It's good to be rich

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I, for one, am not willing to forgo my rights, just because I am innocent. I think those rights are important. If the police think that a crime is being committed in my neighborhood, they can't just get a search warrant to search every house in the neighborhood. To me, that is more akin to the case here.


If the police are going to intrude on innocent people, which they would have to do in this case, the reason for the intrusion must warrant it and the amount of intrusion must be minimized. In this case, one judge, at least, did not think that they did so.


I do not believe in blithely abandoning my civil rights and I am glad that the judicial process looks out for them.

No one is talking forgoing their rights.That's another issue. If the innocent wish to sue, let them. No one is saying the police were justified in how they videoed the innocent.

Why does that get the guilty off the hook? If a prosecutor wrongfully puts someone in jail, that doesn't overturn his other convictions. The person done wrong gets to sue the state. The ones properly still get punished.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

No one is talking forgoing their rights.That's another issue. If the innocent wish to sue, let them. No one is saying the police were justified in how they videoed the innocent.

Why does that get the guilty off the hook? If a prosecutor wrongfully puts someone in jail, that doesn't overturn his other convictions. The person done wrong gets to sue the state. The ones properly still get punished.

If we have to sue to get our rights respected, then we have lost those rights. If the police break the rules to get the evidence, then the evidence is tainted. Otherwise it becomes anything goes for search and seizure.

I know that the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine has been watered down, but it is still an important test.


If a lab, or other agency, is shown to be tainted then many of the convictions based on its evidence may well be thrown out summarily, the defendants released and it becomes the State's job to retry them.


Law and order are not always on the same side, sometimes following the law means letting potential criminals go free, but, IMHO, that is a better risk than undercutting the safeguards that protect us all.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

If we have to sue to get our rights respected, then we have lost those rights. If the police break the rules to get the evidence, then the evidence is tainted. Otherwise it becomes anything goes for search and seizure.

I know that the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine has been watered down, but it is still an important test.


If a lab, or other agency, is shown to be tainted then many of the convictions based on its evidence may well be thrown out summarily, the defendants released and it becomes the State's job to retry them.


Law and order are not always on the same side, sometimes following the law means letting potential criminals go free, but, IMHO, that is a better risk than undercutting the safeguards that protect us all.

Then let me ask you: How should the police gather evidence against soliciting prostitutes?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Then let me ask you: How should the police gather evidence against soliciting prostitutes?

They shouldn't. Waste of time and resources.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

They shouldn't. Waste of time and resources.

But it is still law. So how do the police enforce the law?

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But it is still law. So how do the police enforce the law?

Generally you have to send in someone to be approached or offered by the prostitute, which is why the charge is generally "soliciting for prostitution" not prostitution itself. The initial move/offer needs to be from the pro, otherwise it is entrapment.


Just because a crime is difficult to enforce does not justify abusing the rights of everyone.


On a purely theoretical level, I don't think that prostitution should be illegal, but the reality of prostitution is abuse of the women and human trafficking. I seem to recall that Switzerland legalized, requiring licenses and health checks. I believe that they pros unionized as well, but that was a while back and I do not know where that ended up.

ETA: a quick check on Wikipedia says:

In eight European countries (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey, Hungary, and Latvia), prostitution is legal and regulated.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

Generally you have to send in someone to be approached or offered by the prostitute, which is why the charge is generally "soliciting for prostitution" not prostitution itself. The initial move/offer needs to be from the pro, otherwise it is entrapment.


Just because a crime is difficult to enforce does not justify abusing the rights of everyone.

We're not talking about whether it should be illegal. We are talking about legal ways to police it.

So how would you detect someone has solicited a prostitute in a brothel or massage parlour? What you are describing is how to get a single hooker or john. But it won't shutdown an entire whorehouse. Just a single transaction.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

We're not talking about whether it should be illegal. We are talking about legal ways to police it.

So how would you detect someone has solicited a prostitute in a brothel or massage parlour? What you are describing is how to get a single hooker or john. But it won't shutdown an entire whorehouse. Just a single transaction.

I don't know a good way to get to an entire brothel, although holding off on making the actual solicitation charges until you can show a pattern would be one way. It is not going to be easy but, as I said earlier, just because a crime is hard to prove doesn't mean you get to sidestep people's rights.


Brothels have been closed down before, without video evidence, so it can be done.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I don't know a good way to get to an entire brothel, although holding off on making the actual solicitation charges until you can show a pattern would be one way. It is not going to be easy but, as I said earlier, just because a crime is hard to prove doesn't mean you get to sidestep people's rights.


Brothels have been closed down before, without video evidence, so it can be done.

I'm sure they have been done before. By the method the police did in this case. The only reason it was tossed is because a rich fat cat's lawyers were in the courtroom. What you are proposing is handcuffing the police unnecessarily.

I'm with you that stepping on the rights of one citizen is stepping on the rights of all. But this wasn't that case. I can go into Wal-Mart, make a purchase, and my right to privacy hasn't been violated because there are surveillance cameras. But if those cameras catch a shoplifter, the case isn't thrown out because I was on the film as well. What you are saying is I can build a brothel/crack house next door to you and there is nothing the police can do about it because I managed to have some knitting classes in there periodically. That's a loophole pimps & pushers are glad to see.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm sure they have been done before. By the method the police did in this case. The only reason it was tossed is because a rich fat cat's lawyers were in the courtroom. What you are proposing is handcuffing the police unnecessarily.

I would be interested to see where police have used this sort of video surveillance to get a conviction. The only other case I know of was also thrown out, which is why the police tried to set up more safeguards on this one. What I meant was that brothels had been shutdown before without this sort of video usage. I live near Ft. Wayne, Indiana and ten years back, or so, they shut down several massage parlors without using any video surveillance, by sending in undercover operators to be solicited.

I'm with you that stepping on the rights of one citizen is stepping on the rights of all. But this wasn't that case. I can go into Wal-Mart, make a purchase, and my right to privacy hasn't been violated because there are surveillance cameras. But if those cameras catch a shoplifter, the case isn't thrown out because I was on the film as well. What you are saying is I can build a brothel/crack house next door to you and there is nothing the police can do about it because I managed to have some knitting classes in there periodically. That's a loophole pimps & pushers are glad to see.

I know we are starting to go in circles, but one's expectation of privacy is significantly different shopping in Wal-Mart than getting a massage in a private room.


I did not say that there was "nothing you can do", just that what you do has to be legal! Our legal rights do restrict the police in many cases, in fact that is specifically what they are for!


I disagree that this is only being thrown out because of one person with deep pockets. There were 20+ people appealing the evidence, and in the previous case I mentioned the evidence was thrown out even without an NFL owner among the accused "johns".

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I would be interested to see where police have used this sort of video surveillance to get a conviction. The only other case I know of was also thrown out, which is why the police tried to set up more safeguards on this one. What I meant was that brothels had been shutdown before without this sort of video usage. I live near Ft. Wayne, Indiana and ten years back, or so, they shut down several massage parlors without using any video surveillance, by sending in undercover operators to be solicited.

That shutdowns the parlor. I asked, how do you police someone going in to buy a hooker's services?

I know we are starting to go in circles, but one's expectation of privacy is significantly different shopping in Wal-Mart than getting a massage in a private room.

And why is that? What's the legal difference in going in to buy a massage as opposed to buying an oil filter?

I did not say that there was "nothing you can do", just that what you do has to be legal! Our legal rights do restrict the police in many cases, in fact that is specifically what they are for!

I'm all for legal. I'm also for giving a person not just the task, but the means to accomplish the task. So keep this restriction in place, and I can rent out my "bed & breakfast" across the street from you, and have "independent contractors" conduct business w/plausible deniability and you can't do a thing about it.

I disagree that this is only being thrown out because of one person with deep pockets. There were 20+ people appealing the evidence, and in the previous case I mentioned the evidence was thrown out even without an NFL owner among the accused "johns".

Then we agree to disagree. Cause you admit it, and I admit it, that there is no way to charge someone w/soliciting in a brothel w/o an officer going undercover as a hooker or setting up cameras to witness the transaction. And since we know people have been convicted for just such a thing, this is more an outlier, not the norm.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That shutdowns the parlor. I asked, how do you police someone going in to buy a hooker's services?

With difficulty! If someone is going into someplace private (more about that later) if would be almost impossible to find a way to arrest the "john". You can have a policewoman dress up at a bar and try to catch someone asking her to do something for money, but it will be tough to do so if the process takes place in a more secluded setting.

And why is that? What's the legal difference in going in to buy a massage as opposed to buying an oil filter?

From a law site:

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test

In Katz, Jutsice Harlan created the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test in his concurring opinion. Although it was not formulated by the majority, this test has been the main takeaway of the case. Justice Harlan created a two-part test:

1. an individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
2. the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

If both of these requirements have been met, and the government has taken an action which violates this "expectation," then the government's action has violated the individual's Fourth Amendment rights.

I would suggest that anyplace you can legally remove enough clothing that it would constitute "public indecency" if in public can no longer be considered "public". This would include hotel rooms, doctors offices, restrooms, and, in my and apparently multiple judges' opinions, massage rooms.

I'm all for legal. I'm also for giving a person not just the task, but the means to accomplish the task. So keep this restriction in place, and I can rent out my "bed & breakfast" across the street from you, and have "independent contractors" conduct business w/plausible deniability and you can't do a thing about it.

Just because someone passes a law against something doesn't guarantee that there will be a way to pursue it. There are even laws in place with no punishment set, so it is implicitly unenforceable.


Yes, you could set up a bed and breakfast across the street and run a brothel and the authorities would have to approach shutting it down by legal means, which, as I said, has been done for a long time before miniature cameras were invented. Having spent time, with my wife, in a B&B, I know I was expecting privacy within the room! Pretty sure that brothels have been shut down in the 1800s, and throughout the 1900s, all with out video feeds.

Then we agree to disagree. Cause you admit it, and I admit it, that there is no way to charge someone w/soliciting in a brothel w/o an officer going undercover as a hooker or setting up cameras to witness the transaction. And since we know people have been convicted for just such a thing, this is more an outlier, not the norm.

To charge the john with soliciting inside a private business without the business's help is, as you say almost impossible without video. Can you show me any evidence that a video surveillance within such a place has ever been allowed? Normally you attack a brothel by catching the workers soliciting, not by trying to catch the johns.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But it is still law. So how do the police enforce the law?

Inconsistently and frequently it seems targeting the wrong people ie weak/poor.

Financial fraud is illegal but law enforcement does little unless a large case/complaint is found/made and gifted to them.

Decisions on how much active enforcement of laws are made all the time. One could argue that financial fraud is far more important than selling sex, but enforcing sex laws is less work and targets less powerful vested interests.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

With difficulty! If someone is going into someplace private (more about that later) if would be almost impossible to find a way to arrest the "john". You can have a policewoman dress up at a bar and try to catch someone asking her to do something for money, but it will be tough to do so if the process takes place in a more secluded setting.

W/difficulty is a copout excuse (no pun intended).

From a law site:
I would suggest that anyplace you can legally remove enough clothing that it would constitute "public indecency" if in public can no longer be considered "public". This would include hotel rooms, doctors offices, restrooms, and, in my and apparently multiple judges' opinions, massage rooms.

That's an opinion. Mine, for what it's worth, is that massage parlors are no different than any other commercial business. To equate them w/hotel, examination & bathrooms is a step too far.

Just because someone passes a law against something doesn't guarantee that there will be a way to pursue it. There are even laws in place with no punishment set, so it is implicitly unenforceable.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you. This court decision made it impossible to prevent. The only convictions you could get is if the johns were absolute idiots and told on themselves. I'm not for giving someone an impossible task.

Yes, you could set up a bed and breakfast across the street and run a brothel and the authorities would have to approach shutting it down by legal means, which, as I said, has been done for a long time before miniature cameras were invented. Having spent time, with my wife, in a B&B, I know I was expecting privacy within the room! Pretty sure that brothels have been shut down in the 1800s, and throughout the 1900s, all with out video feeds.

Which doesn't address the question I asked. How do you stop the johns in a whorehouse? But you did finally admit the parameters make it impossible. Brothels are shutdown only if they arrest all the hookers.

To charge the john with soliciting inside a private business without the business's help is, as you say almost impossible without video. Can you show me any evidence that a video surveillance within such a place has ever been allowed? Normally you attack a brothel by catching the workers soliciting, not by trying to catch the johns.

No I can't. I searched 20 pages on google but 90% of the links are about Kraft. I'm not wasting more time. Nevertheless, we'll have to agree to disagree about this being another sign the rich get justice at their price.

[Boomcoach]

Quoting is getting too complicated to parse out and I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough.


Last comments.


You don't have to arrest all the hookers, just have enough undercover customers receive solicitations to justify the pattern. Then you can go after the brothel itself, even RICO it to really hit them in the pockets. Johns may not be the way you get to it.


You may not expect any more privacy when getting a massage than when shopping at Wal-Mart, but when I last got one (no happy ending offered or asked) I was down to my briefs and certainly expected more privacy than I do when shopping!


I still can't stand Kraft, but I am not sure that his (and the other 20+ people involved) lawyers were not on the right side in this one.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

To charge the john with soliciting inside a private business without the business's help is, as you say almost impossible without video. Can you show me any evidence that a video surveillance within such a place has ever been allowed? Normally you attack a brothel by catching the workers soliciting, not by trying to catch the johns.

So as long as the worker never does the soliciting you can pretty much run a brothel with impunity?

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

So as long as the worker never does the soliciting you can pretty much run a brothel with impunity?

Unless you find another legal way to get to them. You can target a john or pro for something done outside the brothel and try to get them to turn as part of a plea deal. There are probably other avenues.


There is nothing in Common Law or the Constitution which allows the police to ignore a person's rights just because a law is passed which is difficult to prosecute. Just like in any other enterprise, if you cannot obtain evidence legally, then you cannot prosecute.

[GeoWar]

I thought this was focusing on the player salaries in baseball. The Boston Red Sox have 4 players who will continue to make around 105 million next year -- lead by David Price at 32 million. Dustin Petria is still owed over 12 million the next 2 years and is not included in the above 5 … and he is not playing. Kansas City Royals TEAM salary totals only 97 million+ …..Oakland is less.

The past couple of years some of this has changed - or I thought.