Maybe this is a dumb Q, but if you ask a provider a question such as the following (via email): "Are you a law enforcement person or involved in a law enforcement operation?"  

Would this be enough to save ur bacon from the bacon? (j/k LE, I love ya, just don't wanna meet ya)

If you ask & then they bust you, isn't that entrapment?

Simply asking that questions implies intent to commit a crime, or at least it can be used in the courtroom that way.  If you show intent to commit a crime, you have now given them greater latitude into investigating if a crime is going to be committed or attempted.  They don't have to say yes.  

Don't ask.  It can only hurt you in the end.

No. They have no obligation answer truthfully, that's some bulls**t from the movies.  

Entrapment is VERY difficult to prove.  Essentially, the law states that if you were predisposed to commit the crime anyway, it's not entrapment.  They can offer you sex for money, if you accept - you're busted. I doesn't have to be your idea.

Long answer.. it will get you into MORE trouble as it will be right there in black and white that you intend to do something illegal or why would you ask?

Law Enforcement officers are allowed to lie in the line of duty and entrapment is not allowed as a positive defense if you're on trial.  No, I'm not an attorney or a law enforcement officer, I just pay attention to this and that, as well as having some ties here and there.

Elise [email protected]

This is a very important article and a must read:
Police Deception

by J. D. Obenberger, Attorney at Law

© 1998 J. D. Obenberger

There is a lot of dangerous misinformation about arrest and police conduct that I have heard from clients over the years, and it is important that you have an understanding of what the law actually says. It is not my intent to get into the philosophy of whether it is right or wrong for the police to use dishonest of deception, but instead, just to candidly report to you what the law permits peace officers to do.

Police Deception in Detecting Crime

There is a widespread belief out there that police officers are required by the law to act like Boy Scouts, that they can never lie, that if they do lie, it means that you can beat a case, that they have to read you your rights and if they don't do it, you can beat the case, etc., etc. and more etc.

It is simply not true that a police officer has to tell you the truth if you ask him (or her) whether he (or she) is a police officer. It is simply not true that a police officer will not take off his clothes in a prostitution investigation of massage or escort. It is not against the law for a police officer to proposition a prostitution suspect for sex for money. It is not necessarily entrapment for an attractive female decoy to dress provocatively at night on the streets, make eye contact with drivers, and beckon them, and try to induce an agreement for commercial sex. I have not read many reported decisions in which the Courts have been enthusiastic about trick, deception, and artifice by law enforcement personnel, but the Courts do understand that in the real word, a world in which crime loves darkness, stealth, and concealment, crime can sometimes only be detected and prosecuted through those same means.

It is not entrapment for the police to provide someone with an opportunity for a crime. Entrapment only exists as a defense when it can fairly be said that the government actually created the crime. The focus of the entrapment defense is on the state of mind of the accused. If he or she readily accepts an invitation to break the law, it shows pre-disposition to commit the offense, and so it cannot be fairly said that the government created the crime. Police Deception in Interrogation

The use of deception, trick, artifice, and dishonesty in interrogation is not a mere aberration or fluke that sometimes happens. It is simply routine in almost every law enforcement agency, and it remains routine because it is effective


Because most courts take the view that deception is acceptable in custodial interrogation so long as it is not likely to elicit false statements from a suspect, it is a widely accepted practice to tell the suspect untruths about his case. He will be told that his co-arrestees have made a statement and have identified him as the ringleader, even when they have remained silent. He will be told that his fingerprints were found at the crime scene even when it is not true. None of this will make his subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible against him at trial.


It should be noted that just as life is not always fair, the law is not always fair either. You do not have any reciprocal right to lie to a police officer

The most important rule to remember, if you are arrested, is that nobody ever got hanged for what they didn't say.  When Miranda was first decided, police officers and chiefs, from coast to coast, predicted that law enforcement would become unworkable, because suspects would heed the warnings, make no statement, demand a lawyer, and refuse to cooperate. Well, needless to say, the sky did not fall in on law enforcement. That is because the suspects kept talking.

It is actually rare for a suspect to invoke his Miranda rights and refuse to answer questions. The reasons are complex. Some people think that they can talk their way out of an arrest or out of jail. Some people feel the need to confess guilt. Some respond easily to a police officer who comes across like a friend. Some are convinced that they will go down anyway, and that "things will go easier" with a statement. For whatever reason, the police were amazed and chagrined to learn, that rights warning or not, defendants kept singing like canaries and manufacturing cases against themselves.
No matter how bleak the situation seems to you at that moment, you should make no statement about the offense you are being charged with or investigated for until you have consulted with a lawyer. Do not consent to the search of your vehicle or your house, or anything that belongs to you until you consult with a lawyer.
But do not consent until you have talked to a lawyer. This requires courage, because the presence of the officer and his partners, and your uncertain situation, impels you to want to get on the right side of the officer. The situation is inherently intimidating. Do not believe a statement that the officer can get a warrant anyway. If he didn't want your consent, he wouldn't ask for it. Maybe he needs it, maybe he doesn't. You don't know. But, if you have the choice, and he has, after all asked you to make a choice, your choice is "With respect, officer, I'll have to decline to give that consent until I talk with a lawyer." You can give that response whether or not you have been advised of your rights.

Joe Obenberger is a Chicago Loop lawyer concentrating in the law of free expression and liberty under the United States Constitution. His firm has represented many owners, employees, and customers of adult-oriented businesses, both online and in the “real world”. His practice extends to First Amendment cases, municipal zoning and licensing, the law of privacy, criminal law and civil rights. He can be reached in the office at 312 558-6420 or paged at 312 250-4118 in any emergency. His e-mail address is [email protected]

Great post Sedona..this is the kind of information we need shared on this board! I always thought it was a little stupid when providers would ask if I was a cop. I mean if I was would I could out and say it? Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't find the original!
I did get a PM from the authoring attorney, thanking me for publicly sharing it. That was a sweet surprise!

-- Modified on 11/7/2003 2:27:56 PM

this kind of activity isn't the norm, and it's really not as prevalent as you make it sound by posting like that.

So while it COULD happen...

IT is AGAINST THE LAW for LE to do such activity and if a lady or guy has proof (ie a bit of the sperm dripped onto her clothing, saved in her hair, wiped onto a kleenex and hidden~~it's the SMART thing to do with first timers, ladies), that case would not only be thrown out of court, that officer could be fired and that jurisdiction could be sued to kingdom come.

Elise [email protected]

There was no mention of the frequency to indicate any prevalence.

I worded it that way, exactly for a reason, that I certainly would not go into further on the boards.

"that officer could be fired and that jurisdiction could be sued to kingdom come." - and they SHOULD be!

Not only did "unlawful" sexual activity take place between undercover LE and providers several years ago in a SD massage parlor, but it was actually described in the criminal complaint.

Here is the quote from the newspaper article: "...According to a criminal complaint, undercover investigators had sexual contact a total of five times with the women on visits between February and April..."  Didn't seem to bother the SD prosecutor one bit.

Criminal activity is whatever the so-called powers-that-be deem it to be, regardless of what you might think the law says. As one watches the new San Diego Padre stadium being built, one can't help but wonder why it was that ex-City Councilwoman Valerie Stallings was convicted of taking a bribe from Padres' owner John Moores, but no charges were ever brought against Moores. Developers pay political contributions to San Diego politicians all the time to build in fire-prone areas in the East County without adequate fire services. Yet, the second that strip-club owners donate similarly to City Councilmen, the Feds jump in with all four trotters to indict.

In terms of whether the above LE "investigations" are anomalous, I would instead subscribe to the cockroach theory. When you see one, there are a hundred in the walls.

-- Modified on 11/7/2003 7:44:48 PM

-- Modified on 11/7/2003 7:55:52 PM

A while back, I was approached by a person who came to visit me (LE) who took all his clothes off (first!?!) and I kept prolonging the interaction because I intuitively felt the presence of LE,  he denied his association and I was in a real confused state of mind because of it, when he offered me a gift, I told him no thank you, and to please put the $ back in his pocket, he didnt, he left it on the dresser, I proceeded to read him a spiritually enlightening story to bide me a little time, then there came the most horrific pounding on the door, and the words "Open up this is the S.D. Police dept.!"....Long story short, *I was fortunate enough to have a surveilance equiptment set up and when I looked into the nmoniter I saw three people in aloha shirts (back up) and I said we werent going to open the door because obviously they werent the LE, obviously this was a home invasion, he nerded out on me and stirred up quite a lot of noise (wanting to open the door for these bandits?) I believe there is a timeframe in which they must open the door?  iIt appeared to me that this was the case, as he finnally grabbed his clothes and started getting dressed, at which time, I grabbed them right back off of him, we fought over these items until he gave up and ran downstairs to open the door and ran smack dab into the Seargent....Now had the Seargent not arrived to observe their job performance?  I do believe that the good ol boy network would have been implimented and I would have caught myself a case, however due to the circumstances, a ticket was written out and they went on their way.  that's how they can try and entrap you if your not alert and cautious.

But first I want to say this to everyone: don't make the mistake of using your own sense of logic, what is/isn't/should be right or fair. Throw it out the window. There's no such thing! -Sedona

Now the post:
Posted by morghan  , 11/8/2003 1:12:38 PM    
I have been singing this very ideal for years in the BDSM community.
Hunney - Just because you have your clothes on and never had any intention to have sexual intercourse with the male on the bed presenting himself as a submissive - just because your tribute is in an envelope and you never *touched* the money..
You are wearing a strap on pecker that implies pentration and you are now FUGGED !
They grey lines in the law are deep.
Keep your mouth hush . Dont talk about sex and money and should that not even come up and you get busted on a technicality anyway keep quiet until you meet with an atty.

In Indiana..
Provider was recently arrested. Cop had intercourse with her two times. During the act ( that was taped from three cams in the room with the boys watching in another .. guess they like those angles) He started talking *dirty* to her. Muttering how she was such a naughty girl taking money for f***** etc etc . She thinking it was part of his *pottie mouth talk* went along in role to her thinking. "He cant be a cop we are having sex"
Uhm.. yea he can be.
Busted her after the second time. Yea he got three days suspension from his dept for having acts .. three days paid suspension. But since this was part of a major sting all activities within the dept  were legitamized. (covered)
Had even seen another provider to set up a verification on RS2K and posted a review. He is also on Escorts.com that is where he first contacted the lady.

Yikes huh




-- Modified on 11/8/2003 1:33:59 PM

Political payoffs have nothing to do with the topic.

You make a quote and point out that it was several years ago and that seems to back my main point up that this is an anomaly.  You don't cite where the quote came from, nor do you let us know the outcome of the case nor any of the other aspects of the case.

Leaves alot to speculation.  Did the cop that had sex with the lady get fired?  Did those ladies sue?  How about giving us a minimal, the source for your quote?

Elise [email protected]

My original, unedited post included these details. However, since none of the providers (now ex-providers) want any further publicity, I decided to remove these identifiers. Also, we are hardly exercising our "freedom of speech" on these boards in a vacuum, with heavy LE participation. A relatively minor effort using Web resources on your part should provide you with the additional details you request.

Your posting indicates that you have some presumption of "justice" in the legal system. For example, the above cited LE officer should be prosecuted, and further that the wronged providers could file civil suit. The best quote I ever saw in this context was on a plaque in an attorney's office that simply said: "How much justice can you afford?" In reality, few of us have the resources, either time or money, to effectively contest the legal system.

One last point. These massage parlor busts have a heavy Fed component, with typically both IRS and FBI involved. And politics (and its corollary, political corruption) has everything to do with it, since that is what determines which cases are prosecuted.



-- Modified on 11/10/2003 1:33:06 PM

[email protected]

thin blue lines. I know all about it, 2sense.  It's all in the family, that and the defense attorneys at state & federal level and so what?  This stuff isn't happening every day and I'm still interested to know when this happened and the outcome and you can't tell me you citing your quote (name of newspaper date of publication) is going to harm anyone.

It's old news and the cops involved are probably riding a desk or pushing buttons at George Bailey...  Maybe not, but I guess I'll never know.

Elise [email protected]

We've all heard the old "they can have sex with you and then bust you" story but we never get the true facts of what happens with these cases as they unfold in real life.  Just a post on a discussion board that's disjointed without details.

three days paid suspension and did they prosecute the lady?  There's just not enough information there in that post.

I'm not saying that's not a terrible/scary situation, but it IS INDIANA. (Don't the judges there still wear white wigs?~that's sarcasm)

Doesn't seem like a fair comparison, but there's not alot of hard information to compare.

Hell I could write up another post about hearing about a girl that got busted that I heard about where the guy had sex with her and popped twice before she got arrested and leave out details and it would be true that I heard that and all and you all would think it was current and it would merely be me repeating what I just read.  This is how urban legends get started.  Which Is why I'm a stickler for citations and details.

Elise [email protected]

and speaking of inflammation - where's my Advil? You're giving us all a headache..

You continually engage in inflammatory postings and conversations to satisfy your own sense of 'stickler' interests WELL PAST the point that people are no longer interested in carrying on with you and yet you don't let it rest!

You remind me of the badly behaved, ankle-biting bulldog that won't let go! In that case, somebody, please, put a muzzle on it!

Sorry, Elise, you've pushed us to the point where somebody has to say it! Enough!

I know that Elise may be a bit "anal" about details (and I would think she would accept that term, as she seems to be honest about her need for them), but I don't think she went quite as far overboard as you indicate.  

I think there is a lot of truth in what 2sense was getting at, henceforth, my support of his post.  However, I don't think Elise "attacked" him or was overly inflammatory. Remember how that one guy who used to make the constantly inflammatory posts on here...whose name I can no longer remember, damn it...used to be?  I think there is some validity to what she is saying, as well, especially in this age of media manipulation.  I admit, given the stakes involved, I think that discretion is the better part of valour, but I don't think Elise was that over the top.  I'm sorry, but just speaking for me, I didn't feel it.  

Now, let's all kiss and make up...and buy Sparker some tickets to mud wrestling at Pacers.  Sheesh, Spark...you need some excitement in your life, buddy! :P

Sedona, I don't feel that it is your place to be calling Elise names.  Under any circumstances, name calling is inflammatory and does nothing to help make your point.
I do not find Elise to be inflammatory.  I see nothing wrong with her trying to gets the facts.
It is the board moderators place to decide if someone is out of line-not your place.

Sedona has her reasons as do i for the things that have been directed her way. There is alot more to it and this board only sees the tip of the iceberg of much of what is going on with precisely because of the people this thread is about. The case in question can be foundin news archives and while the media does manipulate things I agree there is real information that can be backed up by an indeentdent source such as the documentation elise speaks of, and there is other stuff that may or maynot be true.
In this case it was allover the news and this is what is known to be true by me and according to the court record to the point that I followed it. Any info as to the details of the outcome would be nice to know though.

The place was a long time establishment for Massage etc. In either the city of lemon Grove or spring valley. It had a few mature and well liked providers. LE said the investigation was in response to complaints, but what it came down to is ONE person got their panties in a bunch and started a campaign.

They visited the providers on several occassion with five visits cited that resulted in the officers engaging in sex acts with the providers to completetion. There was not informatiin available at that time as to whether there was intercourse but they got the same excellent FBSM that these women were known for. They issued a warrant based on the reports from those visits and raided the place. They had files appropriate for a business to have and  were quite organized so they were initiallly charged with FELONY conspiracy to commit and I remember that they were in jail for several days until they either made bail or the charge was reduced to something much less severe.

More than likely that was because of the actions of the officers but that would be speculation based only on what I have seen happen in other providers cases where the officers behaved very innapropriately touching the provider intimately and letting her engage big Jim and the twins.
Elise has issues with many of us and the reasons for that will never be privy on a board basis but suffice it to say when she does what she does here she has done 10 more things before that in order to get Sweet natured Sedona pissed off....trust me people getting her angry is NOT an easy thing to do and she is NOT given to random name calling and abhors being invovled in the conflict that some people seem to thrive on.

Elise as well as many here also make alot of assumptions when they respond to posts and we must all remember that there is alot NOT said here for very good reasons. Try to give certain people some credit and be happy that any of us share with you stuff that could come back to haunt us....right Elise?

*Sorry Mod but Sedona is a good girl and she deserves some backup from her friends.

she's just being blindly loyal to Ginger.  No biggy.

Elise [email protected]

-- Modified on 11/13/2003 7:47:21 AM

Too funny.  Issue only with blatant liars.  Although I really don't think about it. These people aren't a part of my life.  I certainly don't take issue with blindly loyal friends.  I get it.

I'm also loyal to a fault so I understand Sedona getting her back up when she perceived an attack.

Thing is, when I hit the post button I'm done thinking about the topic.  I certainly don't think about the ladies.  They're not ugly or anything but they aren't my type.

Exotic Brooke is my type.

NOW, I went ahead and took the week off, so I think I'll go buy a fish for the aquarium.

Elise [email protected]

-- Modified on 11/13/2003 7:53:52 AM

But I keep praying that it's YOU I get to spnak (or vice-versa)!!!!

I'm not emotionally involved with this.  I merely am interested in details and you are certainly welcome to call me anally retentive.  Information Science is an interest of mine.  Always has been.  My frame of reference is wide and sneaks through a socioeconomic pyramid that is rather flabberghasting here in San Diego.  I'm a native, so though I'm internationally travelled I don't know alot about the rest of the nation.

I think in words.  Kind of like a ticker tape that runs by in my head and I recall the pictures so, yeah, when I read hearsay that isn't backed by detail I like to purge it, or else I may end up thinking that is true myself.

This BS about we're going to hurt someone by citing the source of a quote is beyond me.  Maybe I'm stupid.

OK, now the fish store is open and I can go find a new little bugger to add to the mix.

Elise [email protected]