During the video chat screening, what would prevent the cop from directing his camera to a screen showing another man jacking off?
But to answer your question, if a man jacks off on camera, that doesn't prove he's not a cop. Cops have penises, even the ones with tits. They're usually tiny, but they can jack off with an electron microscope, a pair of surgical tweezers, and a photo of Barbara Bush.
A police department might have a policy prohibiting such conduct, but then again it might not. There can be proof problems when an undercover cop engages in sexual conduct to make a prostitution case. But the more important concern for the police is political. The citizenry by and large doesn't want its police jacking off on camera. They'd prefer that cops jack around at the local Dunkin Donuts.
The real question is:
If a cop masturbated on camera as part of a provider's screening process, then later the cop busted the provider for prostitution when they met (and assuming the provider's conduct proved up the offense of prostitution), could the provider successfully use an entrapment defense?
I'd say no. The entrapment defense is set forth in section 8.06 of the Texas Penal Code:
Quote:
Sec. 8.06. ENTRAPMENT.
(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.
(b) In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.
|
See
Texas Penal Code § 8.06.
In my opinion, a provider could not use an entrapment defense against a charge of prostitution under these circumstances because the cop masturbating didn't induce the provider to commit prostitution -- the expectation of receiving a consideration, probably greenbacks, induced the provider to commit prostitution. The DA would probably argue masturbating during the screening process merely "afford[ed the provider] an opportunity to commit an offense."
I guess a provider could argue the image of a wang being stroked made her batshit horny and that's why she met with the UC. But in my view it would be unlikely Judge Justice, or Mary Missionary or Peter Popsquick on the jury, would buy that. That sticky thing called common sense would probably get in the way.