here in Chicago, they are saying a new law was passed and they can come into a girls room and arrest her for house of prostitution.
I don't know if its true, I have no facts to back it but lot of rumors that it has happened.

The girls did not even get to see her friends, they took computer and cell phones and are supposedly going to use that to prosecute.

This to me seems pretty unbelievable, since no one was seen and money was not passed.
wouldn't that violate so many rights?

On the other hand, something did happen and few girls were arrested but not given a court date?

Like I stated this is all just what I'm hearing but wondering if local girls are just trying to scare traveling girls from coming to Chicago or what?
anyone hear of this or know anything about a new law or where I can check it out myself?

you are smart to check this one out, nothing surprises me anymore...I know in CA. there is an "intent Law" any man,women,child can get arrested for "intent to solicite" just for steping foot into CA. You can look up "bad laws" the ACLU has been fighting it..This law was what I got popped on & it is prosecuted as if you engaged in a full 647(b)... so you "do nothing" and get an upgraded charge....I am wondering if it something a long this line OR  a specific "county ordinance" that would make a foot massage or strip tease illegal....The Smart Fellas here on the board will some great insight. best luck to you.

thank you and I hope that more people offer more info on it.

In Chicago, there's both state statutes and municipal code that both prohibit prostitution. The Illinois prostitution laws are 720 ILCS 5/11-14 to 5/11-26. 720 ILCS 5/11-17 is the one on "keeping a place of prostitution." It was part of the Criminal Act passed back in 1961 and was last amended in 2000, so it's nothing new. The Illinois Compiled Statutes are available online.

It says:
(a) Any person who has or exercises control over the use of any place which could offer seclusion or shelter for the practice of prostitution who performs any of the following acts keeps a place of prostitution:
(1) Knowingly grants or permits the use of such
place for the purpose of prostitution; or
(2) Grants or permits the use of such place under
circumstances from which he could reasonably know that the place is used or is to be used for purposes of prostitution; or
(3) Permits the continued use of a place after
becoming aware of facts or circumstances from which he should reasonably know that the place is being used for purposes of prostitution.

So renting a place to use just for incall would be keeping a place of prostitution. It doesn't matter if no one actually saw money or not changing hands. That's what circumstantial evidence is for. Key words are "could reasonably know".

The city of Chicago itself also has prostitution laws in chapter 8-8 of the municipal code. It regulates maintaining "houses of assignation", prostitution, and solicitation. However, those laws have been around for at least a decade and are nothing new. The Municipal Code is also available online.

BTW, Illinois still has adultery and fornication as crimes.

"brothel" or "bawdy house" broad enough to include renting a room  at some local motel for incall. This is why I have disputed other posters on this board who have opined that incall is the safest way for a lady to engage in the escort trade. That is just wrong as far as the law is concerned bc in some states the brothel count has far greater penalties.

       Outcall is clearly the way to go to avoid the incall/brothel problem from the lady's perspective. Plus I believe that under appropriate facts state prostittution statutes are unconstitutional in the outcall setting so, if you hold this view, you can participate in outcall with a clear conscience that you are not breaking the law, although we may never see a case reach the Supreme Court to test this idea.

How do you reason that a prostitute responding to outcall is not committing an act of prostitution?  

In regards to encountering LE: A provider is much more likely to walk into a sting when she is doing outcall than when she has rented the room and is doing in-call, so how would outcall be a better choice?

“How do you reason that a prostitute responding to outcall is not committing an act of prostitution?”  

       I did not say that. A lady who goes to a man’s hotel room (outcall) and performs sex for pay certainly has engaged in prostitution. But she has not also committed the separate crime of keeping a house of prostitution.

      A lady who invites a man to her hotel room (incall) and performs sex for pay also has engaged in prostitution. But, in states like Illinois and Virginia that have broad “keeping a place of prostitution” statutes, she has also committed the separate crime of keeping a house of prostitution. She now can be charged with at least two offenses and in states where multiple offenses and/or priors convert the charge to a felony, she now faces serious jail time.


      It gets worse. Take, for example, the Virginia statute:


§ 18.2-347. Keeping, residing in or frequenting a bawdy place; "bawdy
place" defined. —

 It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any bawdy place, or to reside in or at or visit, for immoral purposes, any such bawdy place.EACH AND EVERY DAY SUCH BAWDY PLACE SHALL BE KEPT, RESIDED IN OR VISITED, SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE. In a prosecution under this section the general reputation of the place may be proved.

 As used in this Code, "bawdy place" shall mean any place within or without any building or structure which is used or is to be used for lewdness, assignation or prostitution.

        If the lady rents a room in Virginia for  a week of incall and has a client the first and last day, she can be charged with 2 counts of prostitution and 7 separate bawdy house offenses. If she does outcall those two days, she gets only two prostitution counts and probably no bawdy house counts.


“In regards to encountering LE: A provider is much more likely to walk into a sting when she is doing outcall than when she has rented the room and is doing in-call, so how would outcall be a better choice?”

       I did not say it is a better choice in terms of the risk of being arrested but outcall is a better choice in terms of the criminal penalties. In an outcall setting at most you risk being busted for a single misdemeanor count, rather than the multiple bawdy house counts discussed above.

I agree there is greater arrest likelihood in the outcall setting.

Why do you "believe that under appropriate facts state prostitution statutes are unconstitutional in the outcall setting. . ."? Is it because of the liberty interest the Supreme Court has recognized in cases like Lawrence? If so, I actually agree with you. But it's nonetheless necessary to note that, in Lawrence, where the Court struck down a statute that prohibited homosexual "sodomy" and thereby purported to regulate "the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home," the Court expressly distinguished cases that "involve minors [or] persons who might be injured or coerced [or] public conduct or prostitution."

that far would be a great benefit to the "cause".

I didn't think a rented room would be under that and if it was, management of hotel would be liable.

In Lawrence the Court declared unconstitional a Texas statute that criminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults even in the privacy of their home:

"individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of `liberty' protected by the  Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices  by unmarried as well as married persons."
….

       "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. [Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.] "It is a promise
of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." ...[The Texas statute [furthers [no legitimate state interest] which can justify] its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.]"

        The reason this decision is so important to any attempt to legalize prostitution is bc the Court said advancement of a moral code is NOT a legitimate state interest that overcomes the individual's liberty right to engage in intimate conduct in private.

     As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, “State laws against ... PROSTITUTION, ... adultery,fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of the  validation of laws based on moral choices. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE LAWS IS CALLED INTO QUESTION BY TODAY'S DECISION."


     Does this mean all state prostitution statutes are unconstitutional? Of course not. There are legitimate reasons to criminalize most forms of prostitution bc of the public nuisance effect of this profession. I don’t want my next door neighbor doing incall nor I want streetwalkers near schools or churches. Nor do we want agencies or pimps running this business bc of the potential for abuse of the ladies and other crimes they commit. This is what the majority meant when it pointed out that the case before it did not involve prostitution.

       But there is one form of prostitution where there really is no public nuisance –outcall by educated, health conscious, independent ladies who discreetly visit clients in the privacy of their home or apartment. And the Court has now said that moral disapproval of sex for pay will not justify the prohibition. Statutes that criminalize this conduct, in my view,  are overbroad and unconstitutional.

        But that is just my view as an unemployed porn star. For a legal opinion as to the constitutionality of prostitution laws post-Lawrence, be sure to consult a licensed atty in your state.









-- Modified on 2/22/2009 8:19:56 PM