Unfortunately, not. Eyewitness evidence is not limited to LE; it can come from anyone. If direct observation evidence is available, it's very important, but its can be just one piece of the puzzle. And, if you ask defence counsel, eyewitnesses can be quite unreliable.
Minimum evidence for MP arrest?
- Thread starter wanttodo
- Start date
Unfortunately, not. Eyewitness evidence is not limited to LE; it can come from anyone. If direct observation evidence is available, it's very important, but its can be just one piece of the puzzle. And, if you ask defence counsel, eyewitnesses can be quite unreliable.
Lol. That's actually a plausible answer! I just happen to learn best when I'm bareass naked.
Yes, undercover police posing as a client in the MP when you are in session can be very dangerous. The walls are very thin, and if the doors are unlocked it would be very easy to catch someone in the act...however the exchange of money for a SPECIFIC sexual service may be harder to prove.
In the USA, when police raid an MP after obtaining evidence of prostitution is occurring, they get a warrant and round up all the clients. I think the clients are charged with solicitation of prostitution even though no eyewitness of sex or money exchange for these individuals....how can they arrest?
We've been down this route before. A commercial transaction necessarily involves two or more parties. C-36 isn't the first law to require evidence of a trade.
I don't think anyone knows for certain. LE has a lot of discretion in the matter as well.
The law says it's illegal to receive a sexual service for consideration (ie. paying for it).
What is a "sexual service"? Undefined by the law, but we can probably assume that most of the acts we have acronyms for would be covered by it.
So say LE busts in during your session and finds you balls deep inside a MPA. That's fairly definitive proof of a sexual service, or at least a sexual act. There are other, more circumstantial ways they could presumably prove or infer a sexual service.
Now.. consideration. You paid for a body rub/massage. That's fairly easy to prove, or at least infer, as well.
This does not actually prove that you paid for a sexual service in violation of C-36. But it might be enough for police to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed and to arrest you.
I think LE has a lot of discretion here, and thus far they've chosen their targets carefully (ie. human traffickers). It doesn't really serve any purpose to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for engaging in consensual sexual encounters. But this doesn't mean a "bust" isn't possible. The fact that we haven't seen one yet is certainly promising.. but doesn't necessarily mean we're completely in the clear.
The law says it's illegal to receive a sexual service for consideration (ie. paying for it).
What is a "sexual service"? Undefined by the law, but we can probably assume that most of the acts we have acronyms for would be covered by it.
So say LE busts in during your session and finds you balls deep inside a MPA. That's fairly definitive proof of a sexual service, or at least a sexual act. There are other, more circumstantial ways they could presumably prove or infer a sexual service.
Now.. consideration. You paid for a body rub/massage. That's fairly easy to prove, or at least infer, as well.
This does not actually prove that you paid for a sexual service in violation of C-36. But it might be enough for police to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed and to arrest you.
I think LE has a lot of discretion here, and thus far they've chosen their targets carefully (ie. human traffickers). It doesn't really serve any purpose to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for engaging in consensual sexual encounters. But this doesn't mean a "bust" isn't possible. The fact that we haven't seen one yet is certainly promising.. but doesn't necessarily mean we're completely in the clear.
If someone is caught by LE balls deep as you say, and has a large amount of cash in his wallet, is it really a reasonable assumption to make that he is paying for it?
What if the client had NO money in his pocket, would this change the assumption for LE? If yes, this could be quite an interesting scenario.
Oh pete's sake....
Getting caught balls deep or tickling the back of her throat would, in all likelihood, be considered to be a sex act.
The question is whether you purchased said sex act. Aside from being party to the exchange (i.e., a sting) how else might they get evidence?
The last time I checked, there are no MPs operating as charities. I'd more inclined to reason that if the client had NO money in his pockets that he must have paid but was found in-session that he must have paid for everything being provided.
Getting caught balls deep or tickling the back of her throat would, in all likelihood, be considered to be a sex act.
The question is whether you purchased said sex act. Aside from being party to the exchange (i.e., a sting) how else might they get evidence?
The last time I checked, there are no MPs operating as charities. I'd more inclined to reason that if the client had NO money in his pockets that he must have paid but was found in-session that he must have paid for everything being provided.
Evidence could very much be circumstantial. There isn't an established "minimum standard" and probably won't be until some judgments are made. Sufficient circumstantial evidence would likely be seen to be enough. Some people on this board are confusing beyond a reasonable doubt with beyond all possible doubt. They believe the crown has to prove:
1) Evidence of the consideration (essentially the communication of a contract) for a sexual service
2) Evidence that the contract was engage by both parties (seeing money change hands and sexual service rendered)
This is probably too high of a bar for "reasonable doubt". You need to ask yourself in the judges position, if the crown could provide that a particular venue (a massage parlour or escort agency incall location) could be proven to habitually be used for the provision of sexual services based on an officers testimony; combined with the officer witnessing you engaged in a sexual act in said venue; would you personally have any reasonable doubt as to what occurred? Would you rule that the person is innocent on the off chance that the man and women just so happened to hook up at a massage parlour free of charge? Some people here believe that there needs to be definitive evidence of "consideration" to lay a charge. But I am most definitely of the belief that officers do not need definitive evidence, if it can be circumstantially proven with reasonable belief.
To say otherwise, would almost be to say that to prove a murder you need a witness to physically see the murder take place. We all know this isn't true as many such convictions are based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence (i.e. motive, method, lack of alibi, etc.) as in many situations murders don't have direct witnesses or surveillance of the act taking place.
1) Evidence of the consideration (essentially the communication of a contract) for a sexual service
2) Evidence that the contract was engage by both parties (seeing money change hands and sexual service rendered)
This is probably too high of a bar for "reasonable doubt". You need to ask yourself in the judges position, if the crown could provide that a particular venue (a massage parlour or escort agency incall location) could be proven to habitually be used for the provision of sexual services based on an officers testimony; combined with the officer witnessing you engaged in a sexual act in said venue; would you personally have any reasonable doubt as to what occurred? Would you rule that the person is innocent on the off chance that the man and women just so happened to hook up at a massage parlour free of charge? Some people here believe that there needs to be definitive evidence of "consideration" to lay a charge. But I am most definitely of the belief that officers do not need definitive evidence, if it can be circumstantially proven with reasonable belief.
To say otherwise, would almost be to say that to prove a murder you need a witness to physically see the murder take place. We all know this isn't true as many such convictions are based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence (i.e. motive, method, lack of alibi, etc.) as in many situations murders don't have direct witnesses or surveillance of the act taking place.
Stoo
Fellated Member
Let that be a lesson ladies... CIMSW is the way to stay out of jail. Swallow the evidence.
Maybe that MacKay guy knew what he was doing after all...
From the Bill C36 technical paper:
Specifically, a contract or agreement, whether express or implied, for a specific sexual service in return for some form of consideration is required.[25] In particular, the consideration must be contingent on the provision of a particular sexual service and the contract or agreement must be entered into before the sexual service is provided.
Yes you are correct, so the point to take from your quote is: "Specifically, a contract or agreement, whether express or implied, for a specific sexual service...". Even if everyone entering a massage parlour didn't specifically say, hey I'll give you $80 for a handjob, it can be proven that when they paid and later recieved a sexual service, they entered into an implied contract of service. Basically if pretty much everyone who enters a massage parlour receives a handjob and pays, there is an expectation of a sexual service to be rendered in exchange for money.
Therein lies the rub (pun intended).
Your analysis assumes that a full body massage constitutes a sexual service. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Naysayers will argue that under Ponomarev, a rub and tug was found not to be a bawdy house because specific consideration was not negotiated for the hand job.
The distinction, I believe, is that Ponomarev didn't consider whether a full body rub was an act of prostitution. The arguments focused on the handjob and whether it was separately negotiated. My understanding is that C-36 potentially puts the broader service of full body massage into play.
Go wash your mouth with soap and water.... ALONE
That's not the only thing I do alone these days.
Yes, you are correct on that being the main distinction, as written by the judge:
I personally would believe that acts of masturbation are sexual but who knows...
I can think of another person that I know agrees with you, in fact she said if she ever catches me again....
My wife wouldn't agree with this judge if she found out I was visit mps. definitely not sexual at all lol.
If he has no money in his pockets, and the practice at the MP is to pay for the legal massage or body rub first (i.e., prior to the session), then it shouldn't automatically mean that he paid for 'everything being provided'.
So using your line of reasoning, if an MP sold each customer a pack of gum for $150 prior to the session and received sexual services after then it would confirm to the law. This is because "it shouldn't automatically mean that he paid for 'everything being provided'.". You are right in that the crown can't just assume that everyone who enters a MP is guilty of purchasing a sexual service, but let's say during a bylaw checkup they catch you getting jerked off by an MPA - What reasonable conclusion would they be able to draw? Your defense is entirely based on plausible deniability. From the officers standpoint, if they wanted to enforce the law, may not sound that plausible at all.
Similar threads
