Provider's Following an Arrest

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by hd

I just looked over the whosarrested site and there are some god awful ugly people on there, wait a minute, you sure that is the eccie membership site?

If this is a cross section of the ECCIE membership, I may want to get a refund on my membership dues.

I will repeat something I have said many times on other threads - most of the arrest that occur are of streetwalkers and homeless with regards to prostitution and even drugs. In regards to other activities, DWI seems to be the most prevalent charge.

With a little bit of screening and not soing anything crazy like gangbanging someone in a public place, you should be able to avoid an arrest for prostitution. That said, I would bet that the majority of arrest of providers has nothing to do with a prostitution charge, and the number of arrest of providers on DWI or outstanding traffic tickets would blow your mind.

[Tiffani Jameson]

Originally Posted by BarebackLover

It's no so much the fact that a provider was arrested, but the fact that a provider was "careless enough to be arrested". I know many girls that are very, very careful and have never been busted in over 10 years of working. Then I know some who get busted in a month.

Of course, can I assume some girls will come here and say "but I wasn't careless, blah blah blah...". Well, maybe you just have bad luck. That counts too.

I actually agree with you..

That's the reason why screening is so important. When these women are busted, her phone and/or her laptop was taken, and if your email address and phone number is in there, they now have you too. We feel the same way about you guys that get caught up in solicitation busts.

While I don't think it's anything to broadcast to the public, but it is a reminder to seek out women who screen.

[hd]

Like you say tigercat, majority of arrests are other than soliciting, by SW or Johns. and as probably already said, solicition arrests result from businesses complaining about shit going on near their business.

I doubt an arrest would stop me from seeing a provider, as long as she doesn't use her mug shot in her showcase! Those pics aren't user friendly!

[JK1982]

The city whose site I'm referring to only has a link for prostitution arrests. If you get picked up for DWI, pot, anything else, they don't post your picture. It's just for prostitution. Like I said before I guess that's their way of acting as a deterrent to future providers / johns. They also post the address where they were arrested at. And you see several being picked up at the same addresses, so it leads me to believe perhaps they're scoping these places out?

In the past, they included men and women's photos and showed all the arrests being for prostitution. I don't know if soliciting got thrown into the same group or if there were just some entrepreneurial fellas out there throwing their hats into being male prostitutes. But those were the 2011 months. They've since taken those off.

But as they say, information is power and I think the PD post for prostitution arrest can help johns / providers alike by just seeing the repeated motel addresses where the busts are occurring.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by tigercat

Granted, without a real name or some good way to search, no way to know if the gal you see today was arrested last week on a DWI, unless you spend hours searching the pics. And I got to tell you, mugshots will rarely compare to a showcase pic in quality.

I agree. I don't see any useful purpose in looking at mugshots, unless you're entertained by the misery of others. If you are, your time would be better spent on a shrink's couch than perusing pics of sporting girls' mugshots.

Those of you who are into assessing the risks of various hobby-related scenarios should scroll up and re-read brickmonster's post, because he speaketh the truth.

Originally Posted by Daen1304

Not to mention, Dallas doesn't give a damn about the hobby for anything other than tax purposes. If you do ever get caught always be polite. They probably will just give you a fine. Client wise that is. If you piss them off then they are more likely to actually put the paper work through for the sex offender list.

There are several things in this post that just aren't true. One, a john arrested in Dallas County for plain-vanilla prostitution will, in all likelihood, NOT just pay a fine. While there is a diversion program for first-offender providers (called 'memo agreement'), it's not offered to first-offender johns. The likely outcome for a hobbyist arrested for prostitution with no prior LE contact would be being placed on a deferred, but supervised, probation, attending john school, and performing community service. Of course, this is assuming the john had a capable lawyer.

Also, there is no "sex offender list." If you mean a person who's convicted of unaggravated prostitution must register as a sex offender, again, that's simply untrue.

[PODarkness]

The thing that gets me about those sites is the shear arrogance of posting arrest information. No more innocent till proven guilty. If you are found innocent by the court there's no retraction, and no help putting your life or family back together. Years later searching a persons name will bring up their face and what they were arrested for, without any indication that they were found innocent.

We've discussed and concluded that in a sting, everyone gets arrested, regardless of circumstance or evidence. It's shear fu#king arrogance to post those names and photos.

Our society is at a point where everyone breaks the law, from the President on down. The chances of arrest and of conviction are largely a matter of position, money, and luck. The less a person has of these three things, the more chances they will generally take.

I know. It's counter-intuitive for a person with bad luck to take more chances, but if you think about it, it's almost always true.

I know 3 providers that have been arrested, 1 in Dallas, and 2 in Vegas. None of them have ever been asked to be part of a sting. None of them knows first hand of a provider that has been pressured into helping with a sting. It makes little sense for vice to use providers in stings.

I have no problem seeing a provider that has been arrested. With very few exceptions, I only see established providers. I know I'm not a cop. I know they are not a cop. The rest is irrelevent.

POD

[ShysterJon]

Something I'll add to what PODarkness wrote: Mugshot sites will delete a mugshot for a fee, kind of a blackmail charge. "Hey, we're gonna put this up. But we'll take it down if you pay us." The big boy, www.MugshotList.com, charges about $5 to delete a record. The site referred to in this thread, www.whosarrested.com, charges an outrageous $99 fee.

[argus256]

anybody else but me notice that prostitution doesnt even make the top 10 reasons for arrest? and they act like its a fucking plague on the news

[Jules Jaguar]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Something I'll add to what PODarkness wrote: Mugshot sites will delete a mugshot for a fee, kind of a blackmail charge. "Hey, we're gonna put this up. But we'll take it down if you pay us." The big boy, www.MugshotList.com, charges about $5 to delete a record. The site referred to in this thread, www.whosarrested.com, charges an outrageous $99 fee.

That is absurd, anything to make a buck I guess... then we have the got busted newspapers u see in all the stores too!

Like POD said no more innocent until proven guilty... although I do not really feel there ever was.

[argus256]

There used to be a law that if a site was using your pic without your permission (in any way) that if they failed to take it down after consent was revoked in writing, that they could be sued.

[PODarkness]

Originally Posted by argus256

There used to be a law that if a site was using your pic without your permission (in any way) that if they failed to take it down after consent was revoked in writing, that they could be sued.

I think you are referring to copyright laws, which create a way for the copyright holder (generally the photographer) to use a "takedown notice" when their copyright is infringed. Since LE took the photo, I'd guess they own the copyright.

By the way, suing for damages generally requires that the copyright be registered, and you have to be able to show damages.

POD