(From a providers standpoint)

"NOTICE: With reference to CA Penal Code section 647(b) and CALJIC No. 16.420, the services discussed herein do not in any way include or relate to either: (1) engagement in any lewd act for money or other consideration, or (2) Solicitation, offer, or agreement to engage in any lewd act for money or other consideration.
Replying to this advertisement constitutes acceptance of these terms."

OR

"...money is exchanged for time and companionship only, anything else that may or may not occur is between two consenting adults"


Providers, does including this disclaimer in your ad protect you? Thanks a bunch

What ever protection it mught in theory produce only applies to the ad.

Once you meet in person, it's a whole new ball game & it's actions that count.

An "old school" lady I see from time to time...  has never discussed what we do.  I ask for a date.  We meet, ajourn to a private space for fun

That's like walking into a bank and handing the teller a note that states, "This is not an armed robbery. Nothing in this note should be construed to indicate any violation of section 211 of the California Penal Code, (Robbery)." Then sticking a gun in her face and demanding money.  You would have the perfect defense in court.  The note clearly stated you were not committing a robbery so what's the big deal. Oh the gun and telling her to give you the money, that's nothing.  Just ask the folks on the Legal Board.

The purpose of the first disclaimer is to provide a basis for negating any ambiguous language in a lady's website ad as constituting an offer of sex for pay. If there is no explicit offer of sex for pay, the disclaimer should be sufficient to prevent ambiguous language from being so construed for purposes of obtaining an arrest warrant. At the very least, it is admissible evidence to this effect in a solicitation prosecution based solely on the website ad.

      You see comparable disclaimers in securities advertisements where the ads invariably conclude that "this is not an offer to sell securities." As with prostitution, mere offers to sell securities can violate the law.

      So while some will say both disclaimers are equally worthless, that would not be my view.

I think they serve no purpose especially if your posting in well known areas were illegal activity is taken place.

but when he's right, he's right.

The disclaimers do nothing to protect a provider after the fact, but they do help keep a prosecutor from using a provider's web site against her as evidence that she is soliciting for prostitution.

that my answer was dead wrong.

     I must have missed something on this one. So I am officially disclaiming my answer about the disclaimers.

What in the world was I thinking?

Why or how would LE use a provider's website to obtain a warrant?  Would it be an arrest warrant or a search warrant?  I doubt they could obtain either.  More importantly, why would LE want to obtain either an arrest warrant or a search warrant? All the arresting officer has to say is he was surfing the internet looking for a prostitute.  He chose the defendant's website because her website was consistent with the websites prostitutes use.  He contacted her; he set up a meeting; he met her and bingo! she said the magic words and she was arrested.  No warrant of any kind is necessary.  It would be the same as the officer saying he was working vice enforcement and looking for prostitutes.  He went to the intersection of Walk and Don't Walk because the intersection is a common area for prostitution. No warrant is needed.  

How could introducing the website into evidence possibly benefit the defense?  The only way I could see the defense introducing the website is during cross examination of the arresting officer because he is the only witness who could testify to it's existence.  The only other way would be for the defendant take the stand and testify it was her website. I doubt any competent defense attorney would put his client on the stand for something that could only hurt her case.  Can you imagine the prosecution cross examining her? Yikes!

An attorney can't just tell the judge he would like to introduce evidence without a witness.  The defense attorney can't hold up a copy of the webite and tell the court what he feels the website says.  The attorney would have to take the stand and testify under oath just like any other witness.  I believe if he did that he would be disqualified to continue as her defense counsel.  So the question is who else could testify about the website?  I guess the defense could call another provider to the stand who could testify she has a similar website.  Of course the prosecutor would want to know what type of business she as conducting with her website.  She would have a hard time invoking the Fifth Amendment since she is a witness testifying under oath.  Oh she could take the Fifth but what would that do her credibility in the eyes of the jury.  The defense could always use an expert witness if a court certified expert witness exists who can testify about provider's websites.  And if such a witness does exists what kind of testimony will he be able to give in defense of the defendant?  

I would like to thank you in advance for providing answers to these questions.

Before addressing your initial questions, keep in mind the specific crimes I am addressing – statutes that criminalize mere offers of sex for pay and statutes that prohibit the advertising of sex for pay services. In “pure” solicitation jurisdictions, an offer of sex for pay alone violates the statute; in “solicitation plus” states, solicitation is treated like the crime of conspiracy – you need the offer plus some act in furtherance.

      There is a further complication – does an offer to the world violate these statutes, or must the offer must be made to a specific individual? There is little if any case law addressing this question yet and a magistrate at the warrant stage is unlikely to impose an offer to a specific individual requirement. So with this background, here is how I would answer you first questions.

“Why or how would LE use a provider's website to obtain a warrant?  Would it be an arrest warrant or a search warrant?  I doubt they could obtain either.”

      If the website contains an offer of sex for pay, LE in a pure solicitation state should be able to obtain an arrest warrant against the person responsible for the content simply by filing an affidavit stating that (1) Jane Doe is the content provider and (2) the website contains an offer of sex for pay. This would provide probable cause the content provider has broken the law.

     If we are in a solicitation plus and/or offer to the individual state, LE would have to take the additional step of emailing the lady for a date and getting a positive response.

       Remember, an arrest warrant may be based on credible hearsay and there is no “in the presence” requirement for a misdemeanor arrest with a warrant.

“More importantly, why would LE want to obtain either an arrest warrant or a search warrant? All the arresting officer has to say is he was surfing the internet looking for a prostitute.  He chose the defendant's website because her website was consistent with the websites prostitutes use.  He contacted her; he set up a meeting; he met her and bingo! she said the magic words and she was arrested.  No warrant of any kind is necessary.  It would be the same as the officer saying he was working vice enforcement and looking for prostitutes.  He went to the intersection of Walk and Don't Walk because the intersection is a common area for prostitution. No warrant is needed.”  

     Here is precisely why. Add up the cost and time needed to use this pre-Internet sting method. Fairly costly and time consuming – and you net one lady for a misdemeanor.

     Now, do it as described above. You could prepare arrest warrants for a hundred ladies sitting at your desk. The only “work” required would be getting the content operator’s name and address. That might take a subpoena to the ISP operator or whoever would have that name.

      But this approach only works if the web site contains an offer of sex for pay. Most of them do not. The first disclaimer listed by the OP prevents any ambiguous language from being so construed. That is why, when the web site alone does not violate the law, LE must set up an elaborate sting to get the lady to utter the magic words.

“How could introducing the website into evidence possibly benefit the defense?  The only way I could see the defense introducing the website is during cross examination of the arresting officer because he is the only witness who could testify to it's existence.  The only other way would be for the defendant take the stand and testify it was her website. I doubt any competent defense attorney would put his client on the stand for something that could only hurt her case.  Can you imagine the prosecution cross examining her? Yikes!”


     Remember we are talking about a prosecution where the web site is the medium by which the illegal offer is made. So the web site would be part of the state’s evidence and the key part of the arresting officer’s testimony. The rule of completeness would require the state to introduce the entire web site, including the page with the disclaimer. No hearsay problem bc this is the defendant’s  statement.



“An attorney can't just tell the judge he would like to introduce evidence without a witness.  The defense attorney can't hold up a copy of the webite and tell the court what he feels the website says.  The attorney would have to take the stand and testify under oath just like any other witness.  I believe if he did that he would be disqualified to continue as her defense counsel.  So the question is who else could testify about the website?”

    Well, of course, we recognize the case would probably be pled and never come to trial. But if it did, and we assume the defendant has deep pockets, here is how to handle that.

     In the defense case, the defense atty would then call an expert witness who would explain to the jury that in his opinion, the web site as a whole does not constitute an offer of sex for pay. The expert would explain that there is a market for professional companions who provide nonsexual conpanionship etc. If there is any doubt that Jane Doe is such a lady, the expert explains that the disclaimer removes the doubt. So that takes care of the problems you identified.

   Of course, then the prosecution provides rebuttal evidence of you know what…. But that’s enough for now.

are disappointed you feel that way. These entrepreneurs charge $35 a month no less for a subscription advising escorts of legal and business issues and charge $47 for a web site disclaimer.  I did not use them as a source but would suspect that they make similar arguments to justify the use of their disclaimer.


         But the serious point to consider is the naivety of assuming that LE will continue using pre-Internet sting tactics to combat Internet prostitution. If you believe this, talk to the people at Craigslist whose erotic section has been shut down as a result of attorney general pressure, and who have even been sued by one county attorney even though federal law supposedly provides Internet immunity for everyone but the content provider. Talk to some of the DD indictees who will tell you that TER reviews played a role in their indictments. None of this had ever been done before to my knowledge.


      From my chair, better to be proactive and put the disclaimer on your website on grounds of theory rather than wait for the reality of that first wave of arrests.