Interesting Case I viewed on COPS.

I don't know if in this particular case was based on the officers discretion or if was simply the law. Here's how the case went:

A gentleman picks up 2 street walkers that are prostitutes- one of them makes a deal with him while they are both in his car- while he's distracted one steals his wallet. Once he discovers that his wallet is stolen- they both jump out of the car and take off.

He calls the Cops and they locate the ladies- the cops get both sides of the story and fearing arrest one of the ladies gives back the money she stole. Also,both ladies when questioned by the officer admit they were trying to turn a "trick" and ended up robbing him- so this is a no brainer that both ladies get arrested for robbery and prostitution.


Now, you think it's over guy gets his wallet/money returned and everyone goes home(except the ladies of course) the police office than ask the guy what was your plan- he says Yes he was flagged down by the ladies and they asked if he wanted to "play" and he agreed- the officer than arrested him for solicitation.


Now here's my question- a lot of times we get alerts when either a client robs a provider or when a provider robs a client. Are both people fucked if the law is involved.
Let's say a provider is robbed by a client and she calls the police- the police apprehends the client and then the police ask what was going down- if the lady mentions that she's a provider and the client was supposed to pay a certain fee and he didn't does that automatically force the police to arrest the provider for solicitation- or if a hobbyist gets robbed by an escort and calls the police and if tells the police well I was paying for 1 hour of sex and she robbed me before anything happened- will that automatically force the police officer to arrest the hobbyist even though he was the victim?

In any case if someone with a law background can add some insight. I guess each case isn't Black and White and there's a lot of grey area, but I think a lot times in these alerts when providers or hobbyist or robbed they fear calling the law because they might incriminate themselves by brining up the nature of this business.

Good question.

Moral of the story.....Never talk to the police!


"Snitches get Stitches!"

Good question.

Moral of the story.....Never talk to the police!


"Snitches get Stitches!" Originally Posted by KRiggins

Yes, but I am looking at if from a victims point of view. Do we all see well if get ripped off in this business- do we strike it up as a loss and just forget about contact the police?

Solicitation is pretty difficult to definitively prove unless you're caught in the act (in person or on camera/tape) or unless you admit to it, which it sounds like this guy did. Even though the cops here have the girls admitting they're prostitutes, admitting they were trying to turn a trick on this guy, the guy's wallet is in their possession, and even though every single cop would bet their salary that the guy had solicited them for prostitution....until he got that confession from the guy they really had nothing on him, and it'd be too much of a pain in the ass trying to prove anything against him.

The best way to avoid incriminating yourself while reporting a robbery (outside of biting the bullet on that $50 the streetwalker just swiped from you and not calling to cops) is just to be as vague as possible. Cop asks why the young lady that stole your wallet was in your house, just tell them she was supposed to do some work in your home, or something to that effect. Certain code words -- "play" and "trick" for sure -- are just as good as directly telling the officer you intended to pay that nice young lady for a blowjob.

Remember, you're rarely (if ever) under any obligation to give information to the police, no matter how hard they press, and you have no 6th Amendment rights until you're being "detained"...until then, cops can do whatever the hell they want to to get information out of you. But, again, you don't have to give it to them.

Solicitation is pretty difficult to definitively prove unless you're caught in the act (in person or on camera/tape) or unless you admit to it, which it sounds like this guy did. Even though the cops here have the girls admitting they're prostitutes, admitting they were trying to turn a trick on this guy, the guy's wallet is in their possession, and even though every single cop would bet their salary that the guy had solicited them for prostitution....until he got that confession from the guy they really had nothing on him, and it'd be too much of a pain in the ass trying to prove anything against him.

The best way to avoid incriminating yourself while reporting a robbery (outside of biting the bullet on that $50 the streetwalker just swiped from you and not calling to cops) is just to be as vague as possible. Cop asks why the young lady that stole your wallet was in your house, just tell them she was supposed to do some work in your home, or something to that effect. Certain code words -- "play" and "trick" for sure -- are just as good as directly telling the officer you intended to pay that nice young lady for a blowjob.

Remember, you're rarely (if ever) under any obligation to give information to the police, no matter how hard they press, and you have no 6th Amendment rights until you're being "detained"...until then, cops can do whatever the hell they want to to get information out of you. But, again, you don't have to give it to them. Originally Posted by bradjbeale

Thanks for the info- but let's say a case where a provider has a agreed session for $250 and let's say the hobbyist doesn't pay or better yet he grabs the donation and runs out- if the provider calls the police- the police are going to ask questions- Who is this guy? Where do you know him from? What was the money for? It will be easy for the police to put 2 & 2 together and discover this was an act of solicitation that went sour- so since they both committed crimes- would the police officer be obligated to arrest both of them?

Thanks for the info- but let's say a case where a provider has a agreed session for $250 and let's say the hobbyist doesn't pay or better yet he grabs the donation and runs out- if the provider calls the police- the police are going to ask questions- Who is this guy? Where do you know him from? What was the money for? It will be easy for the police to put 2 & 2 together and discover this was an act of solicitation that went sour- so since they both committed crimes- would the police officer be obligated to arrest both of them? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The police being able to "put 2 & 2 together" means nothing without proof -- a confession or tape/video evidence. Otherwise it's a he-said-she-said deal that's really not worth their time.

Here's how I can see that specific situation you just laid out probably playing out if the provider admitted that the transaction was for sex: The cop would say that that was an illegal transaction and she didn't have a right to the money in the first place, so it's not robbery. They won't bother going after the guy and they'd only arrest the girl for prostitution if they really felt like being dicks, or were bored.

If the provider in the hypothetical you laid out wants to get her money out of the deal, she'd have to be vague in her description of events (because, again, you can be as specific or as vague as you want....just give them the basics) , then hope when/if they find the guy that he doesn't incriminate them both (which basically means the guy would have to make a choice between giving up the $250 or being jailed for solicitation.....which is a pretty easy choice to me).

]The police being able to "put 2 & 2 together" means nothing without proof[/COLOR] -- a confession or tape/video evidence. Otherwise it's a he-said-she-said deal that's really not worth their time.

Here's how I can see that specific situation you just laid out probably playing out if the provider admitted that the transaction was for sex: The cop would say that that was an illegal transaction and she didn't have a right to the money in the first place, so it's not robbery. They won't bother going after the guy and they'd only arrest the girl for prostitution if they really felt like being dicks, or were bored.

If the provider in the hypothetical you laid out wants to get her money out of the deal, she'd have to be vague in her description of events (because, again, you can be as specific or as vague as you want....just give them the basics) , then hope when/if they find the guy that he doesn't incriminate them both (which basically means the guy would have to make a choice between giving up the $250 or being jailed for solicitation.....which is a pretty easy choice to me). Originally Posted by bradjbeale;1056386343[COLOR="Red"

Gotcha thanks for clearing that info- I guess on the case I watched on the episodes of Cops had the man just said I was giving them a ride- he would have went home. Come to think of it that was the man's first defense and the police officer was like- hey they just told the other officer they were looking to turn a trick- tell me the truth were you looking for a "date"? And the man said Yes.

However , when you mention that police putting 2 & 2 together means nothing w/o proof- I beg to differ- for example a person standing in front of a car with a brick in their hand and the windshield is smashed- you best believe that even if he didn't say a word or they had no proof the cops would have enough evidence to take the person to jail.

In this case u are screwed no matter what u do. No win .

However , when you mention that police putting 2 & 2 together means nothing w/o proof- I beg to differ- for example a person standing in front of a car with a brick in their hand and the windshield is smashed- you best believe that even if I didn't say a word or they had no proof that the cops would have enough evidence to take the person to jail. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Well destroying someone's property is a completely different crime from solicitation. Solicitation is an intent crime, meaning to be guilty of it you must intend that the person solicited commit the crime (in this case, must intend that they have sex with you for money). That clear-cut proof of intent is difficult to come by absent a confession or other direct evidence. With destroying property the act alone is sufficient, so circumstantial evidence that a guy was standing next to a broken windshield with a brick in their hand can be used because it tends to prove that the guy smashed the windshield. Nothing else is needed.

Also, to clear up my previous post, if the provider didn't incriminate herself while reporting the stolen money and the guy was tracked down and questioned by police, he wouldn't get off scot-free if he just returned the money. I don't know off the top of my head if there's any amount requirement for being prosecuted for theft/robbery, but he'd probably be charged with something.

Well destroying someone's property is a completely different crime from solicitation. Solicitation is an intent crime, meaning to be guilty of it you must intend that the person solicited commit the crime (in this case, must intend that they have sex with you for money). That clear-cut proof of intent is difficult to come by absent a confession or other direct evidence. With destroying property the act alone is sufficient, so circumstantial evidence that a guy was standing next to a broken windshield with a brick in their hand can be used because it tends to prove that the guy smashed the windshield. Nothing else is needed.

Also, to clear up my previous post, if the provider didn't incriminate herself while reporting the stolen money and the guy was tracked down and questioned by police, he wouldn't get off scot-free if he just returned the money. I don't know off the top of my head if there's any amount requirement for being prosecuted for theft/robbery, but he'd probably be charged with something. Originally Posted by bradjbeale

Thanks bradjbeale- just curious are you an attorney? You answered those questions as a man who knows what he is talking about

Thanks bradjbeale- just curious are you an attorney? You answered those questions as a man who knows what he is talking about Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

No, I just play one on ECCIE!

I did go to law school though....just decided I'd rather be happy in life than be a lawyer

Also, to clear up my previous post, if the provider didn't incriminate herself while reporting the stolen money and the guy was tracked down and questioned by police, he wouldn't get off scot-free if he just returned the money. I don't know off the top of my head if there's any amount requirement for being prosecuted for theft/robbery, but he'd probably be charged with something. Originally Posted by bradjbeale

I have a different take.. in this hypothetical, I think the Cops would appreciate if the Provider was completely honest and told them she was soliciting, and the guy took back the money.. if she is vague, the Cops will know anyway, and will not pursue the guy.. the Cops understand that theft is a bigger deal than solicitation that can't be proved anyway.

of course, the Provider better not have warrants, those will be checked for.. and she must be prepared to go on the Officers' "list", if she is not on there already..

Would be interesting to hear a lawyer's take on this. I assume they did not read him his Miranda Rights before he admitted to soliciting these women (since he was just being interviewed and wasn't under arrest), so it's doubtful his "confession" would even be admissible.

Would be interesting to hear a lawyer's take on this. I assume they did not read him his Miranda Rights before he admitted to soliciting these women (since he was just being interviewed and wasn't under arrest), so it's doubtful his "confession" would even be admissible. Originally Posted by RideFreeInTexas

Miranda warnings only come into play in a "custodial interrogation" (when an accused is in police custody......not when the janitor is being questioned). Based on the OP's description of what happened, the guy definitely wasn't in custody, so Miranda warnings weren't required and his confession is admissible against himself.

Would be interesting to hear a lawyer's take on this. I assume they did not read him his Miranda Rights before he admitted to soliciting these women (since he was just being interviewed and wasn't under arrest), so it's doubtful his "confession" would even be admissible. Originally Posted by RideFreeInTexas

Depends on how much money and time he is willing to spend.