statute of limitations question

Is the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor 1 year in MO and 2 years in KS? Is that what applies to the hobby? So LE wouldn't really care about old reviews, right? I'm just curious about how this works. I figured that I'd stumble onto a thread about it but never did, so I started this thread.

Interesting question. You sound spooked.

You are correct on those limitations. To be honest with you I doubt that a review can be used to prosequte a customer because unless the provider actually gave testomony that an incident occured there is no way for the PD to prove its not a work of fiction.

I have absolutely no idea....but, I don't always sleep well thinking LE could not possibly convict based on reviews. Sure, they know that, but if their intention is to lean on you for information, and threaten charges (even if they know they won't get a conviction), there is no solace in statutes of limitations, etc....They'll just use the power of public humiliation.

The lawyers on the board might have more to add...maybe there are ways to stretch acts into the realm of felonies?

This is just all fiction and fantasy anyway.

IANAL

I think it's pretty unlikely to be busted for any "normal" hobby encounter for which you weren't "caught in the act" in some sense. The main risk of reviews is that it might mark you or the provider for investigation in the future.

It COULD happen, especially if they had, for instance, been videotaping inside an incall, etc.

Unless they think you're the organizer, pimp, dealer, Governor of New York, celebrity, public official, etc., I doubt they'd bother for an after the fact arrest.

It's pretty unlikely to be prosecuted simply on the basis of a review. You might get harassed or blackmailed (legal or illegal) by the cops.

Crew, I guess I just have more experience dealing with LE. After you have been threatened by the FBI and the ATF you learn most of the time there full of shit. But as master Dennis always said, the first time they contact you in anyway you refer them to your attorny, 99% of the time you will never hear from them again because they know you have nothing. Remember one thing when dealing with LE, its not what they know, its what they can prove and a vast majority of the time they cant prove shit unless you help them prove it with your tongue.

Talking with someone who went through it, if they are prosecuting you for having been caught doing something (besides reviews), then the prosecutor might try to use reviews to show a pattern of behavior to attempt to increase your penalty. A good attorney can get past it, but why make it more difficult for him (and more expensive for you)?

Interesting question. You sound spooked. Originally Posted by 6ULDV8

Nope. I was just curious.

I read some stuff on another forum about SWs and the "anything in your car/house/hotel room is considered yours" risk and was trying to take a fresh look at all of the different risks. Those guys post pics of SWs too. I don't know if you can do that because they're partially nude...but they ARE in public. So fair game, right?

Just because someone is out in public doesn't they're fair game. If that's the case, then anyone out in public can have their picture taken and put up on ANY site.

I think there is a distinction between 'famous' people and 'non-famous' people. So the paparazzi can publish photos of Julia Roberts grocery shopping, but not of an unknown person. The lawyers may chime in and correct me though.

Here's one legal opinion I found online. It does not address nudity or an individual portrait, though. It seems to matter whether it is considered news:

http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questio...ed-107050420/a

==========================

Publishing photos of people without their permission

I have prepared a color brochure to market casino parties in Florida. On the brochure I am planning on using still shots taken of people at a recent casino party. Gambling is not allowed in Florida. This is merely a recreational, no-money-involved endeavor. My question is: Must I get permission from all the people appearing in these photos in order to use the pictures on the brochure? Or is it within the law to show photos of people having fun around a mock gaming table without having them sign a release?

Thanks for your opinion!

=== ANSWER ===

Generally, people in public places have no legitimate protection if their photograph is taken as part of a larger photograph. News photos of a disaster, for example, do not require a release from every person appearing in them.

The use of an individual's likeness in a photograph being exploited for commercial purposes may well be a different story. In this event a release is probably required.

Due to the sensitive nature of the photographs you describe, you would be best advised to obtain releases from those identifiable in them to avoid future litigation if you use them commercially.

Just because someone is out in public doesn't they're fair game. If that's the case, then anyone out in public can have their picture taken and put up on ANY site. Originally Posted by MsElena

They CAN do that now.

They CAN do that now. Originally Posted by swarmyone

Yes, someone can CHOOSE to have their picture published online.

The question is whether someone's picture can be published without permission.

Yes, someone can CHOOSE to have their picture published online.

The question is whether someone's picture can be published without permission. Originally Posted by BiggestBest

I could, if I wanted to, snap pictures of anybody in public and post them on the web, as long as I don't use them for commercial purposes. There are guys out there who snap pictures of girls in public places (i.e. cheerleaders at a football game, women sunbathing in the park, etc.) and then post them on various websites to share with other pervs. Creepy? Absolutely! Legal? Yep.