Proper Legal Procedure Question

An ex-cop from Texas one told me that in order for a prostitution bust to be valid, a prostitute has to specify a sexual act, quote the price for it, and the money has to change hands. Otherwise, a good attorney can get the case dismissed. If you can afford a good attorney. But who wants to invest all that money anyways, since prostitution is just a misdemeanor?

None the less, I am wondering if this "proper procedure" definition is exclusive to Texas. Does each state have it's own criteria for proper police procedure that makes a bust "legitimate"?

What the cop described to you may be what that cop's department wants to get before busting a gal, but that's not any sort of legal requirement before making an arrest. You can most certainly get arrested and convicted in Texas without all of that happening. So, assuming your cop friend is not completely talking out of his ass or describing what he tinks he remembers a buddy from the vice unit once told him years ago, what he is describing is a particular law enforcement agency's policy or guideline. Not only do policies or guidelines vary among LE agencies within a state and change every now and then within a single agency, but it's also not any sort of defense to a criminal charge that LE did not follow it's own internal policies or guidelines before arresting someone for prostitution.

+1 to Waldo.

As far as Texas is concerned, go read some of the stickied threads from Shyster Jon on this forum. I doubt most states are that different.

Besides, in those oft repeated words, you may be able to beat the charge, but you are still going to get the ride. And for most of us, by the time we have taken the ride, we are screwed beyond any hope.

An ex-cop from Texas one told me that in order for a prostitution bust to be valid, a prostitute has to specify a sexual act, quote the price for it, and the money has to change hands. Originally Posted by Deva Divine

That's false. A cop once told a provider his name was Billy Bob and he was a rodeo cowboy. That was a lie, too.

Under Texas law, a person can commit the offense of prostitution in any of four different ways:
(1) making an offer to engage in sexual conduct for a fee,
(2) accepting an offer to engage in sexual conduct for a fee,
(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.

Sure, the state's case would be stronger if the defendant specified a sexual act, quoted a price, and money changed hands. But the state need only prove one of those elements.

Otherwise, a good attorney can get the case dismissed. If you can afford a good attorney. But who wants to invest all that money anyways, since prostitution is just a misdemeanor? Originally Posted by Deva Divine

Yeah, what's up with that? Imagine a girl paying money to prevent a criminal conviction for prostitution being on her record when there are so many better things to do with your cash!

That's false. A cop once told a provider his name was Billy Bob and he was a rodeo cowboy. That was a lie, too.

Under Texas law, a person can commit the offense of prostitution in any of four different ways:
(1) making an offer to engage in sexual conduct for a fee,
(2) accepting an offer to engage in sexual conduct for a fee,
(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.

Sure, the state's case would be stronger if the defendant specified a sexual act, quoted a price, and money changed hands. But the state need only prove one of those elements.

Yeah, what's up with that? Imagine a girl paying money to prevent a criminal conviction for prostitution being on her record when there are so many better things to do with your cash! Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I know this is off topic, but reading your response made me wonder: wouldn't 1 above necessarily include everything in 3 above? In other words, what's the difference, if any, between "making an offer" and "soliciting a person?" Is 1 above, "making an offer," limited to the person to receive the fee and not apply to the person to pay the fee? That's the only possible distinction I see. Just curious.

I know this is off topic, but reading your response made me wonder: wouldn't 1 above necessarily include everything in 3 above? In other words, what's the difference, if any, between "making an offer" and "soliciting a person?" Is 1 above, "making an offer," limited to the person to receive the fee and not apply to the person to pay the fee? That's the only possible distinction I see. Just curious. Originally Posted by Waldo P. Emerson-Jones

What distinguishes no. 3 from no. 1 is that no. 3 is conduct performed in a public place.

That's false. A cop once told a provider his name was Billy Bob and he was a rodeo cowboy. That was a lie, too.

SJ...i just spit my wine all over my keyboard...you owe me!! (lol)

What distinguishes no. 3 from no. 1 is that no. 3 is conduct performed in a public place. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I realize no. 3 also requires conduct to be performed in a public place. But, if that's all, then no. 3 is superfluous because no. 1 already covers everything in no. 3. Usually, the law doesn't add extra specific provisions already covered by a more general one and courts strive to give meaning to every part of a law. So, that makes me think that there's a difference between "make an offer" and "solicit." But, maybe this is just a case of a meaningless, extra provision.

I realize no. 3 also requires conduct to be performed in a public place. But, if that's all, then no. 3 is superfluous because no. 1 already covers everything in no. 3. Usually, the law doesn't add extra specific provisions already covered by a more general one and courts strive to give meaning to every part of a law. So, that makes me think that there's a difference between "make an offer" and "solicit." But, maybe this is just a case of a meaningless, extra provision. Originally Posted by Waldo P. Emerson-Jones

A practical difference between no. 1 (making an offer) and no. 3 (solicitation in a public place) is the fact-finder would probably not require as specific a communication to find a provider guilty of solicitation versus making an offer.

For example, in a typical undercover bust, the cop entices the provider to discuss a particular sex act and the price (anal sex is common since many girls don't include that as part of their regular menu yet might consider it if the client paid extra). The cop tries to get the provider to discuss the act and the price before they meet (commonly on the phone), then again when they meet. If the provider falls for this ruse (and they often do), the state has a pretty good prostitution case.

By comparison, consider the context of solicitation. While an offer could take place on the phone, in an email or text, or in a home, a hotel, or another 'private' place, a classic case of solicitation involves a provocatively-dressed provider standing on a street corner in an area known for prostitution activity, such as Harry Hines Boulevard in Dallas.

(Here are a few images from movies that popped into my head. Bonus points if you can identify the movies.)

Jodie.jpgSwoosie.jpgJulia & Laura.jpg

In the context of solicitation, the provider's attire and where she is located may give her words added meaning that the words may not have in another context. For example, I think it would be possible for a jury to convict a provider if she was dressed in such a way and in such a location if she said to an undercover officer, "Wanna date for $100?" I would be skeptical that the DA could get a conviction from that utterance if it were made on the phone, for example.

Why may we require less specificity in a communication to prove solicitation? Because Mom and Pop don't want streetwalkers standing on the corner in their neighborhood. One might knock into you when you're on your way home from 7-11 with your Slurpee.

Wait a minute. Name the movies. I got the first one.

From left to right:

'Taxi Driver'
'The World According to Garp'
'Pretty Woman'

OK.. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I have always wondered something here. I was on a board in Michigan that was closed down. Anyways, I have always wondered about the "Legal Disclaimers" that some women put on their backpages ads or in their pictures. It normally looks like this:

"All donations are for time and companionship only. Anything else that may happen is between two or more consenting adults of legal age. By contacting me you agree that this is not an offer for prostitution and that you are not affiliated with any law enforcement agency."

Will that really protect any of our working girls here?

And no, I'm not affiliated with any law enforcement agency, I'm in the military.

Big_Sarge, OUT!

Big Sarge,

In Michigan or NY, I am not sure. In Texas, it is a waste of time. If anything, it would probably be looked upon by a juror, and pointed out by the prosecutor, that obviously the lady was fishing for a john. Read a few of Shyster Jon's threads, especially the ones he has in his signature line for a feel for the real world aspects.

SJ,

I had Taxi Driver and Pretty Woman, and recognized Robin Williams, but did not realize that the World According to Garp was in B&W. Of course, a few searches on google led me to the right titles.

I had Taxi Driver and Pretty Woman, and recognized Robin Williams, but did not realize that the World According to Garp was in B&W. Of course, a few searches on google led me to the right titles. Originally Posted by tigercat

'Garp' is in color. It's just the photo that is in black-and-white.

I agree with what tigercat wrote about disclaimers in provider ads. They're worthless as a defense to a charge of prostitution, at least under Texas state law.

Now in Oklahoma, things are different. Disclaimers work and hobbyists and providers are free to discuss particular sex acts and prices. In fact, prostitution is legal for our lucky brothers and sisters to the north. So get out there and raise a ruckus!

All cops know the law. They should become a lawyer when they retire.