They have to et you to sep outside to arrest you.

They better have done E V E R Y T H I N G  right.  In your home you are afforded the greatest protection against search, seizure or arrest.  The police would rather have you step outside so then they don't have to try and justify an intrusion into your home.  

Lesson - don't step outside.  STFU and tell them you don't want to talk to them and close your door.

so you are under their control, away from any weapons or escape route or others that might intervene.  Cops really don't like stand-offs.  
Cops prefer stings where they set up & comntrol the room...  but if a complaint is made, they'll take the other scenerios.  But there is more risk to the Police...  and more likely you'd get swarmed.  More cops to reduce their risk of being hurt But possibly increasing your risk if you resist, which you should not.

You should never resist the Police, because they can use any force necessary to make an arrest.  STFU.  If they want to search, you can refuse permission (forcing them to secure the scene & get a warrent).  They can pat you down for weapns.  You should never have illegal items or substances at a provider location...  where they'll be added to the charges, escallating your problem.  

LE can certainly arrest you inside your home...  but they must have made lawful entry.  LE can not just break in.  In stings, they typically have an undercover officer get in, hear the magic words "sex act for money" and then will excuse himself to go to the bathroom or some such & open the door for the backup team.  But the provider invited the UC officer in.  
LE must have probable cause that a crime has been committed.  In most jurisictions a LEO must witness the misdemeanor infraction.  Sometimes, one or more party(s) (say a exiting guests) gives an admission which is probable cause...  which is used to make the arrest...  or they use the information to justify sending in an UC.      

You have ad or website that says GFE.
Easy to get a warrant from a judge since its solicitation

Send swat team to home and break down doors with guns drawn since your breasts are so dangerous.

Well known active TER gal had her mother bring over a pizza at the wrong time, mom walked into house and swat team turned guns on her.

No need for anyone to step outside house.  Search warrants very easy to get in cities with goal to rid the city of pleasures the religious right folks don't want us to have.

If you work with another gal (ad with another) or of course any agency or massage parlor its a criminal enterprise felony with potential prison term not just 14 days in Tent City of 1st offense prostitution charge in Arizona.

Le makes an an arrest and the person arrested has a cell phone or laptop in their possession at the time of the arrest. Can that technology be legally accessed by LE and used as further evidence of criminal activity?

I've heard Phoenix mentioned several times in these discussions.  If they want providers gone so much, I'll stay away.  No problem.

My attorney says that if it's password protected then they have to get a warrant and they usually don't bother.  If you have a password protected phone and use it to call for assistance, they can and probably will take it from you and look at your texts and any other info they might want to.  It's best to have your technology password protected and have a phone number memorized.

He confirms what someone else said, that the acronyms are common knowledge so using them is just the same as using the words they stand for, ie: GFE means sex and BJ means oral sex.

In the recent bust of 39 in Phoenix crime lap recovered all data even erased from cell phones, laptops, commuters seized from individual gals often with SWAT at their homes.  

In one case Backpage was supeaneod and I have the over 300 pages of ads, financial payment info etc turned over the the Phoenix police.  

In many cities like Phoenix the war on sexual pleasure gets stronger with all the funding for the excuse to save children from trafficking.  So FBI in nationwide sting arrests about 1000 people a few months ago to find 6 that were underaged.  994 were consenting adults from ads, websites etc.

Deleting computer files is never enough.  It does not really "erase" the data, I merely changes the first letter in the address (on your hard drive) so it can't be retrieved.  Computer forensics experts can retrieve that data.  Eventually it would get over written & would not be retrieveable at that point.
There are overwrite programs like CC cleaner which will do multiple pass overwrites to Dept of Defence specifications...  making it unretrieveable.  The problem is it takes a long time to run this degree of cleaning.  Also people don't want to delete their infomation.  When the cop is at your door, it's too late!  

I don't run an agency but I do hobby.  I delete things as soon as possible.  I run CC cleaner weekly.  Sure some data could be retrieved...  but I'm limiting the damage.  

I had a "dumb" hobby phone & I delete all calls as I leave her.  It means I must look up numbers before I call.  I also means if my hobby phone is siezed (by SO or LE) damage is limited.  

I don't fill in web forms.  I have no clue where that data goes & if she even sees it.  I'll provide her the same info in an email & hopefully she clean her inbox & it'll be gone.  I once got an email from a Gal I'd seen once...  my eddress was in her address book.  I told her to delete it as I had no intention of going back.

I wouldn't be so sure of what your attorney advised you that police would need a warrant to look at a password-locked phone.

I think it is pretty well established that without a warrant, police can take your phone and look at everything on it, including text messages, e-mails, and caller logs. The California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84, that a warrantless search of a person's cell phone as part of an arrest was valid. They went on to conclude that the search can include rummaging around the phone's contents, including call records and text messages. Courts in other states have cited and followed Diaz, such as Alabama (Gracie v. State), Florida (Smallwood v. State), and Colorado (People v. Taylor). There is a whole host of federal opinions that say likewise, including one by the influential Judge Richard Posner.  As an aside, in response to Diaz, the California legislature actually passed a bill forbidding warrantless searches of cell phones, SB914, but Governor Brown vetoed it.

So, can police look at it and try to hack it without a warrant? No court has directly ruled on it, but there's a law review article by Professor Adam Gerhowitz, "Password Protected? Can a Password Save Your Cell Phone from a Search Incident to Arrest," 96 Iowa L. Rev 1125 (2011). His conclusion was that password-protected phones might be more difficult to search, but this doesn't legally prevent police from trying to crack it, even if they don't have a warrant. There is precedent that police can opened locked container, such as car trunks or briefcases, without a warrant as long as no irreparable harm is done. He also goes over the Fifth Amendment implications over being required to say the password to police, and the whole "is a password akin to a key to a strongbox or a combination to a safe?" analogy.

That said, password-protecting your phone is a good idea. Even if police might not need a warrant, the password protection makes it more difficult, and police might not bother if it's a hassle. Just don't believe that police couldn't dig into your phone if they really wanted to.

If the Phoenix PD is really as bad as he says, then tour Scottsdale AZ instead.  They have their own police department, and for the most part Scottsdale is the nicer resort area anyway.