Don't mean to flood the boards with constant new threads, but I really need to clear certain things up.  

Now, I've read on here in the past of people talking about being confronted/harrassed by a police officer either after or before seeing a provider.  The advice given to those people was to keep your mouth shut and tell the officer you'd like to speak with a lawyer.   My question is, why can't you just tell the officer that you just seen or are about to see an escort?   Afterall, as we already discussed in my previous thread down below, escorting is perfectly legal.   My guess is, the reason such advice was given, is because the officer might have convicting evidence or probable cause on that particular provider as "selling sexual services", and if you tell the officer you seen her, he might somehow be able to arrest you, even if you never tell him you paid for a sexual act.   Am I right?

Again ,they try to create a case out of bits & pieces of nothing.

There are countless innocent scenarios & just because there is a guy before & after, That does not mean you are meeting for same reason. ...What if you were bringing a pizza?? fixing her computer, you missed her ,etc...

The reality is
No matter how innocent ,LE will try to use it against you.

I suggest you watch this lecture on LE:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&q=don%27t+talk+to+the+police&ei=WuM9SM6yHZP8rQL4p6iSBA

BTW, you must give LE proper identification.  LE can LIE to you but you can not LIE to LE.  You don't want to volunteer anything, seemly innocent statements can get turned against you.
skb

In most jurisdictions, a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor requires that the officer have probable cause to believe a public offense was committed in the officer's presence, meaning the elements of the crime could be perceived by the officer's senses. Prostitution and solicitation of prostitution are misdemeanors. The popular consensus, whether right or wrong, is that you have not committed an offense in the officer's presence and should not be subject to a warrantless arrest. Therefore, why say anything? Seriously, how would it help? Do you think saying "I was only seeing her for companionship" is going to make the officer totally believe that nothing illegal was going on?

Honestly, just shut the f*ck up. A lot of my cases would be easier if not for clients' statements to law enforcement officers thinking they could talk their way out of it.

change their minds.  However, if they haven't already decided there are limitless possibilities of what you can say to tip the scales to arrest.

The field encounter with the police officer is NOT the place to practice dimestore legal knowledge or hold an impromptu legal debate.  Just STFU other than identifying information.

If not for your sake, then do it for the lady.  Not only will the words be used against you, but against her as well.

If LE confronts you and does not immediately arrest you, it means he does not have grounds to do so.  STFU.  Identify yourself.  PERIOD.  If the LE starts asking questions do NOT answer any of them.  Ask THEM 'Am I under arrest? Am I free to leave?  If NOT I want a lawyer.  I do NOT wish to speak with you!'  Do not be surprised if you are handcuffed, they CAN do that 'to ensure officer safety' and it is NOT necessarily placing you under arrest.  Locally, I believe, they can detain you for questioning for up to one hour.  Ask what time it is!  
ANYTHING you say to them can and WILL be twisted to incriminate you.  You do not have to explain why you are in any public place at any time.  Its none of their business.
NEVER lie to them.  Making up some story about 'Well...I was there to do an estimate for new carpeting' won't wash ... even if thats what you do for a living.  When you can't produce your order form, sample books etc.. you have just lied to the cops and 'obstructed justice' and now they have you.    
You will NEVER 'prove yourself innocent' by talking to them.  
BY ALL MEANS...watch that video in the link in the response above!
MVR

Very seldom do handcuffs come out before an arrest, courts are divided on this.  If LE does cuff you, exercise your right to remain silent...  which you should have been doing all along.  
LE does have the right to pat you down for weapons, for the officers safty, without an arrest.
In my jurisdiction, if LE can not properly identify you, they can hold you for 72 hours.  Show your id & get the F outta there.
LE can NOT search your vehicle, without your permission, unless they have a warrent.  However, they can look through the windows for contraband in plain view.
skb

It helps, of course, if you are in a trade or profession that is somewhat reasonable for being there - such as a lawyer, doctor, preacher, computer tech.  And even better if your profession is one with legally protected confidentiality obligation that bar you from discussing - i.e. a criminal lawyer discussing a legal issue.

If a pat down was done without probable cause, the evidence found (e.g. illegal weapon) can not be entered against the defendent in a criminal matter.

I'm of two minds on this, but it is a very big move back towards civil rights.

(still not a lawyer)

-- Modified on 5/1/2009 10:11:38 AM

What were the circumstances of the case and what does or does not constitutes probable cause in this specific case? That should have been explained in the ruling.  What is SJC? If it's a state court then the decision only applies to cases in that court's jurisdiction. If the decision is not published another court does not have to consider the decision.  A decision cannot be published unless it was decided in a appellate court or higher. And lastly, please explain how this decision applies to the hobby.

The case is Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009). Officers saw what they thought were a drug transaction, specifically, two people together and one person showing the other something in his hand. The defendant is a known drug dealer with his flyer posted on the police station's bulletin board. Officers approach. The defendant moves his hand to his mouth, as if swallowing. Officers do patdown. Crack is found. Search is challenged in court.

The Supreme Judicial Court found there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, given the high crime area and the officers' observations. The stop is proper. The patdown search was not proper, because nothing to conclude that the defendant was armed and dangerous.

I have no idea how this relates to the "hobby".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&q=don%27t+talk+to+the+police&ei=WuM9SM6yHZP8rQL4p6iSBA

Probable cause isn't a phrase to throw about lightly, since it has a specific legal meaning. Patdowns can be done without probable cause legally, as long as there is reasonable suspicion. In this case, there wasn't reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was armed. Because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion, the patdown was illegal and the fruits of the patdown, the drugs, excluded.

This case seemed to be a straightforward application of the United States Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1. Basically, Terry says officers can stop and investigate a person based upon reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is specific and articulable facts. Reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause. For officer safety reasons, an officer can do a patdown for weapons, but an officer needs at least reasonable suspicion to believe a person is armed. An officer does not need the greater standard of probable cause to believe a person is armed in order to do the patdown.

What seems to have changed in this Massachusetts decision is that before this decision, drug dealers in high crime areas were assumed to be armed because of the dangers of the trade. The SJC said that being a drug dealer is not enough to have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed.

an escort, and what rules might apply to being searched, for example, for cash or condoms, or who knows what else.

True it only applies to Mass, but nevertheless I think the Legal Board has enough elasticity to include legal issues that may be only tangentially related to an actual hobby situation.

Let's relax about this a bit, eh wot?

(still not a lawyer)

I have always wondered how LE got away with a very thorough searching of my body,purse & car without permission ,miranda rights or warrent?

The courts have made a distinction between a pat down search for weapons and a search for narcotics and other contraband. It can be reasonable for an officer to pat down an individual's person for a weapon which would be a hard objects and not reasonable to go into an individual's pockets because the officer felt a soft object that the officer thought might be narcotics.  

I am not familiar with the case in Mass. so I cannot comment on that particular case.

shudaknownbetter was incorrect when he wrote "LE can NOT search your vehicle, without your permission, unless they have a warrent[sic]." In fact, there's an automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

But let's start at the very beginning. The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The key word in the text is reasonable and much of the past 200 years has been saying what is a reasonable search or a reasonable seizure. Pretty much, a search or a seizure without warrant is considered unreasonable unless it falls in one of the exceptions. The exceptions have swallowed the rule so that warrantless searches and seizures are the norm.

First, if you consent, it's not a search. Often, equivocal responses are taken as consent, and then it becomes the officer's word against the defendant.

Second, if it's in plain sight, it's not a search.

One exception is a search incident to arrest. An officer may search someone a person and his belongings after that person has been arrested. The search may also encompass anything within arm's reach. This is expanded to the vehicle if the person was recently driving, though the recent United States Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Gant narrowed that exception a tiny bit. If it includes the vehicle, it's the whole vehicle, trunk and any locked compartments included.

Another exception is the automobile exception. An officer may search a vehicle without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains the fruits or evidence of a crime.

Another exception is an administrative search, such as an inventory search. If the police impounds your vehicle, they may search the vehicle and take an inventory so that supposedly everything gets returned and there's nothing dangerous that will harm police. The inventory exception is why Arizona v. Gant doesn't change things much, since most of the time the car is impounded. An inventory search can also be done of people being brought into the jail, such as someone arrested.

Now, Miranda is a separate matter from the Fourth Amendment. Miranda warnings come from the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. People in custody tend to talk and confess to all sorts of things. Miranda warnings are to ensure those confessions are voluntary and not coerced. All the language in Miranda warnings is to tell you that you have a have a right to shut up. Miranda warnings do not affect searches and seizures. A law enforcement officer could arrest you and not read you Miranda warnings. The arrest is still valid. All that changes is that anything you might say in custody might be excluded depending on the circumstances.

First, keep in mind the distinction between “probable cause” which is required to arrest and to obtain a search warrant, the “reasonable suspicion” needed for a “Terry stop”-i.e., a traffic (or similar investigatory stop), and the scope of search permitted at a traffic stop.

       Although the distinction is a fine one, the police do not need “probable cause” –which is always defined as more than a suspicion - for a “Terry stop” but only a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been or is being committed. Both are terms of art and probably inscrutable to the average LE officer.

       Note immediately one huge distinction between an arrest and a Terry stop- except in Minority Report, you cannot be arrested before you commit the crime but you can be Terry stopped. But I digress.


         When a valid traffic stop is made, the police may without a warrant conduct a patfrisk search where the police officer reasonably believes that the individual is armed and dangerous. The Mass case applies this rule.

     How does the case apply to the hobby? Well, as applied to a client en route to see an escort, the police could stop the client if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he was going to see an escort but they could not search him for condoms, cash, or internet postings on his laptop based solely on this suspicion. They could only do a patdown search and could only do this if they reasonably believed the individual was armed and dangerous which would be unlikely in this situation.

         Would the misdemeanor arrest rule preclude a Terry stop based on a reasonable suspicion a driver was going to see an escort? The “in the presence” requirement would preclude an arrest but how about a stop? An interesting question and one probably no court has decided.

My read of the Mass SJC case is that police may search and pat down, but unless there was probable cause (not just suspicion) that the object found was related to the reason for the search, then it could not be introduced in court.

This could have some ramifications for hobbyist who as I said earlier, could have the fact that they are carrying a large sum of money, condoms, sex toys, etc. on their person when stopped by LE on their way to or from an appointment.

(still not a lawyer)

in my long winded post above.

Absent a reasonable safety suspicion they cannot do a pat down search at all here and therefore would have no basis to validly find condoms, sex toys (you keep sex toys in your pocket?) etc.

If the police stop a driver for a traffic violation and the driver gets out of his vehicle the police can pat the driver down for weapons as well as any passengers who also get out of the vehicle. The pat down for weapons is for the officer's safety, not a search for contraband.

The police can also pat down any person they encounter if the officer feels that person might pose a danger. What poses a danger is subjective and is what that particular officer feels is a danger at that time. What a small female officer might feel dangerous might not feel dangerous to a normal size male officer.  If a weapon is found then the officer must articulate why he or she felt compelled to do a pat down for his or her safety.

If the officer goes into the detainee's pocket when there is nothing to indicate a weapon might be present then that becomes a search and the rules regarding a search of the individual's person apply.  That has been the law for many years.  If the law has change I would like to read the Supreme Court Decision that changed the law. I would also be interested if there was a California Supreme Court that changed the law for California.

As far as being stopped and searched on the way to or from a provider's location, I doubt the police could justify a search beyond a pat down for weapons.  Items related to the hobby, e.g. condoms, etc.are not contraband and therefore are not items incidental to an arrest, as narcotics would be.

A state can create either statute or case law that gives more rights to a defendant than is provided by Federal law but a state cannot create law either statute or case law that takes away rights provided by Federal law.  Mass. could very well further restrict the rights LE has to conduct searches and not be in conflict with Federal law.

Again, I am certainly not aware of every change in the law so if the law has changed please enlighten me.

... One of the guys he supposed to see was stopped and questioned and he told the LE that he was going to see the provider.  That gave them a reason to run a sting against her and she got caught simply for one innocent statement.  And most LE, they won't stop until the get the info from you - who is the provider, room number, etc.

There's a possibility that you might not get caught because you were the source of info but you put the provider at risk.  And you'll be their witness when it comes to trial.

“If the police stop a driver for a traffic violation and the driver gets out of his vehicle the police can pat the driver down for weapons as well as any passengers who also get out of the vehicle. The pat down for weapons is for the officer's safety, not a search for contraband.”

“The police can also pat down any person they encounter if the officer feels that person might pose a danger.”

        Your first sentence is incorrect, at least under the cases we have been discussing. Your second is correct.

     Under Terry v Ohio, and  MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) a pat down search for weapons can only be made  ”when    the officer is justified in believing that the person may    be armed and presently dangerous.” So while it would certainly be prudent to conduct a patdown as a matter of course, the Supreme Court jurisprudence does not permit this. The officer must have some apprehension of danger before he can engage in a patdown.

      The Mass case Mr. Fisher found illustrates this – there was a lawful Terry stop but the patdown was an unlawful search bc the officer had no basis to suspect danger:

Here, we conclude that the police lacked particular facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was armed and presented a danger to the officers or others. There was no evidence that the defendant's criminal history included any weapons-related offenses. …Officer Walsh gave no testimony that the police observed anything suggesting that the
defendant had a weapon. There was no evidence that the defendant made particular gestures or used any body language that would cause the officers to believe that he was carrying a weapon.

      If you know of cases holding otherwise, you can enlighten me. I know the 4th circuit has reasoned that if the officer knows drugs are in the car, that is enough to suspect danger and justify a patdown, but I’m not sure that these cases are correctly decided under Terry and its progeny.

OK... I am NOT an attorney... nor am I a sworn officer... BUT I am aware that the US Supreme Court ruled (and NO I cannot cite the case) that a police officer is fully entitled to handcuff a person during quesioning 'to ensure officer safety'.  It does not take a brilliant mind to figure out that 'safety' is a judgement made by the officer and that they may handcuff you on their whim ... especially if it might intimidate you to spill your guts in hopes of getting the cuffs OFF.  
My point was, and is, that if you are handcuffed, don't panic and start babbling trying to talk your way out of jail.  You are not going to do that.  Shut up.  You are either going to jail (or be issued a citation) or you aren't and nothing you will say will change that.  Uhhhhhhh.. correction... you CAN at that point talk yourself IN to jail.  See above: SHUT UP.
MVR

Here's an experience I had with this...  I was parked on the outskirts of a hotel parking lot sitting in my car waiting for a provider call.  Two marked police cars circled me and approached my vehicle.  I was asked what I was doing there and to show them my driver's license and room key.  When I said I had no room key, I was asked what was I doing loitering in the parking lot.  I answered that I was waiting for a friend.  There were some more questions about my friend and I gave very vague non descript response.  My records were checked by the officer and I was then asked if I would give permission for them to search my vehicle for knives and weapons.  Knowing I had nothing of interest in the vehicle, and fearing that if I refused I would be arrested for loitering, I gave permission.  I was never patted down or handcuffed.

After lengthy vehicle search, my license was returned and officer told me I should go to a donut shop to wait for my friend and not loiter in a hotel parking lot because they have a lot of trouble with pro's.  He apologized for the inconvenience he caused me.  I began to drive off and the officer smiled and shouted in a sarcastic but friendly way that I should not spend all my money in the donut shop.

To this day, I don't know what the outcome may have been if I had not conducted myself the way I did but I suspect I would have been arrested for something.  This occurred in Georgia.

LE can always pat down a person if they have reasonable suspicion to feel their safety is at risk.  (Which means, in practical terms, always.)

However, unless there was probably cause to believe that a person possessed some form of contraband or evidence of a fact that a crime was or was about to be committed, then the results of that pat down (or search) would be excluded as evidence at a trial.

(I've always wanted to write a majority decision.)

(still not a SJC justice, I mean lawyer)

(Long time ago, not hobby related; I was tossed back into the sea; underweight.)

However, and I have heard this from anectodal tellings on this and other boards, if you STFU the odds are much greater that you'll be let go because in the end, LE wants to make a bust that will stick, and if you show yourself to be a tough cookie, they will give up on you and go back to shooting other fish in a barrel.  It just makes their job easier.  It's not a personal thing with them, they just want to make their bosses happy by getting prosecutable perps into the clink.  

The more you STFU, the more likely they will not bother with you.

Be sure you are always ultra polite and respectful too.  That will increase your odds.

(still not a lawyer)

Here is how I think it works

“LE [conducting a Terry stop] can always pat down a person if they have reasonable suspicion to feel their safety is at risk.”Agree.  

"(Which means, in practical terms, always.)" Disagree- that is the precise ruling in your Mass case and the Supreme Court cases require a more specific apprehension of danger.

"However, unless there was probably cause to believe that a person possessed some form of contraband or evidence of a fact that a crime was or was about to be committed, then the results of that pat down (or search) would be excluded as evidence at a trial."

       No, I do not think probable cause is a requirement for a search incident to a Terry stop. Once a valid Terry stop is made and the apprehension of danger requirement is satisfied, they may do a patdown search for weapons.

     If they “feel” a package of drugs while looking for the weapons, there is something called the “plain feel” doctrine [this is why escorts are always so carefully searched) that allows them to validly seize the drugs and have them admitted at trial.



(still unlikely to be nominated for the next Supreme Court vacancy)

(at least to me) LE may take reasonable steps for their safety during a Terry stop which may include handcuffing without converting the handcuffing into an arrest.

But I would not say they can do it on a "whim"-they have to act reasonably under the circumstances and the officer who handcuffs a six year old will ultimately pay in a 1983 action for violating constitutional rights.

that is right ,
They use the paltry evidence of  "carrying a condom"  Yet, part of the punishment is to take an HIV test & HIV education.

Carrying a condom is proof of intent on being responsible .Not proof of intent on doing something illegal.

this issue needs to be challenged.

Barak mentioned to me that your name is somewhere on his list, so don't be surprised if you get a call to replace Souter.

Back down to earth:

The newspaper article I read about the recent SJC ruling quoted both the ACLU lawyer who brought the case, as well as a DA whose department was involved with the case as saying that LE can and will continue to pat down and/or search for the purpose of officer safety.

What the DA is bitching about is that they will not be able to use the evidence they may find in court, and some feel that is a dirty rotten shame, while other say if that's what it takes to ensure civil liberties, then thems the breaks.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the SJC decsion myself, especially if an illegal weapon is found, but I guess that issue is straying from the purpose of this Board, so I will let that go.

(still not a lawyer)

I have to disagree.  LE often trys to elicit information before an arrest...  which can then be used against you.  The arrest is based on LE's observations & the statements you give!
skb

Thankyou for this more detailed information.
skb

The best thing to do is keep quiet and ask to talk to you lawyer.

Obviously, cuffing a child or grandmother or handicapped person would be demonstrably abusive and subject to sanctions.  However, any reasonably healthy (they are able to walk) adult is a potential threat to officer safety and the officer may use (abuse?) the discretion he/she has to cuff a person in order to intimidate them into talking.  
MVR

In a situation where the police stop and question you, all the psychological cards are in the hands of the police.

The policeman has questioned hundreds of people. They generally know how to get people to talk.  How do they do it?  The simply ask you to explain a set of circumstances.  The hint they give is that you have a chance to talk your way out if the situation. You have probably never been questioned by LE.  You are nervous and want to just walk away.

So.....you start talking, trying to talk your way out of the situation and you hang yourself.

I would not talk to the police if I were the subject of an investigation unless it was clearly a case of mistaken identity; where who the officer is looking for is not you.

If LE has enough evidence to arrest you, they will.  You won't be talking yourself out of anything.  

If LE does not have enough information to arrest you, then they will kindly ask you to supply it.

My suggestion goes pretty much along the lines of what others have said.  I would definitely not be a smart ass. I would fully cooperate in establishing my identity, where I live, etc.  

Then I would say something along these lines: "I have never been questioned by the police before.  Before I answer your questions, I will need to meet with my attorney.  One he advises me, we can meet again and you can ask me your questions."

If they press you again, you then repeat just what you told them and nothing more.

You will then quickly find out what they know.  If they know enough to arrest you, they will.  Then you will have confirmation that they were just hoping you would provide them with some more rope for your hanging.  If they don't have enough evidence, then they will let you walk.  You will then know that they did not have enough to arrest you and that they were sure hoping you would provide them with the rope they needed.

My 2 cents (never going to be a lawyer)

Balboa, you do have a tendency to be an ass at times. I doubt that I am the only one who finds your "holier than thou" attitude to be offsetting at times.



-- Modified on 5/3/2009 3:47:25 PM

I'm used to hardball and sometimes a person needs to be an ass to knock sense into another ass.

No hard feeling from me towards anyone on this thread.

If you feel you must say something, then ask questions.

Here are some good ones:

Why are you questioning me?

Is it OK if I go now?

Why are the police here?

If they don't want to answer your questions then you are more justified in not answering theirs.

If they do answer these questions, a bemused "oh", is the best response.

(still not a lawyer)

-- Modified on 5/3/2009 6:47:16 PM

being called as a witness is every bit as damaging as being arrested.

IMO any hobbyist spineless enough to give up a provider in a vain attempt to save his own ass deserves every bit of the grief.

It's so simple, I don't understand why guys constantly piss all over themselves when confronted by LE. You have the right in this country to conduct your personal business in private. You are under no obligation to tell LE the details of said personal business, much less give incriminating evidence against yourself.

As I have said on many an occasion, "You have the right to STFU, use it!!!"

I hope you don't think this too lame.. But my experience bears this out..

JUST WATCH LAW AND ORDER. EVERYONE they interview is a suspect. They accuse you and consider you suspect until they find someone else they can pin it on.

In my case a guy gave me counterfeit money. I didn't even look at it. I took it to the post office and was arrested for trying to use it.

I was polite. I was cooperative. I even told them how I got the money (kind of) They were in my face about how many phones I had, the fact that I was buying a money order instead of using my checking account, the fact that I had an attorney to be sure everything and anything about me was treated as though it was proof of some crime even though the only thing I ever did was to innocently try to pass the money.

The secret service cleared me and the city pursued me as though I printed the money myself. I never had been arrested before or since but that the police treated that fact this way they kept searching state by state for any crimes I might have committed. It was a joke.

I learned the hard way: You have an inalienable right to move about the country with out being detained. You do not have to say one single word to a police officer. And You should keep your mouth shut.

My new lawyer says he wants me to say nothing more than my name. He says he can work around what I didn't say but he is stuck with anything I do say. If it is a lie, then he has to go with I am a liar and nothing else I say can be believed. If it is the truth and it damns me, he is stuck with that. If I say nothing he can figure out what is best to do with out any conflicting statement from me.

besides if you give some innocent explanation and then she gives some other explanation then they just hammer away at you both since you both have decided to talk to them which YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO!!!!!!!!

I will never never never talk to an officer again. I will just be polite and ask am I being charged with a crime? If not I am leaving if so I want my LAWYER.

hey  can anyone tell me more in a private message how I can find more of these type of informative sites?

I just am not good at searching the web
thanks

How did local LE get involved, and where did this happen?

BTW I like your photos, especially the one of your awesomely beautiful ass.