So here is a question for the legal experts or anyone else
.
  Mortimer Midlife met Sadie Suckatashe at a bar in Kansas City. Mortimer asked her if she was a pro and she said “yes” and told him it was a hundred buckaroos for a thrill. She took Mort to her small apartment and Mort was very pleased with their sexual intimacy.
  Mort continued to frequent and they became good friend and confidants. Mort began to give her money every week and called it her allowance, sometimes they had sex, sometimes they just lay in bed holding each other and talking, although the sex was great it was obviously not the only reason for Mort’s visits.
  On the night of Mort’s birthday, Sadie bought a cake and a gift for Mort. Just as Mort was unwrapping the nine inch dildoe, there was a knock at the door. Sadie heard something about a car in the garage being damaged, opened the door and in ran three cops who had been staking out the apartment, one of the cop’s sisters had complained about Sadie Suckatashe’s frequent visitors, and it turned the party into a bust.
  Is Mortimer Midlife guilty of being a party to prostitution or pandering or anything at all?
  Mort’s wife was not amused at the publicity and divorced Mort, she latter ran off with the attorney who handled the divorce action.





-- Modified on 4/28/2010 5:25:33 PM

nowhere is there an offer of sex for money, an agreement of sex for money, or the providing of sex for money.

     A lady who discloses to a gentleman that she is pro, tells him her price, and then goes home and has sex does not violate the law by those acts alone as there is no link between her profession an this specific act of sex. The gentleman would also not be liable on those facts.

    Similarly, the subsequent giving of an allowance to a lady does not violate law even if the couple has regular sex because there is no link between the money and the sex.

    Nonetheless, although the gentleman is innocent, he could convicted by the jury on these same exact facts because the jury might consider it all a subterfuge for sex for money. True guilt and what the jury finds are simply not the same thing.




-- Modified on 4/29/2010 1:05:41 AM

He clearly offered her money for sex.  If Sadie were LE, and had a wire on her, he'd be toast.

As for the subsequent trysts, that is much less clear.  It seemed to evolve into a sugar daddy arrangement where there was nothing overt about the sex for money; and I think most judges and jurors would give a pass to that kind of activity, as much as the moralist would tsk, tsk them.

(still not a lawyer)

The gist of many of the posts there have been here on TER that in order for a prostitution charge to stick there has to be a clear and witnessed exchange of money for sex.  Typically this is done in a Sting where the "Provider" is a police officer or the non LE Provider is wearing a wire or is in a wired room or has another person in the room and thus captures the exchange of money for a sexual commitment.

In the case of Mortimer in the apartment it would seem that there has been no such an exchange (at that moment) and more importantly no witness to claim there has been.  Mortimer has chosen to support an individual financially which is perfectly legitimate.  They were not caught in a sex act (although even that would not necessarily be illegal, depending on whether the state had an adultery law still on their books) and Dildos are not illegal as far as I know.. *smile*

So I say no...   MM is not guilty.  The real question though is...  Was the 9" Dildo for Him or Her?  *grin*

then every woman I've ever known is a prostitute! I've bought a lot of sex with dinners, jewelry, vacations, etc. Why does the law give women who barter a pass?

Is Mortimer guilty? Sure, guilty of enjoying himself.
 That the relationship had its original basis in an illegal act in the past would not affect the bust. That they carried on a long time sexual and affectionate relationship is not illegal. That the cops lied to gain entry will not be controlling, they can do it.
 Unwrapping a nine inch dildo might have subjected Mortimer to a charge of having a concealed weapon, but he would have had to have brandished it in a threatening un-lubed manner (just kidding).
 There is no element of a sex act or touching or an offer and acceptance of sex for money or of pandering so Mort is only guilty of being human.All Mort and Sadie had to do was keep their mouths shut, remember, "loose lips sink strippers, I mean ships."
 We can only guess if the cops thought the dildo was a weapon and shot Mortimer in his Midlife?

All that happened prior to Mort's birthday is irrelevant.  

The preposterous scenario of the 'raid' on Sadie's apartment could result in no charges whatsoever (insert hilarious quip about the dildo/concealed/friendly weapon here).  Without probable cause for a warrant of any kind, the police used deception to get Sadie to open the door.  Uninvited and without warrant, they (illegally?) entered a private residence and found two adults having a private birthday party.  

Unless Mort or Sadie signed statements admitting to some type of p4p, there has been no crime whatever discovered by the police.

Mort and Sadie should get attorneys to sue for a litany of civil wrongs committed by LE.  False Arrest, Invasion of Privacy come to this non-lawyer's mind immediately.  

My .02 opinion anyway.

mvr

-- Modified on 5/2/2010 12:21:17 AM

Nice try, you are correct in most of it—if Police had previous knowledge via complaint and staked out local they might have had a warrant, however, once the door of the apartment is opened or unlocked, even by subterfuge, they could argue they were not bared from entering. Police can lie to gain entrance.
  Nice comment on civil wrongs but there is no evidence that they arrested anyone and there is no presumption of privacy when a door is opened, therefore no false arrest and most likely no invasion of privacy.

"one of the cop’s sisters had complained about Sadie Suckatashe’s frequent visitors, and it turned the party into a bust."

Ahhh...if 'bust' does not imply an arrest, I don't know what does.  And I stand by my position that, absent confessions, the police had zero evidence of a crime being comitted and therefore may well have comitted a 'false arrest.'  

'Might have had a warrant.' Either they did or they didn't.  And a warrant for WHAT?  To search the apartment for what?  Unlike drugs, you can't find 'prostitution' without witnessing the solicitation.  To arrest the lady?  Then they could take HER in, not Mort just for being there.

It is significant that this deals with a misdemeanor.  We had a huge thread about misdemeanor arrests some time ago.  I believe LE must either witness the actual offense or develop a case and obtain a warrant to make a misdemeanor arrest.  This is why LE puts decoys on street corners to make prostitution stings, the decoy has to witness (receive) the solicitation.  

Using this scenario, any provider and her boy/girlfriend could be arrested for simply being alone together.  It is not illegal to be alone with or even to have sex with an individual who may (or may not) have a record of prostitution arrests.  

Unless we assume in this scenario that LE goes to court and lies about what they witnessed to get a conviction, there is no case here.  

Now it would get interesting.  Poor ole Mort has had his life ruined, been publicly shamed, perhaps lost his job (hey if you can make it up as you go along, so can I).  He is a perfect candidate to file multiple lawsuits against the Department and the individual officers for all kinds of real damage.  

mvr

I read it the same way you did - they made a "bust" at the party which is street slang for arrest which would be a tortious false arrest if made without probable cause that a crime had been committed. And, if the crime was a non-domestic misdemeanor, in most states they would have to witness it to arrest without a warrant.

Fortunately my "bust" was 32DD and I had a wonderful time. I overslept this morning, but I feel great!

Anyway, I think if you will review “Mortimer is guilty of being human” you will find we are in agreement here.

But, let’s deal with your points one step at a time. You wrote…..
“If 'bust' does not imply an arrest, I don't know what does.  And I stand by my position that, absent confessions, the police had zero evidence of a crime being committed and therefore may well have committed a 'false arrest.'”

Your point is well taken, “bust” has several meanings and if we construe a bust to mean an arrest you are correct, however, by dictionary definition, a “bust” also means a raid and may not imply an arrest. I saw a raid rather than arrest when I wrote the scenario and if you follow the story, no arrest was ever described. But your reading is excellent.

As to a warrant, none was described so one might question if a warrant existed. When a complaint is made to the police who then stake out an address where they have reason to believe a brothel or prostitution service exists, they certainly will secure a warrant here in California and elsewhere. Solicitation by a John is usually a misdemeanor, but running a house of prostitution or a prostitution service may create a felony.

As for a false arrest, no arrest was made of the couple, so I think unless they were told they were under arrest or if they feared that they would come to harm if they tried to leave, then neither arrest nor the elements of the tort of false arrest would apply to an action on their behalf.

You are correct that no crime exists. Spending time with a prostitute or having sex with her without the elements of prostitution is called a free ride, and although I am told there are no free lunches, once in a while someone hands me a sandwich. I concur with you comments here.

As for Mort filing tort actions against the police, chances are that those who caused his distress, being police officers, are subject to suit as the agents of the department. provided that their actions were not "correct". (I want to avoid a long description of actions that might constitute a tort as I do not see them. Police are generally immune to personal suit from actions they take as police. It is only when their actions go beyond that of their job that they may be sued personally.
You will recall that "Old" Rodney King got a big pay off when as a drunken driver he was dragged from his car and beaten by police. As for Mr. Deni, half beaten to death and turned into an invalid in the riots that followed; I don’t recall him hitting the jackpot, just his head on the curb. Believe me, if you want damages from the Police department, you will have to show serious physical and permanent damage, death is even better. You have heard the expression, “blood from a stone.” Well tort actions  go on for years in most places and end up appealed forever until a person and his lawyer (who usually get paid 40% PLUS all costs) decide to take something rather than nothing. Often the insurance companies who insure the public entities are the ones who press to make the payoff years down the line.

As for your suggestion that the police might lie in court to get a conviction, shame on you! (That statement was an example of literary sarcasm)

In any event if you put your comments next to the answer provided, I think you will see we are totally in agreement. There is no case against Mort and Sadie and by the facts; no case was brought against them. Hazzah!



-- Modified on 5/5/2010 5:12:05 PM

has been beaten...

It was fun.

MVR