"Rates for time only"--has that ever held up in court?

[indyeric]

I do know this has been discussed before, since I've been lurking and occasionally posting for some years (my posts have been so far between that I forget my screen name or it gets deactivated or both!).

 

But I think it has been a while, so I'll bring it up again. Many escort sites have disclaimers that the fees or for "time only," that money is not being exchanged for sex, and that anything that happens between consenting adults is just that.

 

I could hire an escort and just talk, or go horseback riding, or go to a movie, or, as two gay men, we could just happen to decide to, what the heck, have recreational sex. (Sorry, I like splitting infinitives and do it on purpose.) So I'm on board with the theory of this.

 

It would seem to me that when someone has advertised his dick size, posted nude photos, described his sexual preferences, etc., on his web site, if could be argued that despite the disclaimer there's a presumption that what is actually going on is money for sex.

 

But here's what I'm curious about: does anyone know of a case in which this actually held up in court when someone was arrested for prostitution? Or result in the charge being dismissed before trial? Has a legal precedent been set anywhere?

 

Just curious . . .

 

--Eric

[jaden]

There's a technicality when it comes to this... You are paying them to escort you around.

 

Essentially, befriend you.

 

It could result in what may seem to be legalized prostitution, or it could be fun between two people who just happened to clique really well and are expressing it as such.

 

Their disclaimer shows that they are paying for their time, so that essentially gives the escort a loophole, it's kind of like buying a lapdance i guess.

 

However, I think that if you explain it as such, you could get charged for soliciting prostitution, although the escort still has their time only loophole.

 

my 2 bits

[Guest jeffOH]

I'm sure such nonsense has "ever held up in court" as it's irrelevant to what's necessary for a prostitution arrest. If you're arrested for prostitution it's because you've agreed to perform a sexual act for money or you've touched the undercover cop in a sexual manner. If your case went to trial internet listings on escort websites might be used against you to show that you had an intent to committ such acts for money.

 

On the john side, if you solicit the services of a prostitute (undercover cop) and agree to money for a sex act or if you touch the undercover vice cop in a sexual manner--you can be arrested.

[Guest Merlin]

With the disclaimer, there is little chance the escort could be prosecuted on the basis of the ad ALONE, but if the ad explicitly offered sex for money, the attempt might be made; certainly the prosecution would be easier. As a practical matter, the prosecution needs an actual witness (cop) discussing sex for money with the escort in person. Having said that, the child solicitation cases shown on TV involve the pedophile making arrangments with a pretended child by email, and then showing up to meet a cop. The evidence in those cases seems to consist of 1. emails making the arrangement, plus 2. showing up in person (but no person to person discussion). The personal appearance is probably necessary to prove that person is the one described in the email. Without the personal appearance, the pedophile would simply argue that he did not send the email. I know of no similar case involving only adult escorts and adult clients, as this forum involves, but that may be next.

[Guest Dan]

Gee, I'm suprised that no one made any jokes about being "held up in court."

 

Dan Dare

http://www.geocities.com/dandare_laca/DanDare4Hire.html

[indyeric]

OK, guys, thanks for all the comments.

 

I seem to remember jeff in Columbus having some sort of prosititution bust just for showing up at a hotel room for a "massage" appointment and having the fact that he had condoms and lube with him used as evidence that the real intent was prostitution.

 

All the speculation as to hypotheticals is interesting, but what I am curious about is whether there's ever been a similar case, where an escort shows up to an appointment, perhaps has condoms/lubes with him, doesn't actually discuss sex acts for money, but is still arrested for prostitution, and then the disclaimer in the ad actually was helpful.

 

thanks,

 

Eric

[trilingual]

Can any of our members who are attorneys do a bit of research and share their conclusions with us? I'm sure many M4Mers would like to know the answer!

[Guest jeffOH]

>I seem to remember jeff in Columbus having some sort of

>prosititution bust just for showing up at a hotel room for a

>"massage" appointment and having the fact that he had condoms

>and lube with him used as evidence that the real intent was

>prostitution.

 

Actually Eric, that arrest in '03 in the Columbus suburb of Reynoldsburg amounted to a citation for "Offering Massage without a License" resulting in small fine in Mayor's Court. My arrest in Columbus in '04 for prositution was predicated upon my touching the (recently fired) undercover cop's cock and not as a result of me agreeing to a sex act for money. In both situations, I did have a condom and some lube and I'm sure that if I'd plead Not Guilty and gone to trial, it would have been used as evidence against me.