A few threads down, the discussion of LE was brought up.  

Does any one know [setting the laws on the book aside], who initiates focusing activities and resources on Johns and/or Providers?

Is it the Vice, Mayor, Sheriff, Prosecutors/DAs, or somewhere else in the chain?  Or at least, when it comes to San Diego, where the decision is being made?

It could be any of the people that you mentioned.  It could all start with someone as low down the chain as a vice cop who got a tip from a friend that really wants to bust a certain individual.  It could also be in any of the elected officials camps.  Election time is coming up.  Peace - Shamus "the famous" writer

I've wondered the same thing, but I'll bet it's a combination of all of the above. There's probably no easier publicity than showing a crackdown on crime such as the poor bastards in El Cajon getting their cars confiscated for soliciting prostitution (although anyone who would pursue streetwalkers is crazy). The press eats that up, makes for an easier environment to get more funding. As always, follow the money.

I remember a few years back when a conservative rebublican congressman said the drug laws were ineffective and long mandatory prison sentences didn't work. The idea was put out that money would be better spent on treatment rather than overcrowding the prison system. Want to guess who the most vocal opponent was? The prison guard union.

Follow the money.....

Then there is the fact that our City Attorney Cassy Gwinn holds Prayer meetings in his chambers?

One thing I find troubleing is the fact our SDPD is crying that they are so terribly underfunded, but yet last year they hired more vice cops, and could not buy new equipment or hire street cops. I mean I support our "real" police, the ones that protect us from the true violence and bad guys. But come on! Vice does not really do to much but collect taxes.

Yestarday morning there was a blurb on KUSI about the street action on El Cajon and of course it was stressed that cars are being confiscated and one must pay blue book value to get the car back even if "they are not convicted".  I found that to be shocking!  How can that be right?  If someone is found not guilty, how can they still impose that punishment?  Was that a correct statement?

Jenni

Yes, it is a correct statement. Under a nuisance abatement act, LE is indeed able to seize a car of the alleged john and demand exorbitant payment, solely on the basis of an arrest. Even if you are later found innocent, you would still have to pay the ransom demanded by the "king's men".

Now, you may be thinking that this is tantamount to illegal search and seizure. Possibly this places undue authority into the hands of LE, so that they become judge, jury and executioner. What's to prevent LE from stopping anyone along El Cajon Boulevard that they don't like, and seizing their vehicle?

It's an interesting twist that our S.D. Attorney is holding prayer meetings in his office, as alluded to above. It's always bad news for civil rights when the secular authority gets caught up in religious movements.

-- Modified on 1/29/2004 7:08:39 PM

-- Modified on 1/29/2004 7:09:30 PM

You can thank our "conservative" supreme court and the "War on Drugs."  This is an outgrowth of federal law in the 80's I belive,  The congress passed law that allowed police to size your assets and sell them if they were used in the commision of a crime.  Since assets don't have rights the police were free to dispose of them even if you were found not guilty of any wrong doing.  To recover your assets you must prove that they were not part of a crime, essentially that they and you are innocent.  The legal standard is differend and your assets are not entitled to a jury trial.

The supreme court upheld this since it was your assets, not you who was being punished.  There have been a number of cases where the police have sized assets, killed the owner and kept the money for the state using false witnesses as the source for these actions.

I belive the results speak for themselves.

The ordinance which allows seizure of cars driven by persons arrested for soliciting sex acts in exchange for items of value is new to the San Diego area and has not been exposed to, much less passed, any judicial review.  It is patently unconstitutional on more grounds than I have time to list and you have patience to read (see the fifth amendment and let's talk deprivation of property without due process of law, for a start).  Until someone with standing, that is, someone whose car has been confiscated, sues, the ordinance will stand.  Thereafter, it should be thrown out faster than a used condom.  But this is worth watching.  There is no, repeat no, reading of constitutional, criminal, civil, or common law which would support the upholding of this ordinance.  And yet it may be upheld.  The constitution is primarily a set of rules promulgated for the purpose of restraining tyranny.  And it is and has been routinely violated for the sake of popular opinion and political convenience.  How this current abuse shakes out will tell us something important about whether we are governed by the the rule of law or by the politically advantageous flavor of the month.

People like you, should start running for political office ... a patriotic and civic duty if the financial burdens permit it.

Focus of activates for a police unit like vice are, as many have pointed out, often politically motivated.  Normally, within any police unit, the focus is driven by circumstances, complaints or statistics.  For example, say there are a bunch of rapes in Point Loma, the local police division would work on putting extra officers - some in plain cars - in the area to see what they can do to identify who is in the area and then try to catch whoever is doing the rapes.  "Vice" is a little different but at the same time really pretty much similar.  If there are a lot of street walkers in an area, someone's going to complain to the PD and they're going to act on those complaints.  That "someone" is often local residents or business owners but usually those complaints go through a local city councilman who then passes a note to the chief of police who passes the note to a Vice lieutenant who sends out his guys to do something about it.  The activity is complaint or circumstances driven - not unlike the rape example - but also driven by the politician who forwards the complaint and then, if it ends up resulting in a bunch of arrests or press, the politician can claim he/she/it was the catalyst for the police activity.  Another "source" for the activity may simply be one of the Vice officers who says one day to the lieutenant, "hey, we haven't done a 'john detail' in a while" or "what about us going after the AMPs for a couple weeks" or "I've been watching the messages on TER and I think it's time to try to get at these internet based providers."  So identifying the source of the activity or periodic focus isn't really going to be so simple as considering it "politically" motivated because it could come from a lot of reasons/sources.   For the most part, the DA or City Attorney is not going to be involved in the complaint side as in suggesting a particular enforcement focus.  They have to be able to prosecute whatever comes in and they're usually pretty flooded with other activities except in the case of specialized DA units like, for example, a gang unit at the DA's office.  But then we're talking about someone who is really close to the police officers in the gang unit and it's really no more than another one of "the guys" suggesting a focus.  I don't believe the DA's office or City Attorney have a dedicated vice prosecutor like they do for gang related crime.  In the end, "suggestions" may come from a lot of places, but the decision is made at the vice unit's level depending on how "forcefully" the decision comes from the top of the mountain or their available time on other projects.

I believe the violation is the 4th Amendment, illegal search and siezure.

The City of San Diego has had the confiscation capability for several years.

It's new in El Cajon.

Contrary to what you've written, the cnstitutionality of this HAS been challenged in other cities and the ordinance has been upheld. I don't know if it's been appealed yet.

I don't know if the El Cajon law is similar to the San Diego version, however, one way they can also get around is by charging impound and vehicle storage fees. The costs quickly mount, then a mechanic's lien is obtained and you still lose your car.

The problem is that it's election time. With all the other crap that's happening, this is one of those political "feel good" issues that diverts the public attention from the real issues.

In a year, nobody will remember.

Jenni_sd posted on the National board a hypothetical question:
HOW MANY WOULD PARTICIPATE.............
Just wondering how many people would want to participate in a televised interview regarding internet hobbying.  What would be your resistance to do so and what would be your motivation to do so.  Also, what points would be most important to make?



OK most of the replies to this were NO WAY!
But lets just suppose we did, lets just say we started speaking out more. (safely as not to get aressted or?) Lets say we put messures on the ballots, solicited pettioins (like in LA to get rid of the NO touch rule in strip clubs), what if we did? It worked there!
Could we change things? Maybe not...Maybe we could? The problem is:
Here in America, we are giving up our liberties one by one. We are watching privilage's we have had for so long disapear, and we do nothing to change it because we are affraid some one might not like us or respect our views, or we go along with it because someone says it is for our safty and the safty of the nation. We need to speak up a bit and not let to much go away before it is all gone. I  personaly would help Jenni........ I do not want to lose the things I love, nor the way I live my life.
There are somewhere in the neighbour hood of 500+ members here at TER, and that is just a start.
I think we could have a very strong voice to government if we really tried? It worked in LA, and all it takes is one small snowball rolling down a hill to make a larger one.
Education and knowlege is the most powerful tool if used right.

Just my .02 worth?    Cheers!!!
Kyliesd

You have to wonder who is in charge and what they are thinking. The police have crying the blues about money for a while now. The supervisors watch overtime like a hawk, there are so many cars that have equipment problems that they have to put two officers in one car when it is not necessary, and the ABLE helicopter is grounded because they don’t want to (or can't)pay the mechanics and pilots to keep it in the air or least available 7/24. These deficiencies adversely affect the safety and security of all the citizens in San Diego and yet (as Kylie points out) they can find money to hire more vice cops. With Arnie cutting funding to local governments maybe the SDPD will think twice about running idiot operations like the stings that they did on El Cajon Blvd last month.

LTT

You have to wonder who is in charge and what they are thinking. The police have crying the blues about money for a while now. The supervisors watch overtime like a hawk, there are so many cars that have equipment problems that they have to put two officers in one car when it is not necessary, and the ABLE helicopter is grounded because they don’t want to pay the mechanics and pilots to keep it in the air or least available 7/24. These deficiencies adversely affect the safety and security of all the citizens in San Diego and yet (as Kylie points out) they can find money to hire more vice cops. With Arnie cutting funding to local governments maybe the SDPD will think twice about running idiot operations like the stings that they did on El Cajon Blvd last month.

LTT

Below is an infamous example. My recollection is that, indeed, the government did end up with the ranch:


    In Malibu, California, park police tried repeatedly to buy the home and land of 61-year-old, retired rancher Don Scott, which was next to national park land. Scott refused. On the morning of October 2, 1992, a task force of 26 LA county sheriffs, DEA agents and other cops broke into Scott's living room unannounced. When he heard his wife, Frances, scream, he came out of his upstairs bedroom with a gun over his head. Police yelled at him to lower his gun. He did, and they shot him dead.

    Police claimed to be searching for marijuana which they never found. Ventura County DA Michael Bradbury concluded that the raid was "motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government . . . [The] search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."

I was listening to Rick Roberts this morning regarding this subject. I was thinking the same as you. However, he claimed that several other places have done this and the fines have held up on appeal. I like Rick, but I like the constitution better. This is cruel and unusual punishment if I have ever seen it. I plan to spend part of the weekend looking this up on the web. I want to see if this has been challenged and in what courts. If it's in the 9th district court of appeals, it may have been overturned by now. They are the most overturned court in the land.

What happens if you do NOT take your car.... just walk instead, what can they take?

What about parking your car a few blocks away? Seems that the car is probably a burden if anything in a situation like this.

Really, what can be done if there is no car to impound?

I remember the Scott case well. It was cold blooded murder. Armed government thugs taking out a peaceful citizen for political reasons. And we go to war against nations who pull this crap. What a joke. I also believe (not sure) that they ended up with the ranch. The so-called drug war (as earlier mentioned) is the source of the asset forfeiture laws. I read a couple of lengthy articles about it when it first started happening, first in a Libertarian Party newspaper then in USA Today. If the person is not convicted (in some cases not even arrested), they can attempt to get their property back (oftentimes a lot of cash from a suspected drug dealer or potential buyer) but it is so expensive to do so, usually more costly than the value of the item or money lost, people generally don’t try. Even though the asset forfeiture insanity has been pretty well reported on, people continue to stand for it and vote for the tyrannical idiots (Democrats and Republicans) who refuse to repeal these and many other outrageous "laws".

Such situations formed the basis of one of Jay Leno's best jokes. On discussing the difficulties that the Iraqis were having developing a constitution, Jay suggested that we just give them ours. It's not as though we're using it.

There are Judges that have and will give you your property back in asset seizure if you have the money and the time to fight, and if you know where and how to do it.

I've knowledge of a judgement for asset seizure go in the favor of a guy that had pounds of cocaine and numerous guns, guilty on the felonies but NO NO NO way the LE agency could keep all of his nice stuff that he HAD used  in the commission of his crime.

I know of a situation where the feds seized cash in the hundreds of thousands of dollars claiming it was drug money as well. No drug charges.  Just stopped the same car three times in two days and took money the guy was carrying. (I know, weird story) This type of action is what keeps lawyers living in luxury.

I've seen it go the other way too.  I don't know if it's the judge you get or if it's dotting the I's and crossing the T's on the asset forfeiture paperwork.

In any case, it's certainly against your rights, but why take a chance?  Don't commit a crime!!! Date to your heart's content! There is really never a reason, at any time, to solicit for sex!

Anyway, my main point is that vice will always exist, mainly because there are often felonious activities that are associated with prostitution.  In San Diego there are several open homicide cases involving prostitutes, some recent.

Doing a sting on ECB and arresting johns, in the mind of LE, one of the guys they pick up could be the killer. Entering prints into the system of arrestees just could solve an open case.  

Same with the net.  The recent news about prostitution stings and local law enforcement said that 18 local law enforcement agencies had gathered to work together on both street and net prostitution problems.  While this was probably coffee, donuts and somebody showboating about their best efforts, I think it is important to note that so many agencies are involved in sharing information and ideas.  I can't even name 18 agencies
in the county and I even thought of harbor patrol, university police and military police.

BTW  two to a car came about for SDPD almost 20 years ago when the cops were afraid for their safety in the aftermath of sagon penn and other "gang" incidents.  Sure, it saves on vehicles, but it was implemented for safety reasons.  The patrol cops were scared and they were driving the cars around in pairs anyway.  This way only one car shows up at an incident instead of two.

Elise [email protected]

asset forfeiture is a bugger and varies so widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In some cases they'd use a "drug dog" to hit on money seized and that was enough to say that the money was used in the commission of a crime.

thing is,  if you get any stack of money that's been circulated together and put it in a bag, a drug dog will hit on it...

There are some judges that will rule against the cops on this stuff, but when the cops have all of your assets, you have to find an attorney that's willing to risk his/her time to try to get them back, and that attorney is going to want 40% of anything he/she recovers.

elise [email protected]

I lived and worked in Malibu when the assult on the Scott Ranch happened and people there were schocked, yet it seems like it was short lived in every one's life's.  An assult on my best friend's brother happened at about the same time, the police went in and shot the dogs and raided his work shop and it was like the scariest raid/arrest I've ever been exposed to.  Everyone in Malibu also forgot that one real fast also.  Malibu is so isolated in every way, but those two incidents will always scare me as to how horribly violent it was and I for one will never forget it.

I lived and worked in Malibu when the assult on the Scott Ranch happened and people there were schocked, yet it seems like it was short lived in every one's life's.  An assult on my best friend's brother happened at about the same time, the police went in and shot the dogs and raided his work shop and it was like the scariest raid/arrest I've ever been exposed to.  Everyone in Malibu also forgot that one real fast also.  Malibu is so isolated in every way, but those two incidents will always scare me as to how horribly violent it was and I for one will never forget it.

This and another issue need to be challanged.  I think it will stand unless somebody get the people together.  If you stop and watch a 'street race' you can be arrested.  Will what ever happened to the freedom of assembly?  Now I spent over 23 years protecting our freedoms in the military (Nam and Gulf War vet) and it seems that the local governments are taking them away faster and withour contest!  I agree with terjohn that until someone steps up to protect our rights the locals will continue to explooit us...

I think that the "forgetting" you describe over these episodes is probably the result of cognitive dissonance. In this instance, all our schooling educates us in the belief that democracy means something special in America. To see that U.S. government officials can act as ruthlessly as ones in the third-world puts those deeply-held beliefs in jeopardy. However, if you forget or disregard this new information, all is well, or perhaps more to the point, all seems well.