting suspects touch her breasts would have been enough to prevent this type of behavior by a female officer.   Evidently she doesn't give a damn either who feels her tits nor what her fellow officers think of her.  

MVR

Maybe for her next arrest, she'll blow the guy, do a RCG, and let him greek her, then she''ll slap on the cuffs.  And I also believe that the judge will allow it.

Dear Leagal Beagle:
I am wondering about the question of entrapment vs intent. Due to the fact that she bared her breast would that be considered entrapment? Or because she had a conversation first does that prove intent with respect to the intentions of the defendant? Also is it a state law with how far that a person can go to get an arrest? Also what is the standard that has to be met in order for an arrest to adhere in court? Also how far can an officer go to entice a defendant to participate in illegal acts? What does each state say about this? Also what do any federal statues say with respect to an officer effecting an arrest as well? Finally what are the existing precedents were other officers had questionable tactics to induce a defendant or expedite lawbreaking activity and how did the appellate courts rule?

that she bared her breasts or that he fondled bare breasts or that she grabbed his cock directly.  It only states that she touched his groin and that he touched her breasts.  Most likely through clothing.  Many cities also have ordinances against public nudity (anti-flashing) so if he had exposed his junk, there would have been a charge regarding that as well.  

Shit, I might ask my next provider to re-enact this for me.  Pretty fucking hot if it is true.  Damn, how many newspaper articles do guys have to read before they understand that LE loves to use decoys on the streets.

i posted it as survey 65 http://escortdrama.com/comments/?p=645

there arent very many cases that have used entrapment as a defense because of the inherent risk you're taking when you attempt it.. ... it's a HUGE gamble.

you have to admit you're guilty of the crime BUT only because the cops did something wrong. ..
ok , well then,  you are working against yourself.

1. according to the us consitution -- you are innocent until proven guilty
however, you just stood up and threw away your innocence and announced, hey i did it.... BUT only because ---------> bad cops made me do it.

2. ok, but according to the us constitution -- bad cops are also innocent until proven guilty

3. now you are guilty and in order for you to get back the innocence you tossed away back at step 1,  YOU have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those cops did something wrong and if you don't, you're probably going to regret the confession you made when you stood up and said "hey, i did it"

so it will be a rare, very rare day that any attorney ever suggests using an entrapment defense, regardless of "how far the cop went to get the arrest" because normally, you are trying to maintain your innocence and thats impossible to do with an entrapment defense..... you can't say, "hey look im innocent,  i didnt do the crime  and -------------> bad cops tricked me into doing it"......  hmmm what ?

that's not gonna fly.
you will have to admit you're guilty of committing the crime before you can point your finger at the bad cops..... this is the reason cops will laugh and laugh and laugh whenever they hear the word entrapment... they really aren't trying to just *appear* to be amused in an effort to bluff you while shaking from fear in their boots, they are actually really and truly------- > FIESTA !!!   taking the rest of the day off and hitting the moose lodge or swine trough or whatever skank hole that currently happens to curl their tails, and celebrating the conviction you so generously just handed to them thereby saving them mucho mucho work trying to find the ever elusive and frequently lost evidence normally needed for a conviction.

this ending sucks
lets go back to start  (not an option you will have in the real life version)

if you plead not guilty instead, thousands of possibilities can open up for you while you cruise smoothly down innocent lane wearing a smile the whole time because your lips have been SUPERGLUED shut in the smiley face position... the us constitution wrapped around you like a glowing halo of protection they can't penetrate.

maybe the prosecution will prove you're guilty, mebbe they wont.
mebbe they got NOTHING and they are BLUFFING and saying they do.
they lie, they lie, they lie..
they lie about the law, they lie about the evidence they have, they lie about what they can do in court, every single thing they say is a lie.....

they want you to throw away your constitutional protection
they will snatch that halo right the hell off your head as soon as you do
and offer to save you with a plea deal
saved from horrible consequences because you are doing the *right* thing and pleading guilty to a crime they wouldnt have been able to prove in court... aaww sweet lil ho.
hi ho hi ho off to jail you go.

maybe not this time.. because they gave you a deal..... ok groovy...getting off on easy street.
but they probably glossed over the fact that they also gave you a conviction on your criminal history.

they will save that beautiful moment of history for the next time they get you
and they will be coming to get you because now they got a slam dunk
you've done this before
you are a repeat offender
guilty guilty guilty
you did not learn your lesson

hi ho hi ho, now,  off to jail you go

this ending sucks
go back to their lies and offers to save you with a plea deal.

just say NO
go to trial

if they do prove you are guilty, and you're sentenced to the same punishment that they offered in the plea deal (hehe)

plan b (appealing your conviction)
this is where entrapment could be handy dandy to use
because now you have a scarlet letter on your forehead, you are one convicted foolio, you lost against government workers, you are guilty, guilty guilty, you got no innocence to throw away  so NOW, its ok to say,  well ok maybe i did it BUT ------------->  bad cops ----------> lets take another look at what they did cuz  i would have been innocent if it wasnt for them . .

in the link i provided above, i believe that entrapment-type activity used by law enforcement was presented as  a "violation of her right to due process"  however, i am just interpreting that it was entrapment because thats what it sounds like to me but it might actually be something else.....

keep in mind there are some rules regarding appeals.. ... you cannot get an appeal because you want to introduce evidence that you didn't introduce at your initial trial  because you wanted to save the really good stuff for trial #2... (exceptions being evidence that was not available at the time of the initial trial, for example dna testing now available could get a convicted murderer a new trial if he was convicted before such technology was available)

there are like a million rules and each rule has a million exceptions so thats just yada yada yada, attorney stuff that's going to be exclusive to your particular set of circumstances.