To Catch A Cop - Wordsmithing the ad

[MartenWarner]

Call me weird if you like. Sometimes I like to play "Catch a Cop." That is, I read all the ads online and try to guess which could be cops in a sting and which are genuine postings. Perhaps many do that anyway if they are being cautious, but I just do it for fun - sort of like playing Sudoku. Again, call me weird.

Shyster John has already explained one method that is unreliable in his thread "Provider Ads --Do they negate criminal liability?" http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=495428 which explores what a provider can/cannot say for a disclaimer, but in this thread I explore LE and what they CANNOT SAY or CAN SAY in their ads.

On the question of legality, ability to make it through a trial and, finally, not get overturned on appeal, I have wondered about the ads where a provider states a racial preference or refusal to see a certain race.

We all know that LE is not supposed to racial profile and would that not be a twist on racial profiling if the LE posted an ad that said "No Black Men" or "Whites only?" In other words, can LE enforcement post an ad that targets a certain race OR refuses to include a race in their "artifice and stratagem"? If this were to be substantive, a provider may indicate that they are not LE by merely putting in her/his ad an ethnic group unlikely to be a customer anyway. "Please, NO ESKIMOS."

But, let's take this further into the homosexual area. LE does stings on "male prostitutes" and I've read through those ads as well. Those ads have preferences in them as to what sort of clients they'll see such as "No Bears" or "No Chubs," so I wondered if LE could put in their ads that they are targeting the hairless (I assume a "bear" is a hairy person) or the skinny. Here's something even more interesting, some ads specify penis size "must be hung," "special rates for the well endowed." Could a defense attorney object successfully, "Your honor my client was singled out because of his large penis and the law was not evenly applied to any males engaging in prostitution." (I am not a lawyer, but you get the direction I am going.)

Finally, I have to wonder about ads that highlight a specific service. Is LE being discriminatory by targeting those who only want a "HJ only" or any specific service? On the other hand, they may argue they are performing a public health service by targeting ads that offer "uncovered" services.

I guess this is getting long, and that should be enough food for thought.

Your comments and views are most welcomed.

[guest043013-2]

I want to see you argue racial discrimination in an appellate court because you were unfairly targetted as a white john.

Just in case you think that argument is going to hold any water, all the state has to do is provide data showing that the majority of johns arrested in any major metro area are non-whites.

Is LE likely to use statements in their ads for a sting that would cut out a portion of the demographics? Probably not. Can they do so and still bust your ass on a prostitution charge? Hell yes.

Best way to avoid getting busted on a prostitution charge? Don't do it. Period.

Second best way, only see well reviewed ladies with good reputations. There are a few other things that can lower your risks, such as see independents, do an outcall to your place (other risks associated with this), etc. Anytime you are the first to venture into the lair of the unknown, that dark dungeon of BP perhaps, you are putting your penis and yourself at risk. Do so at your own peril.

[MartenWarner]

Originally Posted by tigercat

I want to see you argue racial discrimination in an appellate court because you were unfairly targetted as a white john.

Think of the opposite. If the ad said "Blacks only," the NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center, Al Sharpton, etc. would be all over this sting as targeting blacks. They would accuse, accurately, that the police were targeting "minorities" and "African Americans," while they allowed the whites do it without prejudice. Personally, I don't see that as far fetched at all. The issue would be the defendant. Who would want to be famous for taking this to the Supreme Court?

[acp5762]

How many of those ads do you think you got right as being LE?

[MartenWarner]

Originally Posted by acp5762

How many of those ads do you think you got right as being LE?

Don't really know unless it's in the news or somebody post a warning or alert.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by MartenWarner

Don't really know unless it's in the news or somebody post a warning or alert.

Yea it would be tough to tell. But if an ad seems suspicious don't think twice about passing it up.

[TheAntichrist666]

If an ad sounds too good to be true, it is because it is.

[MartenWarner]

Thinking more, I went back for some additional research. Some ads say "Nobody under 30," or "Over 30 only." Would this qualify as age profiling or age discrimination? Can cops ignore 20-29 year olds and just go for the old guys?

[Lowboy77]

I always believed that the ads excluding certain groups because of age or race or whatever were less likely to be LE simply because they would be limiting their potential target group. They are after all just after numbers and quotas so I would think they would want as many calls as possible and disqualifying any potential "client" before they even call would just be counter productive to them. Just my thoughts.

[bartipero]

Doesn't matter, the law us clear, the cops can lie and do that which is illegal to catch a criminal. Ever heard of a controlled buy in a drug bust, or masquerading as a prostitute, or lying to get information, or participating in undercover activities. So long as it isn't entrapment, which is essentially putting the idea and instrumentality of a crime in place or carry it out, they can do illegal stuff, including limiting their target class on an occasional basis.

[MartenWarner]

Originally Posted by bartipero

Doesn't matter, the law us clear, the cops can lie and do that which is illegal to catch a criminal. Ever heard of a controlled buy in a drug bust, or masquerading as a prostitute, or lying to get information, or participating in undercover activities. So long as it isn't entrapment, which is essentially putting the idea and instrumentality of a crime in place or carry it out, they can do illegal stuff, including limiting their target class on an occasional basis.

Shyster John, and even a Shyster-Class person I know, said cops can arrest you for anything until they are challenged and even if they do arrest you, how well it will hold up in court is a different matter.

To your point, cops can lie about most everything except one thing: they can't lie and say they are an attorney representing you. But, that didn't stop a central Florida LE agency. They tried to round up fugitives by calling them and saying they were attorneys who represented them in a class action lawsuit and needed them to come collect their awards from the court. Guess what? A judge set them all free.

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by MartenWarner

Shyster John, and even a Shyster-Class person I know, said cops can arrest you for anything until they are challenged and even if they do arrest you, how well it will hold up in court is a different matter.

To your point, cops can lie about most everything except one thing: they can't lie and say they are an attorney representing you. But, that didn't stop a central Florida LE agency. They tried to round up fugitives by calling them and saying they were attorneys who represented them in a class action lawsuit and needed them to come collect their awards from the court. Guess what? A judge set them all free.

Marten, that judge may have set them free, but I think that ploy has successfully been used elsewhere.

Besides, they are still a fugitive. They still have outstanding warrants. Cops now know a bit more information about them and can go re-arrest them.

Do you have a link to that story?

[Waldo P. Emerson-Jones]

I actually think the OP raises an interesting question. Although I am a lawyer, I'm not a criminal or constitutional lawyer, so I really don't know the answers but have a few thoughts.

1. Equal protection law depends a lot on what class or group is allegedly being discriminated against. Certain categories, like race, get strict scrutiny and I believe require a compelling government justification to uphold. Others, like sex discrimination and maybe age discrimination, I believe, get intermediate level scrutiny and need something like a substantial justification. Most, like penis size or back hair, get minimal scrutiny and basically any proffered reason is good enough.

2. I think if there were evidence that the government was targeting a particular race(s) for prostitution arrests, then this well could raise an equal protection issue. I'd go so far to say that it would be a likely violation, based on my off the cuff opinion.

3. For something like targeting only guys who had a big dick or hairy backs or only wanting hand jobs, since none of those are protected classes, I'm confident that they wouldn't be illegal.

4. I'm not sure about ads targeting only homosexuals or only heterosexuals or only guys over 35. I suspect the government could provide some basis for doing it that way that would pass muster.

5. Even if you could show that a particular ad was an equal protection violation, I'm not sure what the remedy is. Does your case get dismissed, are you entitled to an injunction against future ads targeting that group, do you only have a claim for monetary damages?

6. As a practical matter, most of what I've written above is largely irrelevant. That's because if you get arrested for prostitution in response to an online ad targeting a particular group, it's going to be a helluva lot more expensive and time consuming fighting johnny law on constitutional grounds than it would be making a plea bargain. This is also one reason why I'd be surprised if there's any case law on point.

7. Even more to the point, regardless whether or not it's OK from a legal standpoint, is LE in reality less likely to use a particular ad because of a potential equal protection issue? If there ever were evidence that LE online stings were ineffective because they lacked language limiting their clientel to whites, then maybe they'd try it. As it is, race is such a sensitive subject, I would suspect that LE actually is less likely to use an ad specifically saying "no blacks" or some such language. I seriously doubt LE refrains from targeting only men, or only homosexuals, or only guys with big dicks because of any possible legal concerns--I suspect they wouldn't even think about that. Of course, on this, you need the opinion of an LE guy with vice experienced, rather than a lawyer. And, considering there are hundreds if not thousands of different LE agencies across the country, I wouldn't rely too much on even an LE guy with experience to give a reliable answer.

Anyway, I do think it's a somewhat interesting question, but mostly from an academic perspective. The one exception might be ads targeting or excluding particular races--I do suspect those are much less likely to be LE, although I am far from certain. I still think your best bet to avoid LE is to stick with reviewed providers rather than the way an ad is worded.

[awl4knot]

Guys, I don't recollect ever seeing so much mental effort wasted on such a useless topic. Yes. Marten, you are weird.

LE planted ads are intentionally benign. They never have nude photos so they won't offend jurors if there is a trial. They don't discuss sexual activities and they don't list prices. Why? Because they want the John to do the solicitation so there is no claim of entrapment. And they don't say things like "no urban gentlemen." Why, because it could offend an "urban" juror and LE is happy to pop "urban" guys as well as suburban schmoes.

Now you can go back to writing your hypothetical law school exam questions about topics no practical lawyer worries about.

[MartenWarner]

Originally Posted by awl4knot

Now you can go back to writing your hypothetical law school exam questions about topics no practical lawyer worries about.

An you're an unworried practical lawyer I presume.