I doubt that such an event could happen as you heard it unless the police had a warrant for his arrest for something else. They would need a warrant in order to enter the house. Without a warrant, the minute he cancelled, all probable cause was gone and they have no basis to go any further since no crime was being committed.
Is meeting a provider at a hotel (which she says she uses) less LE-risky than having her come to my house?
I'm email-conversing with a provider mentioned on this discussion board. She hasn't been reviewed but a VIP member stated she was legit.
best,
--b
I believe outcall to be safer. LE doesn't like the risk of sending a female officer in alone, for one. And, it's logistically harder to arrange, and can only yield one arrest per day. Incall on the other hand, can yield 3-4 arrests in a day. Plus, they can wire the room with mini-cams, microphones - with outcall the decoy has to be wired. Hiding 3-5 detectives in the next room is much easier than under your wife's rose bush. Incall OR outcall, trust your instincts and say NOTHING that can be perceived as incriminating. Without a tape of you asking for or agreeing to an illegal act - they have a VERY tough case.
Well, it may be true that they will have a tough case without the tape but they can still make it very difficult -- the he said, she said routine. Even with a tape, the transcript of the tape is often very different from actual words. And going to trial at court could be very expensive. Either incall or outcall, you are right... TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS... if it doesn't seem right, bail! And try not to say anything incriminating in any way, though it could be tough proving you didn't say something with LE as the only "witness". Damn, this is getting to be a difficult hobby!!
You're right about the tape (they play it live WITH a transcript), it's often VERY different from the original. A common tactic is to build a case on small, seemingly incriminating excerpts - while the bulk of the conversation (particularly statements that a defense attorney would use to prove his client's innocence) are "lost to static". I heard a great example of this, brazen as hell, but since juries aren't full of Mensa members, it works. Without strong evidence, I believe it's WELL worth fighting "City Hall" - yes, they CAN be beaten at their own game. Typical cost is $12-1500, hell - most of us have lost that to Austin/Bridget types over the years.
The tape is almost never submitted as evidence by the prosecution. They have busted hobbyist with outcall to their location just as well as incall. A officer can easily wear a wire and her back up is right outside. she isn't in any more danger then she is during incall or when they post her up on the streets where any number of things can happen. She is a cop after all and this assignement is not one of the more dangerous ones she could be doing.
They wouldn't go to the trouble of taping phone calls and wiring the decoy if they didn't intend to use it in court. Hearing the suspects voice is far more powerful than merely reading a transcript - damn RIGHT they'll use the tape. As for danger? Hey, they're cops, true - but VICE cops, "danger" is relative here. Yes, they ARE more concerned about sending a decoy - ALONE - into a stranger's house.
My statement was not speculation. It was exactly what I was told by my attorney who has handled hundreds, if not thousands of these cases. He is very well known, very experienced, is on retainer for the biggest adult entertainer employer in SD (they gave me the referral) if not the entire country, and he knows what he is talking about. Many of the ladies here in SD can vouch for his abilities. His success rate is excellent and given that the man has been doing this for years and doing it well I am inclined to believe what he says.
Actually, they will not always use the recording. If it doesn't say what it to say, they produce the phony transcript instead and take that to court.
Precisely! While most cops aren't above embellishing or flat-out manufacturing evidence, you can be SURE they will introduce a tape, and play it in court if the accused can be heard making an incriminating statement.
rugburn if you are basing your statements on the cases that actually go to trial then you may have a small point. If the lady clearly indicates herself on a good quality tape that has no wrong doing by the officers on it then perhaps it was a solid case and is the reason it ended up as a trial in the first place.Either that or the defendent had the worlds worst attorney for not getting that static filled tape with only oarts on it supporting the cops case kicked out as evidence.
MOST of the tickets and citations issued to independent providers never even make it to a trial. hell many don't even make it to have to plea. Why? because the rules of evidentiary disclosure go both ways and a shitty tape is easily thrown out by any attorney worth his fee...which is on average between $1000-1500 to go to court the first time and $1000-1500/day or more to go to trial. Not the amount of 1200-1500 total as you stated here in this gem of a post.
*ORIGINALLY POSTED BY RUGBURN*
"You're right about the tape (they play it live WITH a transcript), it's often VERY different from the original. A common tactic is to build a case on small, seemingly incriminating excerpts - while the bulk of the conversation (particularly statements that a defense attorney would use to prove his client's innocence) are "lost to static". I heard a great example of this, brazen as hell, but since juries aren't full of Mensa members, it works. Without strong evidence, I believe it's WELL worth fighting "City Hall" - yes, they CAN be beaten at their own game. Typical cost is $12-1500, hell - most of us have lost that to Austin/Bridget types over the years. "
Is this one incident what gave your stellar education on DA strategy and case statistics for the submitting of evidence? What other sources and documents are you relying on to educate you to the extent that you came to this conclusion and became so assured of it that you would seek to debunk the information that I was given by someone far more qualified than you.
I wish more of those out there who have had run ins with LE would speak up. I have exercised my rights since the moment i was first ticketed (45minutes to be exact) and kept everyone who was interested informed with real information from real sources. Things change and when they do some of us try to recognize those changes. Some of us subscribe to the same news and court info clipping services that attorneys do. Some of us give a real shit about this being a matter of having our civil rights violated on the absolute most primary level known to man...or more to the point for women.
Some of us take full advantage of the FOIA and for some of us things like this are scary.
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565
if you are an attorney Rugburn or are getting this from a reliable source we would all benefit from knowing where we can look this stuff up as well. After all if I can't trust the foremost authority on the solicitation defense in the county of San Diego to advise me then I need to find out the truth on my own...just like you seem to have done.
I personally think that questions regarding the legalities et al should be directed toward the legal board as there is plenty of misinformation passed around and the point of many posts lost amongst the egos and arguments that ensue here in this forum.
-- Modified on 11/7/2003 2:14:47 PM
I don't know how close of a relationship you have with your attorney, Ginger.. I've never known an attorney to keep up with weekly or monthly reports once a clients case is over. So unless you have had multiple cases with this guy, I can't imagine he feels the need to keep you schooled on the goings on in LE and the DA's office.
I've lived with a couple of defense attorneys and both of them HATED their clients, although they always had sugary voices when dealing with them on the phone and in person. The clients would have NEVER KNOWN. The attorneys just wanted to get them OFF the phone, out of the office and wanted to get back to their real work.
Usually they really just want to get the details of a case taken care of and move onto the next one where they can charge another client and hopefully deal with them on the most limited basis as possible as time is money.
If you're in constant contact or working as your attorney's law clerk, maybe you do have up to date information on every in and out of arrests, prosecutions and the like.
You also seem to want to believe what you read in newspapers. I have specific knowledge of journalism related to crime reports and I can tell you that district attorneys and Law Enforcement officers feed journalists what they desire on a spoon. You'll get a skewed version of what really goes on. Journalists will be given crime reports with entire paragraphs and sometimes entire pages blacked out with permanent markers. This is what they have to go on when writing their articles. Detectives sometimes find a journalist they like to feed information to, but don't be fooled, they USE those journalists for their purpose.
If you want accurate accounts of what goes on, find a court clerk, a clerk in a DA's office, a clerk in a Law Enforcement office, a court reporter... These types hang out a local drinking establishements after 5:00 and even at lunchtime and they TALK about what they've seen and done in relation to building cases for the guys/gals they work for. They don't have the same kind of snobbish nature about how valuable their time is, and you aren't trash once your case is over and your money used up.
Or go and sit in court to see what happens there for yourself.
Sometimes, the guy that has a boat in the slip next to your boyfriend's is a judge. THAT is a goldmine. Drink on the weekend with that guy and you'll learn a TON.
The real people that deal with these cases and don't puff themselves up as the MOST WONDERFUL BEST DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE WORLD have no reason to slant anything one way or another and their "war stories" are much more reasonable.
Another suggestion...find a woman who is married to a cop... another gold mine.
Elise [email protected]
Actually Elise he just told the exact same thing to someone he recently represented whom you know. As far as your advice and efforts to once again go at me on the board because of your personal and completely irrational and unfounded issues with me....Save it.
It is not in my best interest to go into the details any more than I do but I am well aware of what warrants real information and what does not. In other words if you are not an actual attorney who represents clients in cases like this or do not have a link to the documentation to back up the statistics of evidence submissal and DA victories for cases such as these then what you say or what I say should be questioned ... However, not in the paranoid and self immolating manner that you have employed in the past. It's called rational and objective reasoning.
For those of you who are sane and intelligent enough to discern what is the best route for becoming informed I suggest speaking with an attorney who works in the field period. Mutt, Jeff, and Elise with her many aliases are not the ones to get this kind of information from. In fact I don't consider myself to be either but I do consider the attorney of whom I speak to be. In fact the multitude of ladies I have referred him to that he has represented would agree with me as well.
As far as your juvenile reference to THE BEST ATTORNEY IN THE WORLD, grow up elise.... and if you really aren't escorting anymore I suggest a substitute endeavor for your time instead of rabid posting on this board.
NOTE to Moderator*
If this gets posted it will be my last other than the regular ole' service related or thank you posting we all do. frankly Elise's tendency to rampage when I do post has ruined any good that could ever come from trying to inform anyone here about a damn thing. It's a dicey thing to do anyway and no good can come from engaging in a flame war about what is sound advice in regards to LE.
For a rampage I hardly even mussed my hair!
Thanks for the encouragement to grow up. I do work on growing as a human each and every day. You might benefit from the same. You're a smart lady, but you're definitely not the be all, end all of escort brainiacs. For every iota of knowledge either you or I possess there's a plethora of understanding we have yet to discover.
I have aliases (as do you) and I also have friends on the board that apparently like to back me up. Surprised me, too. Don't hate because I'm smart, and well connected! Just hate me because I'm ME! I can live with that.
I don't happen to wish to divulge my attorney and other sources or link to them~~this doesn't mean I don't have fairly decent information at times. I may not have been in the business since my twenties and I may not ever be in it again, but this is still a fairly interesting topic to me, so post~~ I will.
I may be SLEEPING with the guy you refer your girls to or his law clerk. I may be sleeping with the ENEMY. One never knows.
By the way, I never play with fire. Karma's too beautiful for self immolation.
BTW calling me (calling names at all) paranoid is stale. A little paranoia keeps a girl out of jail, No? I've certainly never been there.
If you think you need to leave the sandbox, then go ahead. It's not your first or second time folding under perceived heat. And it is all about perception.
I'm going back to enjoying my four day weekend.
Elise [email protected]
I was going to fire off a rebuttal to your post, and ATTEMPT to match your vitriolic tone but......Elise saved me the effort. (Thanks darlin', I owe you a flight!) No Ginger, I don't pretend to be an attorney, much less to have had the good fortune to form a lasting relationship with "the bestest, most wonderful, amazing" local version of Perry Mason to be found. I also noticed you and I (understandably) have differences of opinion based on our "different sides of the street", you as a provider, me as the client. The one thing you said, which I still think is ludicrous, was that LE never uses the tape in court. Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but you are absolutely wrong. I know this not only from personal experience and lengthy conversation with the "bestest" lawyer in Campo (joke, but I'm SURE "yours is bigger than mine") - but logic also dictates they won't go through the effort and expense of court orders to authorize taping of calls and conversations, not to mention wiring the decoys....all for NOTHING? C'mon darlin', not a chance. But, I enjoyed the sparring session, hope you aren't mad at me. Stay cool Elise.
-- Modified on 11/8/2003 12:23:51 PM
Just make your own tape and never say anything about money period. Nothing else is illegal if money is not involved.
And, I'm all for the outcall being a safer route.
EA
There's NO way of knowing how San Diego vice is going to be managed now. Kinda funny knowing that the old Vice Lieutenant is now dealing with the streets voluntarily (ya right) after his long stint riding a computer moniter and playing with strippers.
Cops definitely like to control the entire situation if it's at all possible. It's possible with vice stings. Normally the girls that do stings on the street won't get into a car. Too dangerous. Guy cops doing reverse stings let the ladies get in the car all the time. Less perceived danger.
Safety and liability are certainly concerns of larger and more schooled departments in cities with coffers of any sizeable amount.
It's very good to share information and have defense attorneys that deal with these types of cases or court clerks (they are goldmines of information!!!!) as friends!! *wink*
Bottom line, trust your gut and don't date cops, or do anything illegal in the first place.
Elise [email protected]
An SD lady was telling me last night about one of her clients being busted at home. The female cop was two hours late getting to his house, he apparantly told her it was too late and to go home and then in came vice to make the arrest.
I think they rely on you not wanting the publicity and therefore just rolling over. But its a pretty bad situation if they will sting you in your house without anything being said or done.
I seem to recall a posting on the legal board once saying that you don't have to say anything about money or sex to be busted, the mere act of hiring a lady knowing full well what she provides show sufficient intent.
I am not a lawyer and my memory ain't too good either so that last paragraph may be wrong!
that's some pretty whack "story" especially since this guy didn't HIRE anyone if he told her to "GO HOME". Just told you last night? WOW, what timing!!!
Of course they always rely on the not wanting publicity situation, no matter where the arrest is made.
Again, New police Chief, New vice lieutenant may show the Chief didn't like the way business was being conducted.
Elise [email protected]
-- Modified on 11/6/2003 6:53:22 AM
I doubt that such an event could happen as you heard it unless the police had a warrant for his arrest for something else. They would need a warrant in order to enter the house. Without a warrant, the minute he cancelled, all probable cause was gone and they have no basis to go any further since no crime was being committed.
Thats how I was told it by the lady I saw a couple of days ago, she said the incident happened a little while ago. Maybe he invited her in, said he had changed his mind and the vice came in on her way out?
I couldn't believe the story but she swears it was a true story of a client of hers.
something just didn't ring true about that story... there's more to it than what's there from kathyfan (and why use an alias that's never been used before to write something so benign, anyway???)
Elise [email protected]
Why would courts invalidate arrests made during "crimes in progress?" They witness the crime, you do the time....
I would think such arrests would be just as valid as arrests pursuant to warrants based on probable cause (CI, wiretap, etc).
Isn't each a righteous bust in the eyes of the law?
I ask because warrants have to be obtained in advance. In contrast, if they plan the sting right, the crime just goes down right before their eyes and then they swoop in to protect society from itself. Voila! Don't need no stinking warrant...
Not being ornery, just asking.
Merely a violation of the guy's fourth ammendment right to unreasonable search (going into his home with lack of evidence of a crime in progress) the story went that he told the lady to leave before she even entered his home.
Maybe the guy was a fourthwaiver... already on probation or parole for some other crime.. OR maybe he'd already solicited sex in his emails and phone calls to the vice cop, HOWEVER, turning her away at the door of his home, a good defense attorney will get that charge dismissed in a hot minute. FOURTH AMMENDMENT is a pretty strong protection.
Elise [email protected]
Cops don't always play fair, I have heard of cases where the cops have did both incalls and outcalls, got naked and even in some cases gotten off before they made the pinch, but made the pinch they did. It's not the cops job to make the conviction, but merely to arrest and harrass and they will simply present there case and let the city attorney drag your ass to court.