Did you call the number on the call display or a number he gave you? I am wondering if someone was impersonating a cop.
Can cops arrest you if you reply to fake backpage ad?
- Thread starter trillgod
- Start date
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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...
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.
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" too
You should also consider the underage sting they had (have) going on - they wait for the "suspect" to show up in the hotel room before arresting, they don't arrest people based on them texting the cops.
I wonder if that is true. So if they bust a place, be it an independent working out of a hotel room or an established agency, and they lift all phone numbers, texts, and emails from the place...can they actually pursue customers and charge them? Or do they need to bust them in the act at the incall location, in order to definitively prove it was them who communicated and followed through?
Yes the texts were used after they showed up - the cops can't prove who was texting etc like someone else also said
For things like texts and e-mails they might be able to make a case depending on what was said, although it would be fairly challenging. They would have to find a way to tie the messages back to a specific person which could be hard if other people had access to the computer or the phone that was used. For voice calls it would be almost impossible because there would be no way to prove what was said during the phone call unless the agency did something dumb like record incoming phone calls.
