but is would be so much trouble (for a misdeamenor, yet) that it is highly unlikely to ever be attempted.

If they needed it for a murder case, you might see it happen, but aside from that, it ain't going to happen.

(still not a lawyer)

A Legal friend recently told me that Reviews of Ladies could be used as evidence of commission of a crime.  He asked why where the clients of these ladies writing reviews and admitting to criminal behavior with them.  He said if any of these ladies were to be busted they could point to the review and then to DMV license picture of the client and then the client could be arrested.  As far fetched as this sounded to me, I was wondering how far off base he was.  What if the police were able to link your TER logon name to your real identity.  All this fantasy writing aside, as the reviews are supposed to be, it sounds really scary all of a sudden.  How would the police be able to use you TER handle and reviews against you in a court of law?  Does a computers IP address provide the link they need?  Inquiring minds want to know.

take a look in previous Legal Corner discussions, we have gone into detail on the question. Most reviews would not pass the hearsay rule but might be admitted if all parties were in agreement, but that is an admission of guilt so who needs reviews in that case? More damning then reviews are agency records that record transactions, names and places. I will let some of the other readers fill you in as I am off to Jamaica in a few minutes and gotta pack the lube and condoms...and the lighter!

They would some proof that a certain person wrote the review. You could always claim that someone else was writing your computer or that the review is just your fantasy. There would be a reasonable doubt that the prosecution could not overcome.

not likely a review would be directly used in a misdemeanor case...  
It's much more clear cut to get a LEO in the room with the target & then get a statement linking sex & money.   Suddenly you're wearing bracelets.  
Reviews on a public forum still should be discreet...  LE can read the reviews & use the information in target selection or to attempt to breach the lady's screening.
skb

First they have to tie your handle to you.

I think that is exactly what happened in that case. Escorts involved or other hobbyists who got busted gave statements that tied certain handles to certain names and the attorney was off and running.

Do a search on the Phoenix board or google something like Desert Divas. I am sure you will find many news links that shed light on the situation.

was not a typical prostitution bust but managers miixing business with pleasure...  The target was the agency not the small fish who were colateral damage.  High profile events like meet & greets...  large agencies, increase the risks.  
No so much for indivual providers.
skb

This question by the OP has not yet been addressed.  Anyone know the facts on this?

Thanks,

MC

I posted this on the P & R Board tonight but I'll reproduce here:


Heading to Montral for the weekend with your laptop? Bad idea.


     You might want to rethink that plan if that laptop contains your latest review, or perhaps email correspondence with certain sexy ladies who are unpersuaded by your charm alone (which pretty much sums it up for me).

      Okay, I knew there was a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment that allowed suspicionless searches of my person and my suitcase, but I didn’t think they could actually make me turn on my laptop and search my harddrive.

      But yes they can, thanks in the first instance to President Bush who said this would “make us safer” bc laptop searches might yield info on terrorists, and President Obama, who criticized Mr. Bush’s treatment of the Constitution as an annoyance, but then continued the same policy as president.

     They don’t need a warrant; they don’t need probable cause; they don’t even need reasonable suspicion. If you are flying international it’s just - “hey you with the laptop –come here.”

     So what’s been happening? Well, the policy hasn’t yielded many terrorists but it has caught of number of travelers who have violated the Mann Act (you know that one), the Travel Act (you don’t know that one, but interstate travel to facilitate state law prostitution is a federal crime, dude, punishable by 5 years in prison) , and child pornography laws (okay that part is good).


   Whether they can actually make you access the internet and then can review your site history on your browser – and your posts on TER (gulp) – is unclear to me.

       Thankfully, the ACLU has said “enough” and has challenged this over-reaching practice in a lawsuit. But the existing laws clearly say they can do it. So, if flying international, make sure there is nothing on your laptop that you don’t want to share with the customs agent at the airport.

but not ncecssarily who used it (or the wireless network).  TER reportedly has servers in Neatherlands where prostitution is legal.  So breaching that barrier is unlikely on a prostitution case (but as was discussed at length in an earlier thread) no protection in a felony like assault, rape, child offenses, trafficing.  I'm not sure other sites are so well protected & think one was busted recently.  
Giving an agency or lady your TER log in could be an issue if she keeps a record...  tied to your screening info & it's subsequently gathered in a bust (her computer & phone siezed).   I think in the DD case, not only were there reviews but there was active promotion by members...   COPS said BINGO!!  
skb

Yes it does, MC.  The ISP has a list of IP addresses assigned to you for certain periods of time.  In fact, they may be required by law to keep records on this.  Has anyone read the text of CALEA?

Keep in mind that your browser's connection to theeroticreview.com uses HTTP and NOT HTTPS.  (You don't see a little lock icon on the RHS corner).  I believe someone had requested HTTPS support on the Suggestion and Policy board.  Maybe it's time to vote that thread up?

So that means anyone (not just LE), anyone who is sniffing packets on the internet can see which web pages you are browsing (HTTP GET), and which posts/reviews you are posting (HTTP POST).  It's not trivial, but it sure as hell isn't secure.  If someone is hell bent on finding what pages you are browsing, they'll be able to do it.

But then the challenge becomes, tying an IP address to a real human person with a real identity.  That's where CALEA comes in.  I think it'll be pretty easy for them to find out who you are if they put in the effort.

Of course, there's ways to make this difficult.  Secure VPN, web proxies, etc.  But even those have a few vulnerabilities I think.

If your damaging information is not on your laptop, but can be accesses on another server from your laptop, can they legally go after that?

For example, that's where all my email is.

Would they not need a warrant to go there?

they would need a warrant but I'm unaware of any case addressing that point. Of course, you can just refuse to give them your password but then they can keep you off the flight.

unless of course you really do want to get on that plane or get back into the US.

OK, so it seems from comments that there is at least a potential for reviews to come back to haunt someone.  If we "assume" that it could happen to prosecute a misdeamnor, is there a statute of limitation that could work in someone's favor if their reviews were old, say a year or more old?  Just curious.

not only to physically read your hard drive if you are an international passenger but also to copy it and subject it to a forensic analysis as you suggest. No doubt the Bush admin argued "anything goes."

     I think this an area where LE has gone way beyond the intended scope of the exception and there is a real need for court decisions to narrow what they can do. Since the rationale of the exception is to protect the safety of the country, the search should be limited to public safety issues and not fishing for sex crimes.

      Someone on the P & R Board posted that the guy they convicted after discovering child porno on his computer at an airport search committed suicide. So the policy has incredible real life consequences.

for inspection by technical services...  from any/all electronic devices.  There does not appear to be a time limit on how long they have to crack your P/W.   I'd never carry a devise used for adult viewing.  Everyone should know that "deleting" just erases the first character in an address so it might in time be over written.  Also, with the right software, it can be retrieved.  There is software which will automatically overwrite to Dept of Defense standards...  presumeably rendering it "clean".  Suspicious as hell, but nothing proveable.  
Even for non-adult uses, used computers can reveal bank accounts & other person information...  
Y'all be careful out there!
skb  

Encryption.

I travel internationally regularly.  For personal and professional reasons, I want to keep my computer content confidential.  Therefore, I keep a separate laptop for international travel, and use both full disk encryption and file/directory encryption on that computer.  In addition, in case customs or foreign border security are feeling particularly ambitious, make sure the computer is turned off (not hybernating) when you travel.  If you are feeling really paranoid, turn the computer off for at least several hours (preferably days) prior to embarking (this prevents reconstruction of data from the RAM, but you're unlikely to have to worry about that level of scrutiny unless you're a suspected terrorist or spook).

I finally got an answer from a lawyer friend of mine.  This is speaking about the law in NJ which is similar to the law elsewhere but not identical.  That is, YMMV.

First, police can do damn near anything(*).  Yes, they can view reviews and use that as the basis for a sting, an arrest, or whatever.  If the police can show a judge that they have a "reasonable belief" that a person is engaging in a crime (NOT a misdemeanor) they can get your real identity from your ISP by tracing the IP address.  Generally, in order for them to go to the effort of doing that, and being able to convince a judge to issue a warrant, you'd have to be engaged in something fairly serious - slavery, trafficking, drugs, pedophilia, etc.  

Second, if the police did arrest someone for a misdemeanor charge based on reviews, there are several things in play.  Remember, the police do not prosecute - the DA does.  The DA would have to determine that they have enough solid evidence of you committing the crime being charged to warrant a trial.  This is assuming, of course, that you don't act like 99% of the defendants and plead it out.

In this situation, a DA could attempt to use the review, but a smart lawyer would get it tossed out.  There are many Constitutional issues surrounding the use of a review.  They would have to show, for example, that it's a true account.  They could not do that unless either you or the escort testify that it's a true account and they couldn't force you to testify.  They might be able to force the provider to testify, or offer her a deal to testify but a smart lawyer would point that out, and would say that she's lying to get the deal.  The lawyer would also point out that reviews are works of fiction, and that would weaken the value of any review being used as direct evidence of the commission of the misdemeanor.  In any event, if the review is the only evidence they have, it's unlikely the DA would take the case to trial and even less likely he/she would get a conviction.  The police would have to have more evidence than just the reviews.

The most likely use of a review in court is as REBUTTAL.  That is, if you testify that you've never used a prostitute, paid money for sex, or engaged in any such activities, the review could be used to REBUT that claim and would serve to suggest that you might have done so.  There would still be the problem of proving that the review is accurate, and not a work of fiction but the review would likely get before the judge and/or jury if used as rebuttal evidence.  The judge/jury would have to determine for themselves if the review is  reliable evidence to rebut your claim that you've never used a prostitute.  But, that's about all it could be used for - it wouldn't actually speak to the actual misdemeanor charge.  But, if the judge/jury thinks you lied about that issue, they can not believe you on anything else you say in your testimony... which is why most competent lawyers won't let you testify.
.
So, according to my lawyer friend, it's unlikely that reviews on TER (or elsewhere) can be used against you as evidence.  And for a misdemeanor charge, they pretty much would have to catch you in the act to stand any chance of convicting you.

(*) While the police can do damn near anything, including having sex with a prostitute before arresting her for prostitution, not everything they do would be admissible in court, and some things could get the case dismissed and some could get them sued.  This is a huge topic for another post...

Hope all of this makes sense, and helps...

"While the police can do damn near anything, including having sex with a prostitute before arresting her for prostitution, not everything they do would be admissible in court, and some things could get the case dismissed and some could get them sued..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Copied From Article)
Fondling the woman's breasts went too far, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. The officer could have gotten evidence without sexual contact.

11/24/09
An undercover Minneapolis police officer engaged in outrageous conduct when he fondled the bare breasts of a woman giving him a massage, the state Court of Appeals ruled today in a decision reversing the woman's prostitution conviction in Hennepin County District Court."

The police officer, David Pleoger, violated Betty Burkland's right to due process when he initiated the sexual contact with her and allowed it to escalate, Judge Wilhelmina Wright wrote in a decision for a three-judge panel that also included Judges Terri Stoneburner and Larry Stauber.

The ruling said that the officer went to Peaceful Image Tanning and Bodyworks in 2008 after receiving a tip about prostitution. He met Burkland, arranged a one-hour massage for $70 and then took off his clothes in a massage room. When Burkland entered the room, she offered to perform the massage topless for an extra $30 and the officer accepted.

After a while, Burkland asked the officer to turn onto his back, and he asked if he could touch her breasts, the court said. She put oil on her hands and rubbed his genitals. He asked if she included the "release" in the $100 fee and she said yes.

Burkland's lawyer, Jeffrey Dean, said the ruling marks the first time a Minnesota appellate court has ruled that an officer's sexual conduct in a prostitution sting violated due process.

The proper way to conduct a prostitution arrest is for the officer to wear a wire and get an agreement of sex for money, Dean said, adding, "the evidence in a prostitution arrest is the words." He called this officer's conduct "outrageous and abusive."

To prove prostitution, an officer had to show that Burkland "agreed to engage" in sexual contact for money, the decision said. Here, the officer initiated the contact.

"There is no evidence in the record, nor did the officer contend, that Burkland's conduct was necessary to dispel a suspicion that he was a police officer," Wright wrote.  

The court's decision said that to prove prostitution, an officer had to show that Burkland "agreed to engage" in sexual contact for money.

Wright wrote that Pleoger could have obtained the information needed for a conviction by inquiring about the "release" at any point in the conversation.

The officer's initiation of sexual contact met the threshold for outrageous governmental conduct and reversal of the convictions, the court determined. The state Supreme Court has previously ruled that an undercover officer can expose himself to a prostitute at her insistence to avoid being discovered as law enforcement.

"There is no evidence in the record, nor did the officer contend, that Burkland's conduct was necessary to dispel a suspicion that he was a police officer," Wright wrote.

Twin Cities defense attorney Ryan Pacyga said the case signals that the court is willing to restrict police conduct, noting that the touching of the breasts was enough to get the case thrown out. He said a similar defense could be used in drug and fraud investigations. "To me it's an exciting defense. You can bet that I'm going to try it," Pacyga said.

Interesting reading for travelers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365030,00.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

END OF MESSAGE

please notice that many many many guys wrote reviews of desert divas and they were never arrested.

a few guys were arrested for writing reviews but ONLY because they in some way benefited financially from the reviews they submitted. .. they were charged with pandering.

ironically, the only guys who got arrested were the ones who DIDNT pay for sex.

trading favorable reviews to escort in return for reduced rates for sex.

They are reportedly being  prosecuted for felony support of a criminal enterprise.

     You better believe that if, these cases go to trial, the reviews will be used as evidence and the state will do whatever due diligence is required to lay a foundation for the admission of the reviews as evidence.

Interesting case.  I think the key to the whole thing was that the officer could have accomplished his goal without the contact.  I think THAT is what the court focussed on and why they overturned the decision.

As I said in my other post - I'm more familiar with NJ cases than elsewhere and things could be different elsewhere.  I do know that in NJ there was a case where the officer did have sex with the woman and THEN arrested her for prostitution.  The case was not overturned.  

Remember that even though certain principles can be applied from case to case (precedents), sometimes the particular facts of a case make a difference.  I've read numerous decisions online where the judges analyzed the situation and wrote something like "The appellant relies on X v Y to make his claim... this case differs from X v Y in the following ways:" and then goes on to cite the facts of the current case that make it different from the case cited and why the principle doesn't apply in the new case.

So, even in MN, a police officer could probably have sex with a prostitute before arresting her, and not get the case overturned, IF the facts of that case were different.

For example, another officer might meet up with a woman, she'd have sex with him, and THEN ask for money.  At that point, where the first talk of money comes up after the act, the officer would have a case for prostitution.  And the courts would probably not overturn that conviction.

Well damn!!!  I had no clue this sort of thing was going on.  Guess I am now what you might call a "reborn" who suddenly now sees that despite that BS put forth by many pundants and news commentators, the US is certainly not the freedom bastion we've all been led to believe.

NOR were they being used as evidence to prove desert divas was a criminal enterprise.

they are ONLY being used to prove that these dudes were posting reviews (knowingly promoting a criminal enterprise)  for profit or gain....   the actual activity described in the reviews is irrelevant.... the ONLY relevant factor would be that the reviews were "favorable"... and yeah, i think they could be used in that manner.

However,  reviews posted for profit or gain are actually in violation of ter policy. ....... so they weren't actually ter reviews... they were "FAKE" ter reviews.

BIG DIFFY STIFFY

in any "real" industry, that would be an anti-trust violation.
they were running a scam... that's why they got in trouble.

oddly, it seems like the only agencies that get busted are the ones who engage in unethical business practices.

i think this industry is regulated alot more than people realize.

I could not say without reading the entire indictment which I have not done. And frankly you would need inside information to conclude that the prosecutor ONLY intends to use the reviews for proof of profit or gain, a very unlikely scenario since they will surely also use the reviews for impeachment if any reviewer takes the stand.

     I would certainly assume that the prosecutors charged the reviewers with basic prostitution offenses in addition to the felony counts bc that is prosecution 101 - you charge the most serious offense and all other offenses, unless they are lesser included charges of the primary offense.

     It would be odd indeed to charge them with trading reviews for discounted sex without charging them with prostitution.

       Finally, don't be mislead by various posts on the board that they have to catch you in the act to arrest for a misdemeanor - these guys were apparently arrested based on info obtain by a search warrant and then presumably an arrest warrant, and that 's not the law in Arizona anyway.

that indictment was handed down 9 months after the raid.


yeah the prosecutors throw the whole pot of s-ghetti at the wall and see how many noodles stick, but that noodle was already 3 months limp.

statute of limitations.

1. There is a one year statute of limitations for misdemeanors running from the state's discovery of the crime. Unless the state knew of the reviews for sex more than 1 year before the indictment, a misdemeanor charge would have been timely.

      2. The limitations does not run against out of state defendants anyway so any out of state reviewer would not have the benefit of this defense.

    3. The really scary thing is whether the reviewers were indicted for pandering, a felony, in that they encouraged the reviewed ladies to engage in prostitution by their reviews.

"The police officer, David Pleoger, violated Betty Burkland's right to due process when he initiated the sexual contact with her and allowed it to escalate, ......."

is that entrapment ?

it sounds to me as if they have a problem with him initiating the activity, not so much engaging in the activity.

i was dreaming that the statute of limitations on prostitution was 6 months (WTF???)

of course, they have a year for a prostitution charge.


even so, chances are the reviews were posted well past the staute of limitations for that because that indictment was 9 months after the raid.      it's not applicable to out of state defendants ????    i did not know this but i can trust you on that and there are 2 dudes that are out of state i think.        but even if they ARE still within statute of limitations, i still don't think that the reviews will be used against them to prove any prostitution charges.

the activity in the reviews CAN NOT be proven to be true unless the defendant or the escort confesses that it was a real account....we all assume the reviews are fictional stories.

reviews have NEVER been used for a prostitution conviction, that i am aware of.

however, the reason the reviews come into play with desert divas is because of the pandering activity, NOT prostitution activity.

recieving profit or gain from posting reviews (fictional or real)  to promote a criminal enterprise engaging in prostitution = pandering.

if they had followed ter policy, they wouldnt have their pickles in a pickle.

the indictment probably does lists prostitution but its only a bargaining charge..

you really think that they are going to use reviews to try to prove a prostitution charge ?
cuz i will bet you fictional oral sex they don't.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but reviews can absolutely incriminate you.  Hearsay does NOT apply to admissions of a party-opponent.  Don't let anyone else tell you differently.

The most damaging way a review (or series of reviews) could hurt you is if you told a provider your TER handle and she later divulged it to LE.  I've seen some really asinine reviews where guys go into incredible detail about the incall site, or about their business schedule.  This information could easily be put together with real details gathered by surveillance or subpoena to bust you.  I don't fear getting busted in the act as much as I fear using an agency or provider for a few months on a regular basis, only to find out they've been under surveillance for a few weeks.

While LE could technically track you down by your IP address, it's unlikely they'd go to this trouble.  LE is busy with terrorist threats, child pornography, drug smuggling, etc.  Simple emails are a bigger threat.  I'm noticing that providers are getting pretty liberal with what they'll put in emails and on their websites.  Emails are SUPER-EASY for LE to subpoena and websites can be tracked even if they are taken down or changed.  If you think emailing a girl asking her how many "roses" she needs for "Greek" makes you a master at cryptography and that this code will keep you out of jail, think again.  I think that if you email a girl with advertised rates and a detailed menu on her website, you are taking a big risk.  The smart girls talk about "sensual massage" and "erotic fantasies."  They do not advertise CIM and BBBJ for $75 on Wednesdays.

The biggest threat clients face IMHO is the provider who's cell phone or client list is seized by LE, and the dumb clients who answer their phone or (worse) respond to text messages when an LE decoy sends them.  Another reason TracPhones (or other disposable cell phones) are a good idea.  Just make sure to shut off the GPS/tracking feature and do not turn the phone on at your residence.  Even with GPS turned off, cell phone companies can-- with a LE subpoena-- provide a fairly specific geographic location.