If the law decides to target you then they will. Doesn't matter how they do it, and when you are caught you will be spending some hard earned cash for a lawyer fighting it out in court. (Wether you win or not in court depends on alot of circumstances) Yes, they are very capable of just about anything (especially if they are getting numerous complaints and or media attention )and don't think they aren't. Entrapment sometimes get overlooked in court because the general public has such disdain for those in the hobby or related trade.
Anyone ever heard of LE going to the extent of setting up an entire website as an "agency," and even posting a bunch of reviews here to set up busts? Or do they just keep it much more simple?
like that...most times i think they try to use craigslist...one time they had an ad on craigslist, if you googled the number it came back to the LASD or something like that...
doubt they would set up an agency, etc, to do that.
most times its only simple stings on the street...
even if it may not be perfect - nothing is.
Wouldn't that be entrapment, if they did that? I guess they just couldn't be too explicit in their ad. If the L.E. agency made any promises that If you responded to the ad and set up an appointment you would receive sex in exchange for money, that would constitute entrapment and the case would be dropped. The L.E. agent needs the perp to make the solicitation and not the other way around to make a case. Money doesn't even need to exchange hands, all you have to do is say you want a particular sexual act performed on you for a set price and that's good enough. Has anyone seen the COPS episodes that involve vice arrests. It starts off with an undercover officer approaching the car of the perp, asking if they want a date, (this part is not the illegal part, if it was then I'd be busted for asking my High school girlfriend to the prom). No what is, is the wrong answer to the next question: "what do you want?" The answer should never be, I want sex for X- amount of dollars. This is where you break the law. DON’T BREAK THE LAW. Because once broken, it's a bitch to fix. The answer should be, Let's just hang out for a while or for an agreed upon amount of time. If the next question is how much will you give me, make it perfectly clear that you will compensate her or him for their time and nothing else. It's not illegal to pay someone for their time, (If it was, then my boss would get busted every time I punched a time card). Now, if in the course of that time that you and your consenting person of legal adult age decide to engage in an act of coitus, there's no crime in that either. Just make sure that you've brushed up on the local laws pertaining to sodomy. In some states, even the act of oral copulation is a crime.
Believe all this if you want. Try it. We'll be seeing you at the local police station shortlt thereafter being booked for solicitation.
If the law decides to target you then they will. Doesn't matter how they do it, and when you are caught you will be spending some hard earned cash for a lawyer fighting it out in court. (Wether you win or not in court depends on alot of circumstances) Yes, they are very capable of just about anything (especially if they are getting numerous complaints and or media attention )and don't think they aren't. Entrapment sometimes get overlooked in court because the general public has such disdain for those in the hobby or related trade.
I agree that was my point. Money for sex is illegal according to the California Penal Code under
Title 14.
653.20. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Commit prostitution" means to engage in sexual conduct for
money or other consideration, but does not include sexual conduct
engaged in as a part of any stage performance, play, or other
entertainment open to the public.
647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or
dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the
public or exposed to public view.
(b) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any
act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of
prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she
manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage,
regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person
who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No
agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a
violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the
agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission
of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that
act. As used in this subdivision, "prostitution" includes any lewd
act between persons for money or other consideration.
Although according to the LA County Ordinance, Solicitation from a motor vehicle
of any kind is a punishable crime.
13.15.012 Solicitation by persons in moving vehicles on public right-of-way prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person, while the occupant of a moving vehicle, to solicit, or
attempt to solicit, employment, business, or contributions of money or other property,
from a person who is within the public right-of-way, including but not limited to a public
street, highway, sidewalk or driveway. The provisions of this section shall only be operative
in the unincorporated areas of the county.
So, even if I accost a person on the street, say for cleaning out my gutters, is a big no-no.
But my initial question, is it entrapment if a law enforcement agency publishes an advertisement
for the purpose of soliciting money for sex? They most likely would have to state that this is for
companionship and nothing else. During the meeting, the officer would have to get the suspect
to offer sex for a price to make it stick, right?
The procedure you describe would not be entrapment. It would be a sting, and stings are perfectly legal. It only becomes entrapment if the police pressure the suspect into comitting a crime he never would have comitted otherwise. Just giving someone an opportunity to break the law isn't even close to entrapment.
Bikebryan is 100% correct about how ineffective your strategy would be. The fact that people SAY they are only trading money for time does not mean that's what they are really doing. What people actually do is what matters, not what they say. Cops are not dumb enough to be fooled by word games like this, and neither are judges or juries.
And I don't think oral sex is a crime in any state these days. Even if such a law is still on the books, recent Supreme Court case law has made it unenforceable.
So placing an add with the promise of sex for money would be tantamount to parking a car with the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition to trap a car thief? Interesting. Yes, the legal definition of entrapment is when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he or she had no previous intent to commit. There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty. Government agents are guilty of entrapment if three things occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. (I surf to find their ad promising sex for money, and so the idea is planted. All I have to do is mention that I'm responding to the ad.)
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. (If the ad merely stated that an attractive girl or guy for that matter, would love to spend an hour with someone for a small fee, that's only producing the opportunity and not an invitation to commit a crime.)
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him. (In a case where a person responds to a seemingly innocuous ad not promising sex for money, yet they request it under their own volition; no entrapment. But if they merely ask for what the ad offered, sex for money, then it would fall under this exception. Right?)
The only thing that I'm surmising is that the agency in charge of "the sting" has a fine line to walk. Any mention in the ad that sex would be exchanged for money, would plant the seed to commit a crime. A seemingly legit escort ad would not cross that line. So if the suspect initiated a request, sex for money, the collar would be legit too.
{disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer}
Your defense surmises that a jury would take an engineer's view to the law. I really doubt they would.
All rational adults have heard of prostitution, so it's not like they're introducing you to something new. Also, you had to come across their ad somehow. The prosecutor will simply say you were looking for sex for money, and his/her proof will be that you contacted the person in the ad. You will be unable to prove otherwise, and juries are unlikely to believe a defense of "Nuh-Uh!!".
Lastly, an ad is the ultimate in only providing the opportunity. No rational adult is going to be motivated enough by an ad to call up a "provider", make an appointment, get in the car, drive to the bank to get $$$, get back in the car, drive to the incall, then shout "Gimme sex! Here's money!" unless they were already willing to commit the crime.
I can't be sure why I'm getting such heated responses to this thread. I wonder if I'm hitting a blue nerve?
Of course Bikebryan is 100% correct, soliciting sex for money will land you in the hoosegow. I'm not into dishing out what you call advice, I'm just giving my opinion based on actual case history, I study. No one should take this as the God's honest truth. I was only illustrating a point of fact.
As far as what people do and not say they do, I have a few words on this too. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. So if I can convince the jury or the bench that my client is innocent of the charges, I could care less if the cops are dumb or not. Their job is to gather evidence and detain suspects. The fewer words spent on them the better for the suspect's case. The only thing you should say to an arresting officer is, "Am I being arrested?" and if not, "Then am I free to go?"
Oh, one other thing. Yes it's true, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, but only when it applies to private consensual sex between legal adults. In a case of sex for money, how would this pertain? There are still 22 states that have not rescinded their sodomy laws. Even in the great state of Massachusetts, cornerstone of our democracy, getting caught with the meat in your mouth will land you 5 years in the slammer and a grand in fines - ouch!
{disclaimer: I'm still not a lawyer}
Repealing a sodomy law is just a formality.
Say your client gets arrested for a BJ. Goes before a judge.
"Your honor, the SCOTUS ruled that laws such as this one are unconstitutional."
"Case dismissed".
That's where the intelligence of the cops come into play. LE is going to be smart enough to provide one hell of an opportunity, but not go far enough to entrap you.
While your arguments have academic merit, in a real trial there would be real jurors who are going to refuse to accept any defense they see as "flimsy", no matter how academically correct. They'll assume the defendant is lying about his/her predisposition towards sex for money. A judge will give you a "C'mon. How dumb do you think I am?".
The reason you're getting such responses is that some reader who saw your post might actually think you know what you're talking about and try to conduct himself as you suggested and end up getting arested and convicted. This is much less likely to happen now that your claims have been rebutted.
It doesn't matter that laws against oral sex are still on the books in some places. The Supreme Court's decision rendered those laws unenforceable. I doubt any prosecutor would try to bring such a case now regardless of what the statutes in his state might say.
And I wasn't talking about oral sex with a provider, just oral sex. Your post only pointed out that there were laws against oral sex, not that there were laws against paying for it. Those laws are still enforceable.
Touché, yes Sidone, you've rebutted me with such incontrovertible reasoning. Destroyed every sliver of advice, or really purported advice that I've bloged out on this board. Wait a minute, can blog be used as a verb? Oh well. In my first response to the initial thread I was just giving my opinion based on actual cases I've studied in regards to the question of LE placing ads to make collars and not any concrete advice, no I'm not trying to back pedal here. It's as if I accosted you on the street and said it was a nice day but you went out of your way to prove that it wasn't. Unless you're a meteorologist? In my blogs I've went on to cite actual city, state and federal ordinances and given my interpretations of the law, and that's what any of this is. That's why we have a court system to try the letter of the law. What it really boils down to is "might makes right." If I can convince a jury or a judge that my interpretation of the law is correct, then I can yield an acquittal. So far all that I've received as a genuine rebuttal is a veiled threat of incarceration and an emphatic claim that cops, judges and juries aren't that dumb, I never said they were. So if you really want to rebut me, tear down my arguments with a little more than claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I'd like to know what makes you an authority. So spill it, are you Blue or are you Red?