Lawrence v Texas- Cops cannot set up escort sting without warrant!!

“JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. “

- LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.

Police officers cannot come to purchase escort services from an escort in a hotel room or home without a warrant. The warrant must have a probable cause affidavit of a crime committed attached to it.


Police officers cannot sting Johns in hotel room without a warrant. The court is clear that “dwelling” and “other private places” are protected from unwarranted government intrusion.
Setting up sting shop without a warrant in a hotel room, motel room, apartment, or home is unwarranted government intrusion into private dwelling. Government occupying private dwelling without a warrant is a violation of the liberty granted by Lawrence v Texas. No warrant. No sting in private dwellings!!

“ {¶ 3} In his single assignment of error, Green contends that because the solicitation statute is unconstitutional, the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the solicitation charge. Green argues that the liberty component of the Due Process Clause protects the act of consenting adults engaging in sexual activity for hire; i.e., prostitution, and, therefore, the solicitation of another adult to engage in prostitution is a fundamental right that may not constitutionally be prohibited by the state. We are unpersuaded. “
- State v Green 989 N.E.2d 1088 (2013)

“{¶ 5} R.C. 2907.24(A) provides that “[n]o person shall solicit another to engage with such other person in sexual activity for hire.”

-State v Green 989 N.E.2d 1088 (2013)

The defendant may not know that Ohio prostitution law require soliciting a two person to engage in a threesome to be a crime. What happen in State v Green, the defendant pleaded no contest to the charges. By pleading no contest, he admitted to soliciting for a threesome. He only challenged Ohio prostitution law on the grounds it violate his constitutional rights under Lawrence v Texas. He did not raise his constitutional right to purchase sex work.



Sex work and prostitution are two different types of activities. Sex work involves only two people. Prostitution involves three or more persons.

The appeals court cannot give him the constitutional right under Lawrence v Texas because Lawrence v. Texas does not involve prostitution. In Ohio, Lawrence v Texas doesn’t apply to paying for a threesome.

A problem arises when someone challenge the prostitution statutes using Lawrence v Texas is that they don’t contest they are not engaging in prostitution and there was no threesome in the act they are seeking remedies. If they were charged with a crime of prostitution, they did not refute the threesome in states that requires threesome in their prostitution law. By saying they understand the charge, they are agreeing that they solicited for a threesome. The word “understand” means “under” and “stand.”

Lawrence v Texas involves two consenting adults in private to engaging in sex acts that is common to homosexual lifestyle; bl** job and anal intercourse. It doesn’t involve threesomes or threesome for pay; prostitution.

The courts cannot give the remedy under Lawrence v Texas to a person engaging in prostitution; threesomes or group sex for pay. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court state that it doesn’t involve prostitution. The courts can only give remedy under Lawrence v Texas to two consenting adults engaging in private sex act.
A person engaging in sex work for pay is eligible to receive remedies under Lawrence v. Texas.
A federal question is “Do Lawrence v Texas covers sex work in private with reasonable restriction?” Reasonable restriction is the city, town, or county power limits the amount of clients the sex worker can serve in a day.
The constitutional right to engage in sex work has never been challenged using Lawrence v. Texas up to this time.

Word Usage for “other” and “another”

“Another adj. Additional. A second, extra, one more, supplemental, distinct, distinct, separate, variant.”
-West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary by William Statsky

If "other" is used in the sentence, then the hobbyist is the first and the provider is the second.
If "another" is used in the sentence, the hobbyist is the first, the provider is the second, and the porn star is the third.
Another is equal to others in the context of three. Others is not specific and can mean more than three parties involved. Another can only means three parties involved.
All prostitution statutes are written for commerce. In order to be commerce there must be three or more people involved. Two people cannot create commerce. That is how the courts were able to rule that the relationship between sugar baby or sugar daddy is noncommercial.

“Laws prohibiting or regulating prostitution and activities facilitating or otherwise related to prostitution have been enacted in order to outlaw commercial sexual conduct.”

-73 C.J.S. Prostitution and Related Offenses § 1

This decision is about 10 years old. I don't think people realize this right before I said something.

This decision define "liberty" that is found in the fourteenth amendment. One of the liberties we have is to go to a private dwelling or be in our own private dwelling with no unwarranted intrusion by the government.

You have the constitutional right to go to an escort session without government listening in your conversation, undercover officer posing as an escort, or videotaping you.

If they want to do such things, they need a warrant from a judge.

The constitutional right is given to no government intrusion in dwellings and other private places by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas. The only way the government can take away this right is by due process of law; a warrant.

What kind of warrant? A search warrant would be to search for evidence of a crime, but in your example no crime had been committed prior to the search. An arrest warrant has to articulate probable cause that a crime has been committed not that one may be committed. Why can't the government videotape you committing a crime without a warrant? They can and do. The police do not need a warrant to set up a camera to record an undercover drug purchase.

In Texas it does not require three people to commit prostitution. I don't agree with your legal analysis. Please explain further so that you don't recklessly lead someone into thinking they have a legal way out when in fact they don't. Are you an attorney---you are quoting laws so you should make it clear whether or not you have the training to do so or are just offering a laypersons explanation. You sound like you have a little bit of knowledge, but you are way off at least in regards to Texas law. Lawrence had nothing to do with prostitution, but with the constitutionality of the "deviant" sex statute.

I NEVER claim there is a legal loophole in Texas Statutes. I wrote a fictional story about how the statutes CAN BE interpreted. NOT how it should be interpreted. Texas Prostitution Statutes is one of the most confusing prostitution statutes and I am NOT going to make a claim on the right way to interpret it.

That is not my job to determine what type of warrant the police need to do the sting. That is the prosecutor’s job. I cannot give legal advice to the police because I did not interview the police.
Lawrence v Texas gave the constitutional right to be secure in the PRIVATE DWELLINGS or OTHER PRIVATE PLACES against unwarranted government intrusion. Liberty is defined in the 14th amendment and based Lawrence v Texas as THE RIGHT TO BE SECURED IN PRIVATE DWELLINGS AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTIES. If the government wants to remove the liberty, they have to do it by due process of law. Getting a warrant is the procedure for due process of law.

Government cannot obtain evidence without a warrant on private dwellings or other private places. This right may not extend to massage parlor because they are a business and not a private dwelling.

Even if the escort did NOT state “NO LEO” in the advertisement doesn’t give the government the right to deprive life, liberty, or property without due process of law. An individual implied consent is NOT due process of law.

If someone witness that the escort is committing an act of prostitution, then they can file a complaint with the police. If the police have the complaint, the officer can obtain a warrant from the court to enter into a private dwelling of an escort to do the sting.

Lawrence v Texas did not legalize prostitution. Besides legalizing sodomy, it gave the constitutional right to be secure in private dwellings or private places without government intrusion. Doesn’t matter for what crime.

The judge is the best source of legal answer on how the statutes should be interpreted. If you looking for answer on how Texas Prostitution Statutes should be interpreted, get a case before the judge. Then you can ask state questions on how this statute should be interpreted. The courts can only give you answers based on what you give it.

The judge is the best source of legal answer on how the statutes should be interpreted. If you looking for answer on how Texas Prostitution Statutes should be interpreted, get a case before the judge. Then you can ask state questions on how this statute should be interpreted. The courts can only give you answers based on what you give it. [/SIZE] Originally Posted by frontman667

We know how Texas prostitution laws are interpreted and you aren't anywhere in the area code. Why do you post such erroneous info?

That why people don't get justice. At least a live man who is charged should ask the question on who is the "person" and who is the "actor." Is the person and the actor responsible? Is only one responsible?
Tell me how it is erroneous. Are we allowed to discuss different ideas? You should discuss it with your attorney and get back with me. I am curious to know how attorneys interpret the law. Ask the attorney who is the “actor” and who is the “person.”
So you like Texas Prostitution Law. You want to keep it a crime don't you. You don't want people to ask questions. This board is NOT substitution for legal advice. If you want legal advice, talk to an attorney.
Without a discussion and knowledge, sometimes people don't know how to ask the right questions.

We know how Texas prostitution laws are interpreted and you aren't anywhere in the area code. Why do you post such erroneous info? Originally Posted by 1980saguy

Law is discovered base on questioning and reasoning. There is no evolution to the law when no one question and accept the usual. What if Lawrence did not question the sodomy law in Texas? The law will be on the books. Because he questioned the law, that why we have greater freedom.

Since you live in the zip code, why don't you give me your version of Texas Prostitution law. Tell me how my fictional fantasy is wrong. I would like to see your logic.

That why people don't get justice. At least a live man who is charged should ask the question on who is the "person" and who is the "actor." Is the person and the actor responsible? Is only one responsible?
Tell me how it is erroneous. Are we allowed to discuss different ideas? You should discuss it with your attorney and get back with me. I am curious to know how attorneys interpret the law. Ask the attorney who is the “actor” and who is the “person.”
So you like Texas Prostitution Law. You want to keep it a crime don't you. You don't want people to ask questions. This board is NOT substitution for legal advice. If you want legal advice, talk to an attorney.
Without a discussion and knowledge, sometimes people don't know how to ask the right questions. Originally Posted by frontman667

I think criminalizing prostitution is stupid. However, the penal code is clear on this, if a person offers another person a fee for a sexual act that person is guilty. If a person agrees to a fee for a sexual act, that person is guilty.

I accept this interpretation. If they claim to the actor or don't rebut it, they accept the criminal responsibility. I agree the prostitution laws are stupid. I also agree that there should be reasonable regulation for indoor sex work. All sex workers who work out of their home should be subject to home business regulation like limits on clients in a day. Whether or not they need a business license is another issue. I am fine with that.

The traffic is caused by it is illegal. When there are not enough sex workers because it is illegal and the demand is high, then there will be traffic problems in a neighborhood. When there are plenty of sex workers that meet the demand, the chances of having high traffic in a neighborhood will be very rare.

Even when it is illegal, there are very incidents where there is high traffic anyway.

Legal fiction is for entertainment and educational purpose. It is not for anyone to think it is legal in Texas. If someone need legal advice, they need to seek legal advice from an attorney.

You can go to your escort appointment with confidence that there are legal remedies you can discuss with your attorney if you get into legal trouble. It doesn’t guarantee any result. That what you can take from it.
If there are politicians and judges that hobby, they will make sure their a** is cover. With the way the Texas Prostitution Law is written, it can be interpret maybe several ways. Not sure if the actor pays or being paid makes the act criminal. If the judge interprets it in a way that the defendant is not criminally liable, a defendant can get off on a technicality. Most likely the case will get seal and no one knows what happen except the few. I have found so far that every state prostitution laws I examine has defects or loopholes. I won’t be surprise if there are more defects, loopholes, or hidden case laws that will get someone off in Texas in an escort sting.

“The Court further explained that the liberty component of the Due Process Clause protects persons from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places and also protects other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. 109 The Court affirmed that “Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”

-Pg. 986 RUTGERS LAW JOURNAL Vol. 37:971 “THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW” by Jeffrey M. Shaman

This journal article back up what I am saying. I am NOT saying that police CANNOT arrest someone in private without a warrant. If you get arrested and they don’t have a warrant, you should discuss it with your attorney to a federal civil rights lawsuit against the police and the department.

I think that police should discuss this matter of unwarranted government intrusion with the District Attorney Office before doing a escort or hobby sting. It is WRONG for police to arrest people without due process of law or misapply the law. I understand there is probable cause but arresting people without following the laws is WRONG. Probable cause is evidence that a crime may of occur. But it doesn't mean that cops can ignore the requirement of due process of law or misapplying the law.

The constitutional right is given to no government intrusion in dwellings and other private places by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas. The only way the government can take away this right is by due process of law; a warrant. Originally Posted by frontman667

You are close but not really. The 4th Amendment provides protection from unreasonable searches in dwellings and private places (and anywhere else that one may have a reasonable expectation of privacy---this is key because you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone elses room especially if that person happens to be a cop), but it is not absolute. Lawrence is preceded by numerous cases. Lawrence is really about sodomy laws and the constitutionality of the laws themselves. It really has nothing to do with the evolution of search and seizure law. The court said there was no justifiable reason to prevent consenting adults from sexual activity but specifically differentiated that consensual sex from prostitution.

Bottom line do whatever you want to in California, but don't think about trying that argument in Texas.