Racial discrimination defense?

First off, I know this won't stop anyone from being arrested, but I was wondering if the implications of NBA/No AA policies in sting ads has been explored here. It may not change the elements needed for a successful prostitution conviction, but would it expose police to civil rights lawsuits?

Would a couple of successful lawsuits make it so that police are unable to put "No AA" in the ads that they place to feed their stings? Would hobbyists then be able to look for "No AA" to know it was not a sting?

Perusing BP, I see many, many ads that exclude an entire race. Surely none of those are police stings, intentionally arresting everyone except African Americans?

First off, I know this won't stop anyone from being arrested, but I was wondering if the implications of NBA/No AA policies in sting ads has been explored here. It may not change the elements needed for a successful prostitution conviction, but would it expose police to civil rights lawsuits?

Would a couple of successful lawsuits make it so that police are unable to put "No AA" in the ads that they place to feed their stings? Would hobbyists then be able to look for "No AA" to know it was not a sting?

Perusing BP, I see many, many ads that exclude an entire race. Surely none of those are police stings, intentionally arresting everyone except African Americans? Originally Posted by Crock

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

I've actually been wondering the same thing. I'm inclined to think that police/DA would have a hard time explaining targeting (or excluding) a specific group in a sting ad.

I'm not sure if they could circumvent the issue by proving they placed several parallel ads including and/or excluding different groups. I've also been curious about age discrimination.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts about this.

So you *want* LE to place ads allowing AA's, and bust them too?

So you *want* LE to place ads allowing AA's, and bust them too? Originally Posted by Charlie Angel

Um, no. But it's a great legal question. Can an add excluding a whole group (thus seeming to target another), hold up in court as a valid sting tactic.

Crock, I did a little Internet research but didn't see anything exactly on point...I'll keep looking. Hope someone else who is knowledgable will chime in with other thoughts or answers.

The question assumes that LE posts ads with a "no African-American men" disclaimer. I think that's probably a false assumption. Why exclude a whole category of men from the sting?

I guess one could argue the reverse and contend that if an ad DOES state "no African-American men" that would mean it's more likely the poster is NOT LE, but I wouldn't rely on that.

As for suing the government, that's usually not the best idea. Government entities and employees are largely immune from suit or liability, and even when they're not, there are caps on damages that can be recovered. I also doubt that many guys would want to file suit regarding their prostitution bust. To have standing to sue, the plaintiff would have to have been arrested. Also, such a suit would be based on selective prosecution, not racial discrimination.

The question assumes that LE posts ads with a "no African-American men" disclaimer. I think that's probably a false assumption. Why exclude a whole category of men from the sting?

I guess one could argue the reverse and contend that if an ad DOES state "no African-American men" that would mean it's more likely the poster is NOT LE, but I wouldn't rely on that.

As for suing the government, that's usually not the best idea. Government entities and employees are largely immune from suit or liability, and even when they're not, there are caps on damages that can be recovered. I also doubt that many guys would want to file suit regarding their prostitution bust. To have standing to sue, the plaintiff would have to have been arrested. Also, such a suit would be based on selective prosecution, not racial discrimination. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

It would certainly take one or more activist hobbyists willing to fight the case, but do you not think that this theory could ensure that "No AA" (or No whiteboys, or no Asians, or whatever) ads are NOT LE?

It would certainly take one or more activist hobbyists willing to fight the case, but do you not think that this theory could ensure that "No AA" (or No whiteboys, or no Asians, or whatever) ads are NOT LE? Originally Posted by Crock

Not necessarily. You and a couple buds get together, test the theory, and report back to us in a few years. Haha.

Are we comparing civil and criminal law here? You have to admit to criminal activity to win a civil case?

I could be wrong. Just asking.