Not saying you're wrong, and unfortunately, not sure if there are many C-36 cases to learn from, but I think texts or calls that are vague might be incriminating IF the ad is highly suggestive or explicit, such that there's little or no chance of arguing you were just looking for companionship or massage and not sex.
Can cops arrest you if you reply to fake backpage ad?
- Thread starter trillgod
- Start date
Not saying you're wrong, and unfortunately, not sure if there are many C-36 cases to learn from, but I think texts or calls that are vague might be incriminating IF the ad is highly suggestive or explicit, such that there's little or no chance of arguing you were just looking for companionship or massage and not sex.
Separate issue. U.S. Customs might not need a warrant to demand your password. If they find that she's an SP, they may not let her travel to the USA. Hopefully all SPs delete dated text messages but in Canada, they are immune from prosecution, although savvy-minded SPs will not operate to increase the risk of prosecution for their regulars, etc.Ok what about this? A lady who travels goes through the security check point at the airport and they look through her phone... if she still has a record of all her texts regarding appointments that wouldn't be good
True but sting operations look for easy low-hanging fruit and normally prefer to operate as in-calls where they can control the environment or scene.That's interesting... even if you did use an app or a burner phone, if you did an outcall you'd still have to provide your address, so it wouldn't do you any good anyway!
Would it help to ask the SP to delete all records of your correspondence? I just read an article the other day which says a person has no rights at the border. Now, it may be far fetched, but if an SP still had her client information in her texts, a border agent or security could forward that on to LESeparate issue. U.S. Customs might not need a warrant to demand your password. If they find that she's an SP, they may not let her travel to the USA. Hopefully all SPs delete dated text messages but in Canada, they are immune from prosecution, although savvy-minded SPs will not operate to increase the risk of prosecution for their regulars, etc.
True but sting operations look for easy low-hanging fruit and normally prefer to operate as in calls where they can control the environment or scene.
So do they ever target agencies doing incalls in hotels? E.g. either responding to a complaint or a sting?
That's why it's better to stick with agencies or independents that just show the price for a certain duration of time. However, a lot of them mention terms like GFE or PSE. Would that be considered suggestive or explicit?Not saying you're wrong, and unfortunately, not sure if there are many C-36 cases to learn from, but I think texts or calls that are vague might be incriminating IF the ad is highly suggestive or explicit, such that there's little or no chance of arguing you were just looking for companionship or massage and not sex.
Did you call the number on the call display or a number he gave you? I am wondering if someone was impersonating a cop.
It was a cop and he knew only my first name also I called the number later this evening because of second thoughts turned out to be a landline at the police station. I asked if I could speak to the officer in regards to the call he made and they told me to call back tomorrow. I know you don't want to believe it but it's true it's a constable. All I can say is gp gave good advice. Don't make the mistake I made. I never thought texting for menus and rates was enough but it is. Also this was on backpage and more likely for this to happen on backpage. Stick to the guarantees. Anyhow I'm done explaining I know what I need to do. Good luck to you all and be safe! I'm done with this.
Yes it would be a good idea. It's possible that they could forward such info.Would it help to ask the SP to delete all records of your correspondence? I just read an article the other day which says a person has no rights at the border. Now, it may be far fetched, but if an SP still had her client information in her texts, a border agent or security could forward that on to LE
I suppose they could target high traffic in-calls where there are complaints. Perhaps a better word is PRIORITIZE rather than target. I doubt C-36 enforcement is a big budget item, except for minors and abusive pimping/trafficking.So do they ever target agencies doing incalls in hotels? E.g. either responding to a complaint or a sting?
I suppose it could be enough to be considered suggestive or explicit, but if it's an established agency, it wouldn't be a sting in the first place, and where's the proof that you called them according to that specific ad or term in the first place?That's why it's better to stick with agencies or independents that just show the price for a certain duration of time. However, a lot of them mention terms like GFE or PSE. Would that be considered suggestive or explicit?
So such terms might be more problematic to the agency with respect to violating the advertising aspect of the criminal code, and less problematic for the client, unless it was a sting.
Good question, just for clarification or to be sure.Did you call the number on the call display or a number he gave you? I am wondering if someone was impersonating a cop.
EDIT: This after-thought came to mind. If the OP is attached, and his wife found evidence that he contacted an agency or SP, or merely suspects he's cheating, maybe she had a friend impersonate a cop to see how the OP would react. Possible, no?
I am still having issues with the call he got - just seems too wide a net for the cops to be laying to be of any effectiveness or a good use of their time - I can tell you the cops are very busy and it takes them a few days to get back to you when you have been a victim of "real" crime...
Good question, just for clarification or to be sure.
EDIT: This after-thought came to mind. If the OP is attached, and his wife found evidence that he contacted an agency or SP, or merely suspects he's cheating, maybe she had a friend impersonate a cop to see how the OP would react. Possible, no?
There's still no proof either way. For instance, around the early 2000's I actually did have a couple of appointments where we actually did just talk, and nothing else. Point being, there's no way anyone can definitively prove what did or did not occur during an appointment. They can only proceed on grounds of suspicion, and suspicion is not proof.you're paying her for an hour of her time to do what? Just to talk ? When you're communicating with a person known by the police to provide sexual services for compensation and you're stating that you're paying her, the cops have circumstantial evidence that you're paying her for sex. You don't go to mechanic shop to buy a sandwich everyone knows why someone goes to a mechanic shop so why it would be different with a SP?
The difference is the burden of proof. In your everyday examples, the likelihood that you got your car fixed or bought a sandwich is based on a balance of probabilities, but in criminal law, you must have proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I know that there are court cases where that burden is expressed in terms of having a confidence level of AT LEAST 95%. IOW, you have to be at least 95% sure that the evidence shows that you did what they allege you have done.you're paying her for an hour of her time to do what? Just to talk ? When you're communicating with a person known by the police to provide sexual services for compensation and you're stating that you're paying her, the cops have circumstantial evidence that you're paying her for sex. You don't go to mechanic shop to buy a sandwich everyone knows why someone goes to a mechanic shop so why it would be different with a SP?
So what if I borrowed the washroom in the restaurant or just ordered a coffee to go?
What if I made an appointment to have my car fixed or asked if they had a certain part? (I didn't get my car fixed).
Is there a condom with my DNA lying around or in possession of the police? Or did they just see me enter and exit? What if I was nervous and didn't get an erection and ended up just getting a massage and chatted. I once chatted with a gal for an hour without any sex (not that I was happy about that, but it's a long story).
So you see, the police must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that which establishes a likelihood or a reasonable suspicion.
That's not what you said. You said earlier that going into and out of her incall is circumstantial proof you had sex for consideration and therefore, committed a crime.Suspicions is enough for a charge, that's why the accused is called "suspect". Proof is needed only for a conviction but not for a charge. You can argue with the cop that you were just paying her only to talk. He will just tell you to explain this to the judge.
Now if they caught you with a text message where you typed that you loved her PSE, then that probably is enough to show you committed a crime. But not for going in and out of her incall, without added evidence of communicating for the purpose or having sex for consideration.
You could be right.I am still having issues with the call he got - just seems too wide a net for the cops to be laying to be of any effectiveness or a good use of their time - I can tell you the cops are very busy and it takes them a few days to get back to you when you have been a victim of "real" crime...
I wouldn't doubt if it was someone fucking with him, or maybe a trick by an S.O.? Aren't there apps that can replicate a number of another user or location (like a police station)?
Did that caller identify himself by name and badge number and an extension number?
Also, cops don't call people giving them warnings, they are out there to bust people and again - they do not have the time for these games...
You could be right.
I wouldn't doubt if it was someone fucking with him, or maybe a trick by an S.O.? Aren't there apps that can replicate a number of another user or location (like a police station)?
Did that caller identify himself by name and badge number and an extension number?
I would think a sting involving a BP ad would include an ad that is somewhat provocative or suggestive to imply that the caller was seeking to buy sex, no? I mean, if the customer did not text specific menu requests and was vague, it might not be enough to link it to sex, IF the ad was not explicit, no?
I've been wrong on other occasions GP and I'll be wrong again sometime in the future. I was referring to the post #87 by storm77, who received a call from LE and then post #88 from doggystyle1976 who says that he only does his business via phone conversation. My point being that if it's a BP ad posted by LE in the escorts section, then any communication, whether text or phone convo with the number provided, would be for sexual services. The link is already established by the BP ad, so any communication could be stretched to it being for the purposes of buying sexual favours. Now as innocuous as you may think your texting or phone convo is, unless you go at it like you have the wrong number, asking for a take-out order of fries or something, then you are communicating as to location and availability. It's an escort ad, not a hair dressing ad, so the link to buying sexual favours is there. Now most of theses LE generated ads on BP have been for catching the underage buyers of such services, so whether or not they are doing this to catch others is unknown to me.Not saying you're wrong, and unfortunately, not sure if there are many C-36 cases to learn from, but I think texts or calls that are vague might be incriminating IF the ad is highly suggestive or explicit, such that there's little or no chance of arguing you were just looking for companionship or massage and not sex.
Last edited:
the text's came from his phone...... no proof he sent them phone could have been stolen or borrowed or used by someone else. unless he shows up at the incall there is a problem !!! i really doubt the cops would be phoning a warning and if it was the cops they would know the name and address of the registered phone owner
but they don't want to waste their time on dead-ends, they have "sales targets" tooWrong only the judge needs an evidence beyond a reasonable doubt not the cops. The cops need only a reasonable suspicion to arrest you or charge you. Cops don't do the job of courts.
