Undercover officer full service?

[ame="http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=116097&postcoun t=40"]ECCIE - Your source for escort reviews - View Single Post - Arlington has put together a task force[/ame]

If I understood the OP correctly, a detective set an appointment, received full service from the provider, then returned to make the arrest.
[ame="http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=116128&postcoun t=41"]ECCIE - Your source for escort reviews - View Single Post - Arlington has put together a task force[/ame]

Doe this seem legally feasible? I realize that officers can sometimes break the law to make a case, but for a single prostitution bust?

Comments?

The bad act of the officer does not negate the alledged bad act of the provider. Like a cop is ever going to admit going all the way.
Just like they keep a little contraband here and there for themselves, if they think they can get away with some FS for free, of course they would take it.
Why would a cop become a vice cop in the first place? They like that shit (vices). They like to go against the grain and grow a beard, get tats, and get paid to partake in the very vices they bust people for all under the guise of somebody has to do it to make the streets safer.

Why do people believe these ridiculous things. Police are able to commit any crime in the process of an investigation. The only limits are those imposed by their agency or department or the local DA with regards to what is acceptable.

If police set an appointment and want to go FS, they can as long as department policy permits it.

Why do people believe these ridiculous things. Police are able to commit any crime in the process of an investigation. The only limits are those imposed by their agency or department or the local DA with regards to what is acceptable.
Originally Posted by AustinBusinessTraveler

The police doesn't set the standard, nor does the DA. They can only *try* to get away with it, and hope the jury believes that the cop is telling the truth that he didn't go all the way, and the escort is lying that he did.

But I bet you that if an escort had taped a session and is able to produce it as proof that the deed was indeed done, the case doesn't go to trial. No DA in his right mind will prosecute the case where his star wittness is guilty of the same moral turpitude that the perp is accused of enabling. This has nothing to do with entrapment, and has everything to do with morality, as perceived by the jury.

You are missing the point. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the officer receives full service. It is completely legal in the course of investigation (i.e. dealing drugs in order to do a full investigation). If anything, the providers video showing her having sex in exchange for money makes the case open and shut.

The DA, department, or agency set the limits of what is acceptable by their officers (often in line with their beliefs or what they believe the standard of the community to be). As it has been said many times (and even is mentioned in videos by the Sex Workers Outreach Program), police can complete a full service session, get their jollies off and still prosecute the case.

You are missing the point. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the officer receives full service. It is completely legal in the course of investigation (i.e. dealing drugs in order to do a full investigation). Originally Posted by AustinBusinessTraveler

No, your example is COMPLETELY WRONG. Performing an illegal act (sex) while investigating a legal profession (escorting) is akin to doing drugs in the course of investigation. Now look me in the eye (electronically speaking) and tell me that a jury would be sympathetic to a cop who on the witness stand says that he shot heroin while doing undercover drug investigaion.

You are missing the point. IT DOES If anything, the providers video showing her having sex in exchange for money makes the case open and shut. Originally Posted by AustinBusinessTraveler

Far from it. If you read transcripts from investigation that lead to arrest of Vivian and a few of her escorts a couple of years ago, you'd see that undercover agent always describes the visit in detail - except that he makede a point to stop short of admitting that there were any actual sex acts performed. In the transcript, the cop ALWAYS stopped the escort when she touches his penis. There is a reason for that - if cops thought that DA was OK with it, they'd have put it in there. If DA thought that a nice, conservative jury would be OK with it, he'd approve of it.

You are missing the point. IT DOES The DA, department, or agency set the limits of what is acceptable by their officers (often in line with their beliefs or what they believe the standard of the community to be). As it has been said many times (and even is mentioned in videos by the Sex Workers Outreach Program), police can complete a full service session, get their jollies off and still prosecute the case. Originally Posted by AustinBusinessTraveler

They can only do so because local community is not challenging them. And the local community is not challenging them because most of those cases don't go to trial. And most of those cases don't go to trial because of the trumped up charges by the DA that get pleaded down. HOWEVER, every now and then we hear about a case that does go to trial in the local community that does make the locals take notice of the fact that the officer most likely broke the law. There was one in a smaller town I think in Texas a few years ago, and it did not go over well, especially for the arresting officer. I am sorry I can't provide the link, I am quoting from memory.

The police doesn't set the standard, nor does the DA. They can only *try* to get away with it, and hope the jury believes that the cop is telling the truth that he didn't go all the way, and the escort is lying that he did.

But I bet you that if an escort had taped a session and is able to produce it as proof that the deed was indeed done, the case doesn't go to trial. No DA in his right mind will prosecute the case where his star wittness is guilty of the same moral turpitude that the perp is accused of enabling. This has nothing to do with entrapment, and has everything to do with morality, as perceived by the jury. Originally Posted by obiwansalami

Happened at a spa. Security cameras that relayed the images to the owners computer ans where then stored on his hard drive caught a cop doing the deed and then busting the girl.
Case got dropped when the video was produced. Not because the girl was not guilty, hell, the tape would have sealed her conviction. The DA/department did not want the embarassment over what had happened versus a slam dunk misdemeanor bust.
This story was in a legit newspaper, i wish I still had the link and details.

I remember the case Obiwan is talking about. Some one horse town. The cop admitted he participated in FS. The DA "looked" into the departments procedures and that was about it.

So, would IA get involved in these types of cases?

So, would IA get involved in these types of cases? Originally Posted by Likinikki

It all depends on the department.

I think some cities allow and tolerate it, and others wouldn't.

I used to live in Chicago where the the police are as crooked as a 3 dollar bill. Everyone knows that cops plant evidence, lie, etc... in a lot of places. I know not all cops are crooked but they do exist.

Can cops lie to get a conviction? YES! People say when a cop lies it is entrapment. Entrapment is when a cop coerces a person to break the law who is not already breaking the law. So if a cop promised you money if you broke the law, and you were not already breaking the law, that is entrapment.

As to whether a cop can participate in FS or use drugs etc.. for a case the answer is YES. Again it depends on the Department and the DA. In some places this would not fly at all. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They only have to prove that the person on trial committed a crime. If it comes up in court that the officer broke the law for the case, it would not be considered material to the case and struck from the record. It could raise some eyebrows, but the general public wont care if they are catching those that are considered to be breaking the law.

There have been some specific examples here on both sides, but the reality is that each municipality and police agency are different.

Example. The medicinal MJ laws in California. It is legal on a state level in Cali, so state and local police do not prosecute people who "play the game". However the DEA was instructed under the Bush Regime to ignore the state law and enforce the federal law and investigate and prosecute all possession and sells.

So if a local police dept doesn't allow the FS but a state or federal agency took an interest in a spa, parlor, etc.. they would do whatever they want. The jury is trying a case against the accused. The state officer operates under a higher jurisdiction than the DA, and a federal officer higher than the Attorney General.

I am interested in law, I read about law as a hobby. I am NOT a lawyer, so take everything above with that caveat.

I remember the case Obiwan is talking about. Some one horse town. The cop admitted he participated in FS. The DA "looked" into the departments procedures and that was about it. Originally Posted by Dstorm

Yes, but what happened at the trial is far more interesting: the cop said that he was "so distressed that he had to have sex with a prostitute to prove the case that he could not cum". Now why would he say that? Because he has a Mrs. to come home to after the trial, and every newspaper in the state of Texas (and some nationwide) reported that story.

Remember this: having sex with prostitutes with taxpayers money is a dream job for every undercover agent. They won't give those tough cases to young, single studs who just joined the force - noooo, this requires a brave man with the most tenure, who most lilely also has the ugliest, bitchiest wife at home. It's all nice and dandy for our undercover her UNTILL he's called to the stand where he has to reveal his state sponsored infidelity and drive back home to one very pissed off wife. That's why he had to lie about not cumming - to save his marriage.

Have enough of those trials, and soon enough the police chief WILL reverse the policy he crafted because nobody on the force in his right mind would be willing to trade several state sponosored sessions with a prostitute for having the half of their net worth taken away and seeing the kids every other weekend.

Yes, but what happened at the trial is far more interesting: the cop said that he was "so distressed that he had to have sex with a prostitute to prove the case that he could not cum". Now why would he say that? Because he has a Mrs. to come home to after the trial, and every newspaper in the state of Texas (and some nationwide) reported that story.

Remember this: having sex with prostitutes with taxpayers money is a dream job for every undercover agent. They won't give those tough cases to young, single studs who just joined the force - noooo, this requires a brave man with the most tenure, who most lilely also has the ugliest, bitchiest wife at home. It's all nice and dandy for our undercover her UNTILL he's called to the stand where he has to reveal his state sponsored infidelity and drive back home to one very pissed off wife. That's why he had to lie about not cumming - to save his marriage.

Have enough of those trials, and soon enough the police chief WILL reverse the policy he crafted because nobody on the force in his right mind would be willing to trade several state sponosored sessions with a prostitute for having the half of their net worth taken away and seeing the kids every other weekend. Originally Posted by obiwansalami

Ha, ha! I remember the not cumming part. Like that makes it all better.

I don't know if we're talking about the same case, Obiwan, but at least one U/C cop claims that his superiors instructed him to engage in FS to make the felony case:

Suspended cop: Sex with prostitute wasn't fun, it was work

Yes, he had an orgasm. No, he didn't enjoy it. It was a job.

I can tell you without a doubt that LE officials who are working undercover can and do participate in illegal activities including receiving FS from prostitutes. Do the cases always make it to trial? No... Why is that? Because LE and DA most often allow the persons who are busted to plea to lesser charges or a lighter sentence. When someone is arrested under those circumstances they are often coerced into believing the state has an open and closed case so they give in. The prosecution of cases involving prostitution (say that three times quickly) are not a high priority for police or DA's offices. Most often they are a way to make the department look good in the eyes of Jane public. They want to give people a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that their LE officials are out protecting the morality of the city. A police officer can lie to you and say he is not a cop. A police officer can participate in any illegal activity they wish. Some depatments set limits others do not, but ultimately is is the officers word against "the bad guy". Do you honestly think a jury gives a flip whether the cop did something illegal? Criminal trials of any type are not won based on evidence. They are won and lost based on how well both attorneys present their cases. People working in DA office are in a temporary position looking to make a name for themselves so they can move on to make "the big bucks". They dont want to go to trial on cases they might lose so they make deals. Our justice system is a complete sham. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". Nor is there any moral lines that police officers hold themselves above. A vice cop has a badge that allows them to get away with just about aything they want to.

I don't know if we're talking about the same case, Obiwan, but at least one U/C cop claims that his superiors instructed him to engage in FS to make the felony case:

Suspended cop: Sex with prostitute wasn't fun, it was work

Yes, he had an orgasm. No, he didn't enjoy it. It was a job. Originally Posted by Sarcastro

Yup, that's the one. And there you have it for everybody to see: it's all about morality, and it works both ways: when a cop went public about his boss ordering him to have sex, everybody started backpedalling and covering their tracks. Why is that if the DA told them it's OK to do so? Because they know busting prostitutes IS about morality, and that the general public will look at the police committing both illegal and immoral things to get a conviction, and they won't like what they see.

I can tell you without a doubt that LE officials who are working undercover can and do participate in illegal activities including receiving FS from prostitutes. Do the cases always make it to trial? No... Why is that? Because LE and DA most often allow the persons who are busted to plea to lesser charges or a lighter sentence. . Originally Posted by DRAGON210

And why does DA allow that in most cases? Because what they're doing by pressing those charges in cases where cops did have sex with prostitutes is aking to pointing an empty gun at a robber armed with knife. Both parties are afraid of what's in that gun.

When someone is arrested under those circumstances they are often coerced into believing the state has an open and closed case so they give in. Originally Posted by DRAGON210

There's more to it than that. Americans are hardwired not to give in when they feel that their civil liberties are at stake. Standing up to the authority in court is viewed as a nobel cause akin to protecting the constitution for everybody's benefit. Generally, press coverage is sympathetic to the defendent, even if he loses. Standing up to the authority when morality is somehow on the trial brings no glory and dubious contribution to the well being of the society. General press coverage in those cases is not sympathetic to the defendent, even if he wins.