A provider friend of mine was caught by law enforcement.  They didn't arrest or formally charge her, but took her money and made her write testimony against some gents.  They said they want to use her for a sting.  She has certain personal issues they are leveraging to use to threaten her to comply.  

Now she's moved to another state.  Is it possible for them to still use surveillance on her activities or tell the state police in the new state to provide surveillance on her, without any formal charges?  Could she still be arrested at any time and charged?  Can they make her go back and do stings, or make her do stings in the jurisdiction she moved in?  Can they investigate her without any evidence or warning at any time, because of the circumstances in her former state (even though no charges were brought).  How long does she have to wait before  the police can no longer charge her?

Thanks for your help.

-- Modified on 5/4/2005 4:07:48 PM

Police don't charge people.  Prosecutors do.

The police agreed with your friend that they wouldn't even give her file to the prosecutors if she cooperated.  She has broken that deal, and the prosecutors probably already have the file - along with her handwritten statements, which will probably be very useful as evidence against her.

The police can't make the cops in her new city watch her or arrest her, but they can ask and the new city's cops might agree.  There is no need for "formal charges" to be brought before they can begin surveillance.  Surveillance is how the police obtain enough evidence to justify bringing the charges, so it wouldn't make sense to require the charges to be brought first.  And don't forget that these charges would be filed publicly.  If surveillance was only allowed after the state had publicly announced its suspicions, a lot of defendants would just alter their behavior.

The original cops can't "make her go back and do stings", just as they couldn't "make" her do it before she moved.  They gave her the incentive of avoiding charges, but since that didn't work they will just have her charged.  There isn't much point trying to get her to do stings after she ditched them.

There is also no need for any further investigation in either the new state or the old one.  There was already enough evidence to charge her, and the DA doesn't need more.

The deadline for the DA to charge your friend is set by the statute of limitations.  How long she has depends upon where the charges would be brought and what those charges would be.  As long as the charges are filed on time, she can be arrested long afterwards.

I don't think she'll have to wait long, though.  She broke her deal, and the cops are not just going to shrug that off.

She did not break any deal.  She told them she was leaving the state and they told her OK, but they might call her up to volunteer to assist them.

It is confusing because they never took her downtown, did not take her fingerprints etc. but they kept the money and evidence and also let her leave the state.

So it sounds you're telling me she could be under surveillance now and is completely vulnerable to being charged in either state (assuming they can gather evidence in her new residence), until the statute of limitations runs out.

-- Modified on 5/5/2005 11:42:17 AM

My comments assume that your friend was caught for prostitution, and not something serious like murder. I wouldn't worry about your friend being under surveillance in order to prosecute her. It is not worth the time and effort. Also, it would be hard to use evidence in New State to prosecute a case in Old State. Again, why pay LE to come to Old State to testify, they might as well arrest and prosecute for what she is doing in New State.

New State police are more likely to laugh at Old State police for trusting a prostitute than they are to help Old State seek vengence on her not living up to her end of the bargain.

One caveat might be: She moved into a small town in New State; small town is clean and wants to stay clean; police have nothing better to do; might as well stalk a cutie.

If she does go back to Old State, I would make sure that she gets a written agreement that in exchange for her help, they agree not to prosecute.

I wonder whether Old State police were just using it as an excuse to take her money. If they never file charges, there is no crime, and the money is hers. If you really want cooperation, you file charges, and plea bargain (cooperate in exchange for dropping charges).

She can't be charged in the new state unless she commits a crime there.  If she does and gets caught, then naturally she could be charged.  She can't be charged in the new state with crimes she committed in the old state.  

Her new local police might have her under surveillance, but it is unlikely that the cops in her old city would try to arrange this if she gave them no reason to be angry with her.

Not processing her isn't so unusual.  Remember that their part of the deal was to refrain from charging her, and it's pretty hard to justify formalizing an arrest after agreeing not to prosecute.  And of course they kept the evidence.  How else would they be able to prosecute her if she broke the deal?  And how would they be able to hold her to the deal if she knew they couldn't prove their case?

Can she still be prosecuted in the old state?  Yes, if the police ask her to work some stings and she refuses.  She might also be vulnerable even if they never make such a request but it seems unlikely.  I would need to know more about the agreement and about what the police said about her move.

oh my god
just 2 cent thoughts;when u encounter police like in the movies or just the old american rule dont talk to incriminate yourself.The cops job no matter what and never changes is to lock up people.when u think u r helping u r not be quiet we make things worse or bigger then they r when u speak.It kills me in this business of professionalism that the golden rule is never followed see cops go the other way get caught denial.They probably scared your friend because of the leverage they found while talking....if there is no arrest,no ticket for court theres nothing.they probably took her money pocketed it had her write laddi da to have her think it was something.let her go...forgot her...threatened if they see her again they will crucify her...different states different jurisdictions...cops cannot go after her if she never was formally in trouble.I dont think the police give us waiting periods to have a lil life before its time for us civilians to report for informant duties.I personally think she is fine this time but needs to be careful and not work the area she was in any time soon.And know for sure never talk.They let her go that was cool but Im not saying be nasty Im saying play no english or play I dont understand or play im at the wrong place....good luck and god be with us all.Also it is always good let your fellow cheerleaders in the industry know where these stings are happening.we have to work together to keep us strong.

... to bring charges, b ut they have to do this within that state's statute of limitations.      Prostitution is a misdemeanor in most places, and in most places, the limitation on misdemeanors is a year.  Since I don't know the state, I can't tell you.
Police in the new state ARE NOT going to start watching someone simply because she was a hooker in her previous state of residence.  Prostitution is just not a serious enough crime to justify this use of police resources.
Because prostitution is a usually a misdmeanor, it is VERY UNLIKELY that the old state will try to extradite her, even if she's charged there.
Notice all the qualifications above; no absolutes.  ANYONE WHO'S ARRESTED FOR ANYTHING SHOIULD MAKE NO STATEMENTS, AND HIRE A LAWYER.  And THAT'S an absolute!

meeting. Who is to say whether the "written" evidence was not written by the cops. Also, they allowed her to leave the state, which says a lot about their level of interest in her activities. A good lawyer would tie this case in knots, she should look for one and forget about cooperating with clowns.

This is an example of guidance which can get someone into a lot of trouble.  What stilltryin25 wrote is dead wrong and noone should pay any attention to it.  This advice sounds like it came from wannarideher, who has always given absolutely terrible advice on this board, and I'll bet stilltryin25 is just wannarideher's alias.

Who is to say the cops didn't write the evidence?  The cops!  The prosecution's handwriting expert!  And let's not forget the jurors.  Do you really think a jury would believe that cops on a sting would be able to convincingly forge the handwriting of whoever they happened to catch?  That argument is unlikely to fly.

That the cops didn't give the Miranda warning is completely irrelevant unless they questioned her and then try to use her answers (or other information they found as a result of those answers) against her in court.  It sounds to me like they had plenty of evidence before they walked in the door, so the prosecutor wouldn't need to use such statements even if the police did question the lady.

Allowing her to leave the state is also meaningless since the police had no authority to make her stay.  People are free to move in this country unless a court has directed otherwise, and that is only done in unusual circumstances.  The lady in question hadn't been charged with anything, which means there was no case pending against her in which a judge could even theoretically make such an order.  And even if she had a pending case, it would be for a minor offense and no judge would order the defendant in such a case not to move.

Since the courts couldn't force her to stay, the only other possibility would be the police.  But police officers' authority is limited and they can't just go around telling people - even people they saw commit crimes - how they must live their lives.

I'm not saying the authorities in the original city will pursue this case.  But if they do, or if the cops there ask her to return and help in some stings, the points you made won't be helpful at all.  They certainly wouldn't be enough for a lawyer to "tie the case in knots".

And I said that a good lawyer would tie this case in knots, which he or she would. Cops are not recognized as handwriting experts, people that have studied handwriting and are certified as experts on it are. The prosecution would have to hire such a person if the defense allege that the handwritten documents were forged.
Recent high court rulings have trimmed Miranda rights privileges, but those rights still exists and if cops make mistakes, good lawyers will get the charges dropped or simply defeat the the presecution at trial.
Instead of letting the lady leave the state, they could have charged her. They did not. Was that because their case was weak.
You say that you are a lawyer, although I have some difficulty believing that you are very good at it, I will take you at your word. Any good lawyer knows that evidence is what is made of it at trial. Until a good lawyer works evidence and lose the case, nothing is concrete and you are dead wrong to insist otherwise.
By the way, having a degree in something does not mean one is good at it.

If you read at all, you would know that Wannarider is a provider and that I am a hobbyist. It turns out that I have serious disagreement with her. Talk about missing evidence that is right under one's nose. Pardon me, but I am sure you will never represent me in court, whether you want to or not.

Did you even read what I wrote before you went off like this?  I didn't say that cops ARE handwriting experts.  I said that cops AND a handwriting expert hired by the prosecution would be able to testify that the notes were written by the accused, if she were foolish enough to deny what the D.A. can so easily prove.

I agree that Miranda rights are important and that they are still valid, but there is no reason to believe they matter in this case.  Miranda applies ONLY when police question a suspect after they have taken her into custody.  No such questioning?  No Miranda warning needed.  Period.  

And even when there really is a Miranda violation, all that happens is that the answers to those questions are excluded along with information the state learned as a result of those answers.  The rest of the evidence can still be used.  

The original post mentioned nothing about what happened except that the police seized some money and had the woman write some information about other people.  We have no idea how much evidence they had against the lady; for all we know she walked right up to an undercover cop, offered him sex for money and then stripped naked while a video camera recorded it all.  

But even without knowing what the evidence is you are confident that "a good lawyer would tie this case in knots"?  How on earth can you say that?  The defendants hardly ever win cases like this, and they hardly ever get the D.A. to drop the charges either.  Pick a random prostitution case out of a courtroom docket and there is more than a 90% chance the lady will be convicted as charged or will plead to some lesser offense like disorderly conduct.  It is not realistic to be confident of victory in such a case, especially when you don't know what the evidence is.

Did asking for the written statements violate Miranda?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It depends in part of whether she was legally in custody.  Whether someone is in custody for Miranda purposes is not a simple question, and you would be surprised how many statements made by suspects to the cops are admitted into evidence.  The fact is that a suspect is often NOT legally in custody when she talks to the cops, and when that is the case anything she says is fair game for the D.A.

The answer also depends on what the police said before she started writing.  If they didn't ask a question that called for an incriminating response but she went ahead and gave them one anyway, then the statements probably come in.  Again, no Miranda issue.

You say that "Instead of letting the lady leave the state, they could have charged her."  Here again you obviously didn't read my answer.  The police have no authority to prevent her from leaving the state.  Even if they do hand the file over to the D.A. and even if the D.A. does bring charges, a simple prostitution case will not get her locked up and will not prevent her from relocating.  Courts routinely make defendants travel from out of state for their court dates, but you seem to think a state line is an absolute barrier to the court's authority.  If it really worked that way criminals could always escape prosecution by committing their crimes in a different state and then rushing home.

You evidently don't know this, but defense victories in cases like this are rare.  This isn't because the defendants have bad lawyers.  It is because the D.A. doesn't need to do very much to prove the lady's guilt and because there is very little defense counsel can credibly argue against the evidence that is offered.  You say "Any good lawyer knows that evidence is what is made of it at trial", which sounds good but means nothing.  If the evidence includes a videotape of the woman offering sex for money, what exactly do you think defense counsel can "make of it"?  It is what it is.

If you doubt my legal abilities I invite you to review my history of posts on this board.  Many users have been reading my posts for years, and I welcome any and all of them to say whether they doubt my abilities.

You're right that "having a degree in something does not mean one is good at it", but neither does being a jackass.  There may be something you can discuss competently, but it obviously isn't the law.

You're right that I wouldn't represent you.  Once you started mouthing off to me like that I would have refused your case and sent you packing.  At least we agree on something.

I have worked with violent criminals, sex offenders, drug dealers and many others, but every one of them was civil toward me.  I have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm down.

As for thinking you were wannarideher: I don't know what was going on with my browser, but when I replied to your earlier message it didn't show (as it does now) that you had prior reviews or that stilltryin25 is your primary ID.  The evidence that I had at the time said that your name was an alias for someone else, which is part of why I thought the person behind that post was wannarideher.

Of course the main reason I thought wannarideher wrote it was that it demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the legal system.  Anybody who can say a case is an easy win for the defense without even knowing what the evidence is just doesn't have a clue.

And what the hell is this "I am not finished with you" nonsense?  What on earth do you think you're going to do?  Clearly you're not going to defeat me in a courtroom.  I'll let the other readers decide whether you get the better of me here, but let's just say I won't lose any sleep awaiting their verdicts.

If my instincts are right, every one of them is likely doing time now. The fact of the matter is, good lawyers often destroy evidence that cops and prosecutors think is solid.

Do you realize where you are? Your shrill. Breathe.

I'm not going to discuss the details of my clients' cases since I'm not interested in helping anyone figure out who I am.  I'll just say that your instincts are quite wrong.  Remember, these are the same instincts which led you to predict an easy defense victory in a case without knowing anything about the evidence.

Your statement that "good lawyers often destroy evidence that cops and prosecutors think is solid" might or might not be true.  It depends on what you mean by "often" and "destroy".  The fact that the very large majority of criminal defendants either plead guilty or are convicted at trial shows that this doesn't happen very often at all, at least not in the sense of "often" that most people use.

Defense counsel can sometimes discredit evidence or at least raise doubts in jurors' minds, but there is no reason to think that could be done here.  One of the few things we know about this case is that it was a sting, which means the police knew what crime to expect and had prepared in advance to gather the specific types of evidence they would need to prove their case.  There is almost certainly a videotape which shows what the young lady did right before she was nabbed, along with recordings of the phone calls which preceded the appointment.  It is not easy to discredit evidence like this except in those cases where it really has been falsified, and those cases are very rare.

Maybe you're right.  We lawyers and our type-A personalities do get a bit testy sometimes.

What bothered me wasn't just stilltryin25's belief that the law is whatever he thinks it is.  It was getting this abuse for trying to help people that set me off.  People who read this board often believe that contributors who answer questions know what they are talking about, and I believe in corrected significant errors when I see them here so that no one is led astray.  When an answer is so bad as to be dangerous I say so.  That doesn't happen often, but it did happen here.

I have put many hours of time into this board over the years trying to help people deal with their legal problems and understand how the system works.  To be berated for doing this by someone who doesn't know the first thing about criminal procedure was more than just insulting - it was offensive.  People who get offended become indignant, which is what happened here.  My apologies to any readers who feel I was out of line.

Wow! Sidone you must live your daily life around these postings. Sitting in a wheelchair .....at a computer.......... being all powerful.

I am not stilltryin25 but start reading your postings more closely. You do sound like a know- it-all trying to censor what anyone else says on this board.

Real lawyers disagree all the time. Even when the Citadel was accepting women into their cadet program, we had lawyers at my college talking about what they would do in the courtroom to defend their arguement.  

The TER board is for discussion not actual legal advice. Last time I looked, this site was fan fiction anyways. Did the site owner make you resident lawyer or is this how you get your kicks?  

It is for us hobbyists and providers to talk about our experiences with the police and the court system. True, some cases go forth and others are dropped by that depends little on actual law and more on where your social standing is.

For example, my circle of friends include people of high standing in SC. Someone may have found out about my arrest and convinced the DA to drop the case.

Who knows but I bet you don't win all your cases and from the way you are yelling at this guy, do you even have clients? You are very rude to this guy in this thread and I will say that we got into a very heated debate in NY's board so I am not coming to his rescue.

"which says a lot about their level of interest in her activities." If they didn't arrest her then, she should just stay out of trouble and they most likely aren't going to.

Looking at this thread, she may ask her lawyer if duress is an issue to bring up. I read an article that the days of "making a suspect sweat under a light" are gone but I don't know. I don't know what issues she privately had.

I personally would never operate in a sting as people find out and once you are labeled a stool pigeon/nark, your life can become dangerous.  I know that LE likes to use providers to catch drug dealers but that is a sure way to die as I know a 15yr old who ratted his pot dealer out and was shot a year later when the guy got out.

Us people are strange creatures. By nature we offend. I have no doubt your contributions are significant. Treat offensive people like chidren, correct them but treat them with dignity.

Sidone, thanks for your professional guidance.  And, thanks all for your input.  Did not mean to cause problems with my friend's question.

I owe you an apology for bringing you into this.  As I said in an earlier message, my browser said that the name stilltryin25 was someone else's alias.  The advice and writing style in his message resembled some of your postings.  The resemblance was especially striking because your first several posts on this board came after you had been caught in a sting and had been offered an out in exchange for being the bait in some police stings.  Given all of this I thought you had posted the answer under a different name.  I was wrong, you were not involved, and I apologize for dragging you in.

I don't try to censor anyone on this board but I do try to make sure people aren't misled about the law.  As I understand it, this board exists so people with legal questions can get informed answers.  When a user posts an answer which is incorrect but which sounds authoritative, some readers will believe that the author knows what he is talking about and may get themselves into a lot of trouble as a result.  I usually point out these errors when I see them unless someone else beats me to the punch.

Stilltryin25's original message said that there was no case against the lady in question because the cops did not give her a Miranda warning.  Many people believe this is how the law works, and a reader might see this answer as confirmation of what they already believe.  The Miranda rule is much narrower than most people think, and I responded in order to make sure people who read and believed stilltryin25's answer wouldn't get themselves into serious trouble if they are arrested someday.

His suggestion that the lady could say the notes, which we know the lady wrote herself, had been written by the cops was also wide of the mark.  Just because someone can think of an argument doesn't mean others will believe it.  He suggested that no one could prove she had written it herself, and I pointed out that the police who actually watched her write it could so testify, as could a handwriting expert.

This argument is part of his general thesis that evidence doesn't matter very much because any good lawyer can win a case regardless of what the evidence shows.  This is also something many people believe, and it is also not correct.  I saw the potential again that users would see his post as confirmation of what they already believe and would take greater risks in the belief that a good lawyer could win an acquittal if need be.

His mistaken view that "allowing" her to leave the state proved they weren't interested also sounds very plausible unless you know how such things work in the real world.  If the original author had relayed stilltryin25's answer to his lady friend, she might have started acting in a way which would make the authorities more eager to go after her.  I wanted to make sure this didn't happen.

Then there was his advice to "forget about cooperating with clowns".  Cooperating off the bat with the police is usually a bad idea, but with a lawyer's involvement defendants can often make a deal in which their cooperation will ensure they are not prosecuted.  For some arrestees such a deal is often the best option available.  It may be the best option for the lady at issue here, but if she listened to stilltryin25's advice she would not even consider it and would end up in a worse position.  This is another way his post could have caused real harm.

That's a lot of bad advice to pack into three sentences, and it had the potential to harm the lady in question and to get readers into trouble in the future.  I pointed out the problems bluntly in order to make sure readers who saw his post could see just how wrong it was.

My first message was an attempt to be helpful, and one to which I gave a great deal of time.  Aside from my mistaken believe that he was you, I said nothing about stilltryin25 at all.

His response to me, though, was to insist that he knew what he was talking about and that I was the one who didn't know how things worked.  In other words he was trying to persuade the lady in question to believe him regardless of the errors I had noted.  

And although I had said nothing about him personally in my message, he responded with "You say that you are a lawyer, although I have some difficulty believing that you are very good at it" and "having a degree in something does not mean one is good at it."  Yet somehow you think that I am the one trying to shout others down.

I can take insults as well as the next guy, but there was more at stake here than my own ego.  His answer essentially said "I'm the expert here and sidone is a fool who shouldn't be trusted."  His claim of superior expertise again raised the prospect that others would believe what he wrote and get into trouble.  

I admit that I was angered by his tone, but my subsequent posts were primarily intended to protect people from stilltryin25's misunderstandings of the legal system.

When you posted bad advice on this board I went out of my way to say you had the best of intentions but were just wrong about the law.  I couldn't tell anything about stilltryin25's intentions from his first post, but his susequent posts show that he only wants to shout the loudest regardless of whether anyone suffers by following his guidance.

Yes, I became indignant and scolded him.  I'm human and humans do things like this.  I don't think that defending my (admittedly fictitious) name against public insults is such a bad thing.  But even if it is I still had to make sure readers did not start to trust stilltryin25's advice.

I was trying to be helpful, as I have done on this board for a long time.  I don't believe I would have been more helpful by keeping quiet and letting this bad advice go unanswered.  I also don't think it would have been better to just say "No, you're wrong," since an explanation of WHY he was wrong would both persuade readers logically and give some assurance that I really know what I'm talking about.

Censoring this board is the last thing I want to do.  But this isn't a board where every perspective is as valid as everyone else's.  Some people understand the law and some don't.  This board is supposed to be a place where those who don't can seek guidance from those who do.  In this case, someone who doesn't took it upon himself to offer the guidance and then to berate someone more knowledgable for trying to help the guy who had posted the original question.  

I don't see correcting bad advice as censorship.  If someone advised you to drink antifreeze and I shouted "No, don't do it!", I would be helping you and not censoring the other guy.  The same thing happened here.

With respect to the mistaken identity, when you are in the "post reply" screen the little message envelope identifying one's primary ID doesn't appear.  I've seen a number of rants on local boards due to mistaking a primary ID for an alias.  Btw, sid I'd say you won the case.