I think you are full of shit. Better advise can be gotten froma first year law student. Your advice sucks and has no basis in funamental law. Are you trying to get these girls busted.  Go back to law school

So F@#king simple now, isn't it

With all the talk that “the law says this,” or “you’ll be fine as long as you do that,” isn’t it true that, regardless of what the laws technically say--they are always open to interpretation enough that there is no way to say concretely what can or cannot be done to you? As far as I’ve seen--there are very few “musts” in the legal system! If everything were not so variable--attorneys (the more costly, the more of your rights you‘ll be able to enforce) would not be such an indispensable element of an effective self-defense.

I don’t mean to sound paranoid, and there’s certainly no other current legal system that I’d rather live under. But, regardless of what is printed on paper;  LE doesn’t always follow the rules or acknowledge your rights--and if you don’t have the funds to demand those rights....isn’t the letter of the law nearly always irrelevant? (I think that a revenue-generating ticket is most likely to accompany many charges, these days--but the `black mark’ on one’s permanent record isn’t pleasant, regardless)

Even if it appears as if your alleged improprieties are insignificant, “it just doesn’t make sense to waste resources on something so minor, right?” If that were the case, SD wouldn’t regularly embark on city-wide undercover vice operations that target bar-goers who disobey anti-smoking laws. It doesn’t get much more trivial than that, in my opinion.

A little pressure to `make an example,’ `clean up the city,’ or just generate revenue is really all that’s necessary. And the mission will be accomplished--regardless of whether you’re innocent, have nothing verifiable that would establish your guilt,  or have followed all the “they musts” “they cant’s” and “they have to’s” given as well-meaning legal advice on these boards.

Sorry for the tirade; but, I just find it so disturbing when I read these posts that tout how easy it is to outwit the `powers that be’ and use their own rules against them...as long as you know both your `rights’ and the letter of the law. Let’s give those folks a little credit, shall we? Interpretation of laws in CA are allowed so that simple manipulation of conversation can make saying “no” to an illicit request cause enough to make an arrest (legal interpretation: saying `no’ to one specific act indicates that you are willing to engage in other related illegal acts--just not the one requested.) Or, how about California’s ‘use a smile, go to prison’ law’ which requires that an undercover officer must merely perceive you to have briefly smiled, nodded, winked, or displayed any positive body language after you’ve been asked to engage in an illegal act of prostitution...regardless of what words you’ve said, no matter if no money has exchanged hands, and you certainly haven‘t touched anyone, and have been no less than fully clothed? (Reason being: it can be said that your `body language manifested an acceptance of the offer’--and no, they don’t need a videotape...just their word against yours.) And who is going to win in that “he-said/she-said” battle?

Now, where are all those simple “they musts,” “they have-to’s” and “they cant’s?”

I don’t see them--but hey--that’s just my opinion.

.