illegal video?

[ferg576]

True story in Texas. Sting operation in adjoining hotel rooms. LE uses a provider as a confidential informant and bait As clients come in the room, the encounter is video and audio taped and used as evidence for prosecution. I get how they use the CI to get around the warrant requirement, but, taping in a hotel room? Even in Texas, where only one party has to know about the video, I would think a hotel room would be a place like a dressing room or bathroom where video would be prohibited. Any thoughts? And, if the taping was illegal, would that not make the fruits of the taping inadmissible?

10 unfortunates fell victim to this, however none went to trial ad they all plead out their cases.

[iINDULGE]

Your hotel room would be illegal, in most respects without a warrant; however, the provider's hotel room would not fall into the realm of inadmissible evidence.

[ShysterJon]

No offense, but there is absolutely nothing remarkable about LE video- and audio-taping a suspect in a room they control.

[Marcus78]

No offense, but there is absolutely nothing remarkable about LE video- and audio-taping a suspect in a room they control.

I agree with SJ on this one. Now, if it were YOUR room or your house, then you may have a claim. But in a sting operation, they're setting up the room along with the surveillance. I don't see that evidence being ruled as inadmissible.

[ferg576]

Ok, got it. Now, one more question. During the small talk, the CI offers a sexual service for a fee. At that moment, has LE, or a person commited a crime in order to obtain evidence agsint the perp? TxCCP 38.23. And as a reminder, there is no warrant.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by jwhutch9

Ok, got it. Now, one more question. During the small talk, the CI offers a sexual service for a fee. At that moment, has LE, or a person commited a crime in order to obtain evidence agsint the perp? TxCCP 38.23. And as a reminder, there is no warrant.

No, because the CI doesn't have the intent to commit the crime. Warrants have absolutely nothing to do with your hypothetical.

[ferg576]

That probably explains why everyone took a deal. A non-disclosure order is way better than a conviction. Hypotheticaly of course. Thx for the insight

[ck1942]

"the CI offers a sexual service for a fee...."

My take, I would immediately decline and leave the scene.

Likely I might get away with that since no criminal act was committed on my part.

However, real world, likely LE would just as likely arrest me for just being there and let the court system sort things out.

My understand of the Texas law is that the elements of the crime are

1) the offer of sex for money, or
2) the offer of money for sex

And the person making (or accepting) such offer is committing the crime.

Just being there -- could possibly be the basis for a criminal charge of "intent" somehow....but the videotape won't show the 1) or 2) above....

LE in San Antonio several years ago set up a sting.... using Craigs List and the lovely pictured there was present in the room when the prospective clients arrived... according to several aspd-ers who showed up, she made no offers, however, waiting for the john to ask about rates. Bingo, out came the steel bracelets. Several gents made "small talk" but nothing about service nor rates and after a few minutes listened to their guts and departed....

LE operates in several modes, so the above might not happen in say, Arlington or other states and cities.

Best to always do your research up front and carefully and listen to the big head only.

[ShysterJon]

ck1942, I agree with everything you wrote (and it's always great to read your posts here). Just for completeness, there are four ways a person can commit the crime of prostitution under Texas Law:

(1) making an offer,
(2) accepting an offer, or
(3) soliciting a person in a public place

to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, or

(4) engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.

Nearly all the cases I've handled involved type (1) or (2). If the hobbyist or provider declines to talk about money or a particular sex act, it's highly unlikely they'll be charged with prostitution. Only being in a place where prostitution may take place (such as your everyday Holiday Inn) isn't enough to be charged with prostitution -- there is no such thing as intent to commit prostitution. However, being at a place where prostitution is notorious and ongoing -- Harry Hines Boulevard is the obvious example in Dallas -- could lead one to be cited for manifestation of prostitution, a Class C misdemeanor / fine only offense.

[Likinikki]

Thanks for the info everyone! Never use an adjoining room!

[Maxx]

Originally Posted by Likinikki

Thanks for the info everyone! Never use an adjoining room!

Isn't that where Chris Hansen and John Stossel would hang out, in the adjoining room, until the appropriate moment then surprise!

[Guest121212]

Actually, I believe the posters in this thread mean to say a conjoining room (a room connected via a door or other passage). Adjoining simply means they share a wall, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a passage between them. After a thirty minute miscommunication with a booking agent in India for an online hotel site, I finally realized that they train their staff to speak specifically, and I was making the same error, asking the agent for a non-adjoining room, when in fact I meant I did not want a conjoined room. That poor fellow in India kept telling me that all the rooms were next to each other and were adjoining. The agent escalated my call twice before the supervisor finally understood that a conjoining room is commonly referred to as an "adjoining room" in some areas of the US. That call was a nightmare, but using the word conjoining since has saved me time in other bookings and ensures that there is absolutely no misunderstanding with the hotel.

I don't mean to come off like a grammar bitch, I just thought I would pass it along so other ladies that travel might benefit from the tip.

Kisses,

- Jackie

[Bigh1955]

I've looked into this on several occassions - I'm a bit paranoid when it comes to this issue, as Jackie can attest.

The legality of recording is dependent on a number of issues: location and "ownership" of where the recordings are made factor heavily into the outcome in rights and/or expectation of privacy decisions. In a public forum of any sort there is no right to expect privacy. If a provider is in an outcall situation she/he has little or no right to expect privacy - legally as the location belongs to someone else. The opposite holds true in the case of incall for clients. In the case of hotels, if the owner or their designated representative express concern to the authorities that criminal activity is being conducted on their property, the requirement for a warrant is lessened or eliminated as they are the owners and give their permission. You may be renting the room, but that does not guarantee privacy if you are suspected of engaging in criminal activity. BTW, conjoining rooms aren't needed to walk in on you. Every guestroom can be accessed in a hotel even if the security bar or chain is locked. Duplicate electronic keys are easily made and for safety and security reasons the hotels have special devices to open the security locks. I've seen it done...it took about 5 seconds.