I have never been busted, but have stories a million times of the cops having sex with providers, then busting them.
Having absolutely no other proof whatsoever...no audio tape, no videotape. Just his WORD that she agreed to sex for money. (and the fact he had sex with the provider doesn't seem to matter)
How do they get the busts when they offer no evidence of a crime? It's such bullshit.

but in this day and age of microphones and wireless, more and more LE is using that to get the goods.

Basically if you ever end up with LE in your room, your day is ruined.

(still not a lawyer)

to believe that a crime has been committed. A police officer who states under oath that a lady agreed to sex for money is providing direct evidence of this fact and certainly probable cause to support an arrest warrant.

Rarely do such cases go to trial but if one did, the lady could be convicted based on the officer's testimony alone. It is certainly no defense that the officer himself broke the law as well. Most LE agencies have internal policies that would prohibit the office from actually having sex once the lady agreed to do so and the officer would most likely be punished internally for doing this.

LE can arrest people on suspicion. To convict an arrested person requires evidence.

An officer can make an arrest if the officer has reason to believe a felony has been committed whether a felony has or has not occurred. In the case of a misdemeanor, an officer has to actually witness the crime to make an arrest.  With a few exceptions, e.g. juveniles, DUI arrest involving a traffic accident, etc. an officer cannot make an arrest for a misdemeanor based on probable cause.  When an officer makes an arrest for solicitation for prostitution, he witnesses the crime because the defendant has offered sex for money or some other consideration.  Probable cause is not needed. No other evidence other than his testimony is required for a conviction because of the nature of the crime.  I am referring to the law in California. I don’t know the nuances of how the law is applied in other states.  

In California an officer can be tried and convicted if he has sex with a prostitute while on duty.  If the officer identifies himself as a police officer and offers to let the prostitute go if she agrees to have sex with him that is rape.  Occasionally, an article will appear in the newspaper where an officer crossed the line and was sentenced to prison.  One case involved an undercover officer fondling a prostitute’s breasts.  He was charged and convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to a year in the county jail.  Another case involved an officer who stopped a female driver for DUI.  He let her go when she agreed to see him when he got off duty.  He went to her home after work and had sex with her.  She told a counselor about the encounter and the counselor called the police.  The officer was arrested, tried and convicted of rape and sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison. Again, I am referring to California, not every state in the country.

as for felonies.

         "When an officer makes an arrest for solicitation for prostitution, he witnesses the crime because the defendant has offered sex for money or some other consideration.  Probable cause is not needed….I am referring to the law in California."

          I respectfully disagree with this statement. The Fourth Amendment, not state law, controls the threshold as to when an officer can make an arrest. The Supreme Court has ruled that the probable cause standard applies to all arrests, whether misdemeanor or felony. Atwater v. City of Lago, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)(“ Accordingly, we confirm today what our prior cases have intimated: the standard of probable cause "applie[s] to all arrests, without the need to `balance' the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations." …If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender”).

        California cannot lower this standard to permit a misdemeanor arrest without probable cause, whether with a warrant or without. Probable cause thus is always needed to arrest.

          In the fact situation we are talking about, however, where the officer witnesses the offer of sex for money or the act itself, he obviously does have probable cause, so the Fourth Amendment is satisfied. Whether California law imposes an additional requirement requirement that the officer must always witness the crime in order to arrest for a misdemeanor is not an issue I addressed, or an issue raised in the original post.

      The state is certainly free to raise the bar for a misdemeanor arrest but it cannot lower it beyond the probable cause minimum.
 
        I agree with you, however, that the officer is subject to criminal liability as well, except in those rare cases where participation in a crime is part of an uncercover scheme where he has immunity, such as drug buys. I doubt this immunity would ever apply in the sex situation. But regardless, as stated in my post, this would not be a defense for the lady.

Where else can you get legal training for $20/month?

(Really free, if you don't even pay for the VIP.)

Thanks everyone!

(still not a lawyer, but who know someday?)

An arrest requires some "evidence." "Suspicion" must be based on some facts. It can't just be because an office suspects something on intuition.

"Suspicion" is an inaccurate term. Arrest requires probable cause to suspect, which is enough to bind a person over for trial.  

Conviction requires enough evidence to satisry the "reasonable doubt" standard.  

To really explain the difference between the two, it is a question of a conclusory judgment of the particular court making the decision.

They take an oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs, and the judges, the D.A. and anyone affiliated with the judicial system picks their side, because they are a "Duty Sworn Officer"....bunch of shit.....

COPS ARE DIRTY!

If they ever start a medical site, you could end up doing surgery, botching the job, and defending yourself in the malpractice suit.

What-a-country

Are any of you from Arizona? Here, they will arrest you any time they feel like it, then lie their ass off in court. LE is so corrupt here it's a disgrace.

Common Law Standards for warrantless arrest:  A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant (i) when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has been committed and that this person committed it, or (ii) a misdemeanor was committed in his presence.

Reasonable suspicion can lead to probable cause once the officer questions you.  Anything you say before you're arrested can be used against you.  Once arrested, Constitutional rights are triggered ( Miranda, etc.).

the same thing. But this caught my attention:


"A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant (i) when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has been committed"

I would equate "reasonable gounds" to "probable cause."

      But, if you are suggesting that an arrest can be made on anything less than probable cause, that would be contrary to my understanding which is based on watching a lot of Law and Order reruns.

         The federal definition of probable cause does twice incorporate “reasonableness” but suspicion no matter how strong is never enough to arrest:

"Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested." "While conclusive evidence of guilt is of course not necessary under this standard to establish probable cause, `[m]ere suspicion, common rumor, or even strong reason to suspect are not enough.'"

Reasonable suspicion, and not just an unsupported hunch, but an articulable set of suspicious specific facts,  is not enough to arrest, but it's enought to allow the cop to investigate further, and that is when most people mess up, by trying to talk their way out of it.  If you're a good talker, fine, you may get to go home; but if you make the officer even more suspicious, that could lead to him finding grounds to claim he had reasonable grounds, also know as probable cause, to arrest, for some violation uncovered by his pre-arrest investigtion.