In New York State, is it legal for LE to have sex with the provider and then bust the provider? Can LE take off their clothes? How far can LE go with a provider before he crosses the line and so he no longer as a case?
I'm not a New York practitioner, but law enforcement can perform illegal actions in the course of the duties. The standard example is undercover officers buying drugs or weapons. Buying controlled substances is a crime, but officers can do it to find sellers. In the case of prostitution, law enforcement officers have had sex with women before in order to make prostitution arrests. The most famous recent example was Spotslyvania County Sheriff's Deputies in Virginia. Before that was Maricopa County deputy sheriffs in Phoenix, Arizona. I don't know if anyone in New York does it, but New York law explicitly permits law enforcement to take such actions.
New York Penal Law 35.05 states:
Unless otherwise limited by the enduring provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which otherwise constitute an offensive is justifiable and not criminal when:
1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties, or functions.
So, yes, it is legal for law enforcement to have sex with the provider and then bust the provider. Law enforcement can take off their clothing. The lines are what the officers feel is moral and whether they think a jury could stomach hearing such sordid investigative techniques. By the way, for Class B misdemeanors, which includes prostitution, New York City defendants do not have a right to a jury trial.
Has that ever been tested in a federal court?
(still not a lawyer)
State law can't trump the United States Constitution, but the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution only covers "serious crimes", not "petty crimes". State constitutions can extend the right to jury by trial to all criminal prosecutions.The case that "incorporated" the Sixth Amendment, Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) 391 US 145, distinguished between serious crimes and petty crimes for the right to trial by jury. The Supreme Court left little room when it said, "It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States." There has been a long string of Supreme Court cases, including Baldwin v. New York (1970) 399 U.S. 66, that basically said the dividing line between serious and petty crimes is six months.
Hence, New York Criminal Procedural Law 340.40 states:
In any local criminal court a defendant who has entered a plea of not guilty to an information which charges a misdemeanor must be accorded a jury trial, conducted pursuant to article three hundred sixty, except that in the New York City Criminal Court the trial of an information which charges a misdemeanor for which the authorized term of imprisonment is not more than six months must be a single judge trial.
Arizona and Washington D.C. are examples of other jurisdictions that may deny right to juries for crimes with sentences of six months or less. There are other cases in which a defendant can be denied juries for crimes that result in loss of liberty. For example, juveniles have no right to trial by jury. (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) 403 U.S. 528.) If you think the odds are already stacked against a defense lawyer in jury trials, try doing a juvie bench trial.
I tried to post before with citations, but it didn't come up. Go figure.
Anway, the fed right to jury trial does not apply to "petty" crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court case deciding this used a misdemeanor from Nevada that carried less than six months to say that fed jury right didn't attach.
States may require the jury under state law, but the fed Constitution doesn't require it for minor matters. Sorry if this is rambling, but I didn't want to re-research it, it is late at night, and I had a few glasses of wine.
accurate as to substance, if not as to style
of a denial of juries for crimes that can result in loss of liberty. Civil infractions, yes; and 1st offense fine only misdemeanors, but not jail time crimes. Could you please cite your source that NYC denies jury trials for crimes than can result in 3 months incarceration?
Philadelphia has a similar statutory framework. I'm not familiar with the NYC version. However, Pennsylvania law has authorized Philly to have what is called "Municipal Court" for misdemeanors and a few low-level felonies. Cases are slotted for Phila. Municipal Court if the maximum amount of imprisonment is 5 years or less. Judges preside at trial...there are no preliminary hearings.
Now the Penna. statutory framework continues whereby a dissatisfied Muni Court defendant in Philly has the absolute right to appeal for a trial de novo following sentencing by Muni Court.
Such an appeal wipes out the Muni Court trial and sentencing. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas then hears the case anew but this time with the constitutional right to a jury trial. The Muni Court trial can be treated as tantamount to a preliminary hearing in a way.
I assume NYC has a similar framework to allow for appeals from misdemeanor non-jury court to a higher venue for a jury trial.
is still the right for a jury trial in that framework. Mass got rid of it because it was being abused by giving everyone two bites. I don't think that NYC, however, can deny the right completely if there is a possible loss of liberty.
Based on this, I am currently seeking employment as a law officer, specializing in vice. Any departments looking for an experienced and eager new employee, please contact me asap.
of course it's illegal, but it happens.
the under goes and gathers info for their report. they have sex, HJ, BJ, you name it. they just don't write it in their report. the under will gather small info here and there, and when it's time, they'll come and arrest everyone. it's ridiculous, but it happens...
NO WAY! No LE in thier right mind would have sex. First of all they will be torn apart in court. About the argument of buying drugs, yes undercovers buy drugs but they don't do the drugs unless thier life is in danger. I don't think a provider will threaten LE's life if he doesn't F her, do you? Yes they can take off thier clothes. Yes they can go as far as having thier prick rubbed, but thats about it.
What about in Michigan?? And do they do bust at certain times of the day?
I once left my hotel room after I was asked "do you give bbbj too?" in a loud voice by a very young looking "newbie".
I just got a really weird feeling after I saw a suspicious looking car lurking across the street, the newbie asking stupid ?s and talking very loud.