Short version: LE can do pretty much anything they want.

Now, what the court allows them to get away with, that's a whole 'nother story.

Longer version:

Let's look at a real case involving pedophiles.  LE sent email letters to suspected pedophiles telling them there would be a meeting at a particular time and place to share photos, stories and experiences.  
Everyone who showed up at the location was arrested.  The courts said it wasn't entrapment because no one coerced the men to attend the meeting.

The lesson to be learned here is that if LE places an ad that suggests or involves illegal activity, it's just an ad.  No one is forcing you to respond to it.  No one is pressuring you into engaging in any illegal activity.  And by showing up, you show the court that you have a willful intent to commit the act.

Here's a quote from an actual case in NJ:

"Statutory entrapment," as this defense is known, requires that the defendant establish that he had no predisposition to commit the crime. Therefore, "[t]he defense will fail if the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime." State v. Johnson, supra, 127 N.J. at 464.


So, if LE places an ad offering "full service" and states a "donation" and everything else just like a real ad, and you contact them, make an appointment, and show up, you've shown that you were ready and willing to commit the crime and an entrapment defense will fail.

I admit, I'm not a lawyer, and this is based on NJ law but I don't think it's much different in other states.

1. They cannot tell you that the conduct is legal;and
2. They cannot act so outrageously as to violate your due process rights, a defense recognized in theory but never in practice to my knowledge by the Supreme Court. When the undercover officer actually has sex with the mark is when this one usually gets argued.

   But the conduct you mentioned probably would not even constitute legal inducement to commit the offense at all and, if so, predisposition trumps inducement anyway. So a mark who has responded to other internet solicitations will almost never be able to use entrapment as a defense if the state knows of this.

In fact, there is no way to be sure, period.  Life is uncertain ("Eat Desert First").  Sorry, I couldn't help it.  There will always be some risk.  We seek to minimize that risk.  

Advertizing word games, disclaimers, etc generally have no effect on LE stings.  You can be sure that no FM LEO will actually appear in nude photos but that does not mean they won't aquire & use a picture that resembles the sting officer.  Besides, few clients print out the picture to compare at the door.  The secret is to NOT BE IN THE ROOM WITH LEO.

The way to minimize the risk is in how you shop.  Either you must cross referance all the info from an ad to TER & other sources to determine that the lady has a history as a provider & satisfied clients (no rip off or scams which are more prevelant than LE stings BTW.)  Or you can start with TER, and then follow the links to her ads, web sites & pictures.  

Yes, you'll spend some money on VIP but it is far less than a date spoiled by a scam & way better than a meeting with LE.  
skb

That's not entrapment. That's you going to jail.