Minimum evidence for MP arrest?
- Thread starter wanttodo
- Start date
A body rub may or may not entail masturbation. It is not a given, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.Witnessing the sexual service would be highest and best evidence. But, I'm not sure you make an absolute statement that you cannot be arrested in the absence of that.
My earlier point is that the admission of having received a massage from a massage parlour (as distinct from a RMT, holistic spa or nail salon), may we be enough evidence to sustain a charge for purchasing a sexual service IF it is established that a rub n tug is a sexual service....which definition has NOT been tested in law.
It is not even enough that 51% of cases observed result in a HJ (beyond a reasonable doubt requires a confidence level of at least 90% if not higher).
I can imagine that an arrest is likely if a HJ is admitted to or observed, with a possible conviction, but an arrest or conviction to merely attend a MP without any further evidence would be unreasonable.
I agree with you here, but what happens if you go to a spa in Toronto where police can walk in to rooms as they please as part of routine bylaw enforcement? A body rub by it's legal definition could include anything from a back massage to full out sex. It is very broad so we can't say for certain if it is or isn't a sexual service in all instances.A body rub may or may not entail masturbation. It is not a given, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
It is not even enough that 51% of cases observed result in a HJ (beyond a reasonable doubt requires a confidence level of at least 90% if not higher).
I can imagine that an arrest is likely if a HJ is admitted to or observed, with a possible conviction, but an arrest or conviction to merely attend a MP without any further evidence would be unreasonable.
How are USA police able to arrest clients of MP, if there are no found-in bawdy house laws in the US. Where these clients video/audio tapped inside the MP, or are they arrest on suspicion of guilt by association of an MP that is being investigated undercover.
In the States, most prostitution laws fall under the individual states so they vary from state to state. Florida for example has something pretty much the same as a bawdy house law.How are USA police able to arrest clients of MP, if there are no found-in bawdy house laws in the US. Where these clients video/audio tapped inside the MP, or are they arrest on suspicion of guilt by association of an MP that is being investigated undercover.
It is unlawful to:
(g) To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
A broad definition is not evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Police haven't started raids of licensed Body Rubs nor have they announced them.I agree with you here, but what happens if you go to a spa in Toronto where police can walk in to rooms as they please as part of routine bylaw enforcement? A body rub by it's legal definition could include anything from a back massage to full out sex. It is very broad so we can't say for certain if it is or isn't a sexual service in all instances.
Don't expect an announcement, although do expect the owners of particular MP to be aware of a raid. It will likely be a couple of visits, not like a shock an aweA broad definition is not evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Police haven't started raids of licensed Body Rubs nor have they announced them.
Last edited:
Don't expect an announcement, although do expect the owners of particular MP to be aware of a raid. It will likely be a couple of visits, not like a shock an awe
and don't expect owners of said MPs to be announcing those visits either. lol.
Lol.and don't expect owners of said MPs to be announcing those visits either. lol.
Maybe by the Communist pigs in Cuba, but not law-abiding cops in Canada, where people are protected against unwarranted search and seizure.
I refer you to Fearon v. R, where the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the warrantless search of a suspect's mobile phone.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. Understanding that even if LE make aware to a MP that they want change, the customer may not be aware until it is too late.and don't expect owners of said MPs to be announcing those visits either. lol.
Hey now. It's in the MP's interest to protect their customers. I think most owners are smart enough not to sell out their revenue stream.THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. Understanding that even if LE make aware to a MP that they want change, the customer may not be aware until it is too late.
My greater concern would be whether LE would actually tip off owners and if owners become complacent in their trust. Just because LE plays nice doesn't mean they won't bite. Just ask your friendly local agency owner.
I can site your a prior where LE encourage a behavior change, when it didn't occur, they moved in.Hey now. It's in the MP's interest to protect their customers. I think most owners are smart enough not to sell out their revenue stream.
My greater concern would be whether LE would actually tip off owners and if owners become complacent in their trust. Just because LE plays nice doesn't mean they won't bite. Just ask your friendly local agency owner.
Not to cause fear but my memory is a lot sharper than my eyesight, so me saying I saw with my own two eyes doesn't mean much.
545-358. Use of cameras or other photographic or recording devices.
No owner, operator or body-rubber shall use or permit to be used any camera or otherphotographic or recording device in, upon or at a body-rub parlour by any person other than a peace officer, Medical Officer of Health or a public health inspector acting under his or her direction, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, or any person designated by the Commissioner.
From the above bylaw and police would be able to bring video and audio equipment into an MP during an inspection if they wanted to. If something questionable was going on, it could be captured on tape and is very strong evidence. Maybe this is unlikely to happen, but undercover LE could have hidden cameras to capture the activities of other patrons.
No owner, operator or body-rubber shall use or permit to be used any camera or otherphotographic or recording device in, upon or at a body-rub parlour by any person other than a peace officer, Medical Officer of Health or a public health inspector acting under his or her direction, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, or any person designated by the Commissioner.
From the above bylaw and police would be able to bring video and audio equipment into an MP during an inspection if they wanted to. If something questionable was going on, it could be captured on tape and is very strong evidence. Maybe this is unlikely to happen, but undercover LE could have hidden cameras to capture the activities of other patrons.
Pretty sure they would need a warrant to place surveillance equipment on private property. Regardless, it would surely be known to the owner and/or attendants, who could modify their behaviour accordingly.545-358. Use of cameras or other photographic or recording devices.
No owner, operator or body-rubber shall use or permit to be used any camera or otherphotographic or recording device in, upon or at a body-rub parlour by any person other than a peace officer, Medical Officer of Health or a public health inspector acting under his or her direction, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, or any person designated by the Commissioner.
From the above bylaw and police would be able to bring video and audio equipment into an MP during an inspection if they wanted to. If something questionable was going on, it could be captured on tape and is very strong evidence. Maybe this is unlikely to happen, but undercover LE could have hidden cameras to capture the activities of other patrons.
If police start wearing body cameras like they do in the US, there isn't much that can be done from the MP/client perspective. However, the bylaw is worded to imply the MPA/Owner are aware of the recording devices presence and use, so it's not hidden surveillance per se.Pretty sure they would need a warrant to place surveillance equipment on private property. Regardless, it would surely be known to the owner and/or attendants, who could modify their behaviour accordingly.
I'm aware of THAT particular aspect of the law with respect to cell phones on bone fide suspects, but my response to which you replied was in the context of a search of someone's purse to check for cash.I refer you to Fearon v. R, where the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the warrantless search of a suspect's mobile phone.
I believe MP clients are getting nervous when they are in session and a new customer rings the front doorbell. If it's two guys waiting to get in at the same time, this could be a bylaw/LE inspection. The wise ones will get back to massage only activities just in case.
Is it safe to assume that if its only one guy at the door, the odds of it being Bylaw or LE is low? Does Bylaw and LE inspect MP uniformed or in street clothes? Is there a good way to spot the heat?
Is it safe to assume that if its only one guy at the door, the odds of it being Bylaw or LE is low? Does Bylaw and LE inspect MP uniformed or in street clothes? Is there a good way to spot the heat?
Short of bursting in, or bugging/videoing, or operating an MP with undercover officers, there is NO way they are going to be able to get evidence to make charges stick against a client. That's the point, why C36 isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on. Cops are not going to bother, anywhere. They will focus on sex trafficking, underage and street trade, like they always have. Escort Agencies, MPs and independent ladies have NOTHING to worry about if they run a good and clean business. The sex trade professionals, plus all the groups involved are just waiting for the first real charges to be laid so the process to head back to the SCOC and get the stupid thing overturned can start again.
With regards to the bursting in scenario, this is why you need to be cautious in MP to be ready to switch from doing one thing back to another.Short of bursting in, or bugging/videoing, or operating an MP with undercover officers, there is NO way they are going to be able to get evidence to make charges stick against a client. That's the point, why C36 isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on. Cops are not going to bother, anywhere. They will focus on sex trafficking, underage and street trade, like they always have. Escort Agencies, MPs and independent ladies have NOTHING to worry about if they run a good and clean business. The sex trade professionals, plus all the groups involved are just waiting for the first real charges to be laid so the process to head back to the SCOC and get the stupid thing overturned can start again.
