I keep hearing reports on here about people being arrested when they never talked about or implied sex for money in any way.   Now, if people are being arrested for seeing an escort who by definition PROVIDES TIME AND COMPANIONSHIP for a fee, then this would stand to reason that escorts and escort agencies are "illegal".   Now, if this is the case(that escorting and escort agencies are illegal), then how come they're allowed to adverstise on websites, the Yellow Pages, local news papers, etc.?   I'm really confused.  

Remember that LE doesn't care as much about convictions as they do about arrests.  Don't get too hung-up on the definition of what an escort is or is not.  If you wind up in the same room with LE you are going down town...

It varies with jurisdiction but even an implication of sex & cash being passed or referance to cash can be interpreted as solicitation for prostitution.  Disclaimers like "time & companionship only" are out the window once the pay-for-play comes into the picture.  In the old days (& a few old school ladies still do) recieve their donations after the action.  

If you are in the room with LE, it's too late!  Seeing well reviewed providers is the best way to minimize the risk (& get best service).  
skb

In order for there to be a lawful arrest, the arresting officer either has to have a warrant for the person's arrest for violating solication/prostitution laws, or must have statutory grounds for making a warrantless arrest (which in most states means that that the offense occurred in his presence). In either situation, there must be at least probable cause to believe that the crime was committed.

         If someone reports that they were arrested for "seeing an escort," this most likely means that the arresting officer either had obtained a warrant for that person's arrest (for example, provider discloses to LE that she engaged in sex for pay with client and warrant is issued on this basis), or LE overheard or through a sting operation obtained facts sufficient to conclude that solicitation/prostitution occurred.

     In either scenario, while the client can always claim "I was just paying for time," this kind of labeling will not prevent a lawful arrest if probable cause existed to believe the real nature of the conduct was solicitation/prostitution.







-- Modified on 4/25/2009 9:39:43 AM

I was reading about a case the other day about a women in a Tavern in DC ,
The guy buys here a drink & he then the conversation got loose she decided it was time to leave and as she started to walk away she was arrested.

I also saw a program, LE were doing stings & being "very pushing" trying to get men to take the bait for $1.00 !!!I think that is very unfair as I can just see some nice guy feeling pity for the women & just innocently handing the "women/bait" a few bucks like you would give a begging homeless person.  

PS: still waiting  for an answer on the seal/destroy......I was told it is proceeding..whatever that means

Can you explain the different scenarios in which stings take place, besides the obvious that we all know of?   Explain the scenarios of all the different types of stings.   Cause it seems a lot of these stings are pretty intricate.  It seems they're not the obvious, "under cover officer asks how much for sex?".

So, like I said, it's to my understanding that "escorting" which by definition is for time and companionship, is "illegal"?   It is illegal to pay a woman money for her time and companionship?   Now if this is the case, then how come escort agencies aren't being shut down by the gov't?   And how come escorts on Eros, etc., aren't being rounded up and arrested?   How is it that escort agencies are allowed to advertise in local newspapers, in the Yellow Pages, etc.?   I'd like to clear this up.

"If someone reports that they were arrested for "seeing an escort," this most likely means that the arresting officer either had obtained a warrant for that person's arrest (for example, provider discloses to LE that she engaged in sex for pay with client and warrant is issued on this basis), or LE overheard or through a sting operation obtained facts sufficient to conclude that solicitation/prostitution occurred."

See, but I'm hearing reports contrary to that on here that claim Law Enforcement can still arrest you regardless.   This is what I'm trying to get cleared up.   Because if that's the case, then I don't understand how all these escort agencies aren't being shut down and all these escorts advertising on sites like Eros.com aren't all being rounded up and arrested, and how escorts and escort agencies are allowed to advertise in local newspapers, the Yellow pages, websites, etc.  

Escort means to safe keep & technically nothing illegal about it.
LE do what they want regardless of the written law.  If you have the bad luck of crossing paths with LE .you are going down. Then you have to go through misery to clear it up.
IE:
I was reading about a town that arrests folks after dark & automatically takes them in for DUI. Then the person gets tested & has NO alcohol & NO drugs in system.. Yet, they have to fight it in court. This will cost the person a tremendous amount of trouble & expense.
Apply this to a sol charge & it is soooo much worse because 1) the stigma is pure shame & 2) it is He said /She said case.. you do not get a blood test that proves you were innocent.. The damage is done,, NOT guilty is NOT good enough.
I honestly believe there is more corruption when it comes to women. Some cops are just dangerous predators by selecting a women out of "personal taste" and finding joy in the sting.

Well, be a little careful about what you here on the board.  Often times, the full details aren't mentioned and once the details come out, the entire scenario changes.  Seeing and being an "escort" is not illegal.  Solicitation generally is.  The comments already made to your post are accurate.

The reason that hundreds of agencies and ladies who simply advertise as “escorts” are not arrested is bc there is nothing illegal about simply offering or advertising to be a companion for pay. As a general proposition, it is only when the parties cross the line and offer or provide sex for pay that the law is broken.

       I can only conclude that the ones arrested have crossed that line at least in the view of the arresting officer and that you do not have access to all the details that would show the client did more than simply agree to see an escort.

        Remember also that the decision to arrest without a warrant turns solely on the perception of the arresting officer. If he concludes that the facts he perceives gives probable cause to believe that the  law has been broken, he is empowered to arrest, even though the parties may be entirely innocent. That is why the “I’m just paying for her time” disclaimer is usually useless at the arrest stage if the officer has perceived facts that leads him to conclude otherwise.

     Note also that there are safety valves to protect against rogue officers making arrests without probable cause and in accordance with their arrest power. If a warrantless arrest is made, the defendant is entitled to a probable cause hearing shortly thereafter where a neutral judicial officer will determine if probable cause for the arrest existed.

      And finally if the arrest is illegal and there is no applicable immunity, the citizen is entitled to recover damages in a civil suit either from the state employer or sometimes directly from the officer.

however, application is difficult, because as a regular person we don't know the process & are at a disadvantage.

what hearing?? They don't tell you that about that option.

There are very short statute of limitations for civil claims against public entity (6 months OC)  I was also told 99.99% claims  are automatically denied.  it is really hard to get a fair shot.

When I finally got a good attorney he was shocked, it was the worst case,
The case should have been dismissed immediatly, cop arrested & suit against the county.

"If he concludes that the facts he perceives gives probable cause to believe that the  law has been broken, he is empowered to arrest"


I was speaking to this guy on another forum who's studying to be a Lawyer, and according to him, Law Enforcement doesn't need probable cause in these cases.   I don't know how true it is and if he exactly knows what he's talking about, but this is what I've been told.

"The "probable cause" language regards searches and search warrants and the 5th Amendment. It does not relate to the decision to arrest someone. No probable cause is required to arrest you; you can be held for two or three days without even being told of your offense or charged with anything."

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”).

          Dude- we are not living in the Gulag -as long as you are not a terrorist being "detained" by the Bush administration, the Constitution requires that they have at least probable cause to arrest you -a traffic stop permits a lesser standard- and state law engrafts additional limitations for misdemeanor warrantless arrests, usually requiring that the offense be committed in the presence of the arresting officer, even if he otherwise has probable cause to believe the offense was committed.

LE can arrest you for solicitation but will the DA may or may  charge you with solicitaion

My view is that stings are usually done to solve a perceived problem like complaints from the neighbors, not to punish since it usually a victimless crime.  So the charges, fines are not punitive and records can be expunged within two years.  This is done to keep it out if court and the police can say we are doing something to uphold the law. In DC for example, you nust go the "John Court" im lieu of trial.

arising out of an unlawful arrest made without probable cause:

(1)  A state law claim for false arrest/imprisonment against the public entity - which usually does have a shorter limitations unless you file an administrative claim first - and a 42 USC 1983 claim against the officer himself for violating your constitutional rights. The latter is usually governed by the personal injury statute of limitations in the state which is usually three years.

       At the admin level I'm sure 99% of the claims are denied, since the decisionmaker is also the defendant. But that is why you are provided with a judicial remedy where the jury ultimately will decide. And to finance the suit against the officer the fed statute allows for the recovery of atty fees.


So while I can understand that you are down on the system, I think you really were a victim of a rogue cop, unusual circumstances, and perhaps not the best legal advice.

Hope your expungement case is decided in your favor soon.

not "seeing an escort."  You are getting caught up in semantics and confusing the defense to the charge with the charge itself.

For an arrest to be made, you will have to be charged with violation of a statute.  There is no statute for "seeing an escort," but there are plenty that criminalize doing what we do.

Does "seeing an escort" violate any of those statutes to the point of being a "lawful arrest"?  That is a fact specific question that can't be generally answered because every situation where LE has determined probably cause to arrest for the solicitation or lewd charges is different.  When you say "seeing an escort," you are really saying: "I wasn't soliciting or being lewd, I was just seeing an escort."  That amounts to an explanation or defense contrary to what LE has determined to be happening.

When you are reading or hearing what you have referenced, the speaker or writer is just not being accurate in what he was actually arrested for and charged with.

I agree, It must have been an anomaly.

The good attorney, told me that the DA was punishing me because:

I had filed that civil claim. & they will never admit fault


So they really hate me

The monster of data bases will buy up arrest details.

Using clever words to avoid expressly staying something doesn't matter.  The ad can say no sex - only time, no money - only roses, and every other way of avoiding saying prostitution. But if if can be inferred that is what you are really talking about, that's good enough.

The law is not a 100% ass.  Someone offering a massage who is wearing only a bikini bottom, promising to make you happy, connected to reviews that say BBJCIM, and all the rest is offering one thing.

The magic words don't have to appear.  It isn't the old "$64,000 question" where you have to say the right word and bingo it happens.