Minimum evidence for MP arrest?

[bobcat40]

Oh I'll agree that it could attract an arrest, but it's not like I wouldn't protest it either.

(I've stated before that if I see a cop parked outside of a MP, I may be deterred from entering or proceeding with an appointment).

Right so basically we are all talking about the same thing. Cops can arrest you based on reasonable grounds if they catch you engaged in a sexual act in a massage parlour. Hence why you would be detered by a cop parked outside an MP. As for how this would shake up in court, it's all a guess at this point. We won't know until the first cases hit the court for a judge to determine just how high of a bar "beyond a reasonable doubt" is for C-36.

Your argument is that there is a reasonable doubt that you paid for the witnessed sexual service as there is a chance you and the MPA hit it off after you paid for just the "body rub". A judge could just as easily rule that the "doubt" you mention in your defense is not a reasonable doubt which could justify a not guilty judgement as he doesn't find it believable under the circumstances. I wouldn't exactly say that defense is a slam dunk and most people caught would just be inclined to plea bargain rather than to roll the dice on such a shaky defense.

 

[bobcat40]

Did you pay for a body rub? Did you get a full body rub?

Those are my questions, your honour. <as I sit down>

And further to this line of questioning a prosecutor could ask

1. How many times have you been to this establishment you were caught in? (I assume more than once)
2. And did you receive a sexual service on each and every occasion you paid for said Body Rub? (Probably yes)
3. Is there a single time you went and did not receive a sexual service? (Probably not)

The crown just easily just infer that you are paying for a sexual service based on your truthful answers.

 

[TeasePlease]

And further to this line of questioning a prosecutor could ask

1. How many times have you been to this establishment you were caught in? (I assume more than once)
2. And did you receive a sexual service on each and every occasion you paid for said Body Rub? (Probably yes)
3. Is there a single time you went and did not receive a sexual service? (Probably not)

The crown just easily just infer that you are paying for a sexual service based on your truthful answers.

Well, I wouldn't answer those questions because it calls for a legal interpretation - what is a "sexual service"?

A defendant in a murder trial wouldn't be asked on cross whether he "murdered the victim" either.

The line of questioning would be to ask, in graphic detail, what services he received. Was he fully disrobed? Was the attendant fully disrobed? Did she conduct a fully body rub? Did she touch his penis? Did he ejaculate?

With that evidence, the judge would be asked to make a determination as to whether those activities fall within the definition of "sexual service".

GPIDeal position is that he does not purchase or receive a sexual service; he merely obtains a full body massage. My point is that that particular admission may not be (probably isn't?) exculpatory.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Did you pay for a body rub? Did you get a full body rub?

Those are my questions, your honour. <as I sit down>

Since I have invoked my right against self-incrimination, I won't be taking the stand, nor will I respond to this question, but my lawyer may address the judge as follows:

{As he stands up} You're honour, Mr. GPIDEAL attended a licensed body rub parlor which is governed by the City of Toronto's by-laws. He did not transact for anything that is illegal under the by-laws or the criminal code. To quote the late, Honourable Jack Layton, he simply received a massage.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Right so basically we are all talking about the same thing. Cops can arrest you based on reasonable grounds if they catch you engaged in a sexual act in a massage parlour. Hence why you would be detered by a cop parked outside an MP. As for how this would shake up in court, it's all a guess at this point. We won't know until the first cases hit the court for a judge to determine just how high of a bar "beyond a reasonable doubt" is for C-36.

Your argument is that there is a reasonable doubt that you paid for the witnessed sexual service as there is a chance you and the MPA hit it off after you paid for just the "body rub". A judge could just as easily rule that the "doubt" you mention in your defense is not a reasonable doubt which could justify a not guilty judgement as he doesn't find it believable under the circumstances. I wouldn't exactly say that defense is a slam dunk and most people caught would just be inclined to plea bargain rather than to roll the dice on such a shaky defense.

I agree that the risk of an arrest is likely, if a cop barged in and saw an MPA with her hand around my erect member, but I disagree about the ease of a conviction.

Beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of confidence level (I recall American case law here) is AT LEAST 95% certainty. A judge would have to be virtually assured that sex was purchased and just didn't happen. Doesn't matter if he doesn't think it's likely I scored a HJ. He needs to be almost absolutely sure.

 

[GPIDEAL]

And further to this line of questioning a prosecutor could ask

1. How many times have you been to this establishment you were caught in? (I assume more than once)
2. And did you receive a sexual service on each and every occasion you paid for said Body Rub? (Probably yes)
3. Is there a single time you went and did not receive a sexual service? (Probably not)

The crown just easily just infer that you are paying for a sexual service based on your truthful answers.

With all due respect, since I have invoked my right against self-incrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights Section 11(c), I won't be answering any of the Prosecutor's questions.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well, I wouldn't answer those questions because it calls for a legal interpretation - what is a "sexual service"?

A defendant in a murder trial wouldn't be asked on cross whether he "murdered the victim" either.

The line of questioning would be to ask, in graphic detail, what services he received. Was he fully disrobed? Was the attendant fully disrobed? Did she conduct a fully body rub? Did she touch his penis? Did he ejaculate?

With that evidence, the judge would be asked to make a determination as to whether those activities fall within the definition of "sexual service".

GPIDeal position is that he does not purchase or receive a sexual service; he merely obtains a full body massage. My point is that that particular admission may not be (probably isn't?) exculpatory.

I won't be answering ANY questions, so the prosecution will have to rely on other evidence, if available.

However, to entertain this academic discussion, I remember these COT Zoning By-Law definitions cited in previous threads in this board:

(5)

Adult Entertainment

means premises used for entertainment including activities, facilities, performances, exhibitions, viewings or encounters designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations which a principal feature or characteristic is the nudity or partial nudity of any person. A body rub service is not an adult entertainment.


(92)

Body Rub Service

means premises used for services involving the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching or stimulating by any means of a person's body for the purposes of appealing to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations. An adult entertainment, massage therapy, or wellness centre is not a body rub service.


At first glance, definition number 92 seems incriminating, but it can be easily argued that exotic dancing, if not salsa dance lessons, or the purchase of food and beverages at Hooters are services or products sold by members of the opposite sex, that appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations. However, nobody has contracted for the purchase of sex or paid for it.

 

[TeasePlease]

Ok, go ahead and rely on municipal bylaws as a criminal code defense. Let me know how that goes.

Yeah, I know some legal beagles have given opinions on this. I also know that the premise of one such opinion is that the city continues to license body rubs. Hmmm, anyone know what would happen if the city revoked licenses on the grounds that the business activity was illegal...without a judicial determination?

Better read c-36 again. The offence is not to purchase sex. It's to purchase sexual services. The form of the business is no more relevant than the euphemisms you choose to call your services. It's the act that counts.

 

[wanttodo]

A very complicated issue but can we conclude that the bottom line is: if LE does not witness a sexual service being performed, they cannot arrest a customer leaving the MP after a session.

They may question the customer at to what happened inside the MP and if they receive a sexual service,but that's about it right? Then the customer would answer they got a massage from a massage parlor and that's it.

 

[bobcat40]

A very complicated issue but can we conclude that the bottom line is: if LE does not witness a sexual service being performed, they cannot arrest a customer leaving the MP after a session.

They may question the customer at to what happened inside the MP and if they receive a sexual service,but that's about it right? Then the customer would answer they got a massage from a massage parlor and that's it.

Well in certain municipalities such as Toronto, police are routinely part of bylaw enforcement in which case they barge into the room unannounced. Not exactly possible to ensure that LE never witnesses a sexual service being performed.

 

[stay]

Well in certain municipalities such as Toronto, police are routinely part of bylaw enforcement in which case they barge into the room unannounced. Not exactly possible to ensure that LE never witnesses a sexual service being performed.

Apart from cock-stroking, and maybe including if you are paying for a girls time and she decides out of the goodness of her heart to hop your cock, it may be implied that said service was performed in the context of prostitution. At minimum a potential arrest at worse a c36 conviction.

 

[d_jedi]

Assume all you want, but you haven't been hobbying so you really cannot assume anything from the outside looking in.

No, I have not (and factors beyond my control mean I probably will not for the foreseeable future.. c'est la vie), but I've been around long enough to have a pretty good idea of what goes on.. what's expected, what's YMMV, etc. And I have it on good authority that things inside the room have not changed drastically since C-36. So.. I don't really think that my absence from the hobby has any bearing on the validity of my opinion.

 

[d_jedi]

A very complicated issue but can we conclude that the bottom line is: if LE does not witness a sexual service being performed, they cannot arrest a customer leaving the MP after a session.

They may question the customer at to what happened inside the MP and if they receive a sexual service,but that's about it right? Then the customer would answer they got a massage from a massage parlor and that's it.

If the cop does not witness a sexual act, it's extremely unlikely that such an arrest would take place.
Only possible way is if a UC cop was posing as an attendant, or if they bugged the room to record audio/video. Both are so unlikely as to not warrant serious consideration.

 

[wanttodo]

Do the police have the right to check the amount of cash an MPA has in her purse/safe/cash box? If she has a large amount of cash in it, can this be considered circumstantial evidence that customers are tipping for "good" service.

For instance, if you are the first customer of the day and police find $100 in the MPA's tip jar, can this be used against the customer if police suspect hanky panky?

 

[d_jedi]

Do the police have the right to check the amount of cash an MPA has in her purse/safe/cash box? If she has a large amount of cash in it, can this be considered circumstantial evidence that customers are tipping for "good" service.

For instance, if you are the first customer of the day and police find $100 in the MPA's tip jar, can this be used against the customer if police suspect hanky panky?

Is the MPA being detained?
No?
Then on what grounds do the police have to search her?

 

[wanttodo]

Is the MPA being detained?
No?
Then on what grounds do the police have to search her?

Probably cause of providing a sexual service for consideration. Police looking for circumstantial evidence against the client.

 

[TeasePlease]

A very complicated issue but can we conclude that the bottom line is: if LE does not witness a sexual service being performed, they cannot arrest a customer leaving the MP after a session.

They may question the customer at to what happened inside the MP and if they receive a sexual service,but that's about it right? Then the customer would answer they got a massage from a massage parlor and that's it.

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.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Ok, go ahead and rely on municipal bylaws as a criminal code defense. Let me know how that goes.

Yeah, I know some legal beagles have given opinions on this. I also know that the premise of one such opinion is that the city continues to license body rubs. Hmmm, anyone know what would happen if the city revoked licenses on the grounds that the business activity was illegal...without a judicial determination?

Better read c-36 again. The offence is not to purchase sex. It's to purchase sexual services. The form of the business is no more relevant than the euphemisms you choose to call your services. It's the act that counts.

Purchase sex or sexual services. What's the difference? I still haven't done either. The act seen was not purchased. The act observed is not advertised.

The municipal by-law is just one defense since the City didn't expressly permit sexual acts.

Until the COT or a judge declares or rules that body rubs are sexual services and to be repealed, there will be ambiguity or uncertainty, which could be in our favour.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not some evidentiary burden that can be achieved in a specific case based on anecdotal knowledge or word on the street.

 

[GPIDEAL]

A very complicated issue but can we conclude that the bottom line is: if LE does not witness a sexual service being performed, they cannot arrest a customer leaving the MP after a session.

They may question the customer at to what happened inside the MP and if they receive a sexual service,but that's about it right? Then the customer would answer they got a massage from a massage parlor and that's it.

Yes, but can't a customer tell a cop to stop acting like the Nazi S.S. and tell him to fuck off, it's none of your business?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Do the police have the right to check the amount of cash an MPA has in her purse/safe/cash box? If she has a large amount of cash in it, can this be considered circumstantial evidence that customers are tipping for "good" service.

For instance, if you are the first customer of the day and police find $100 in the MPA's tip jar, can this be used against the customer if police suspect hanky panky?

Maybe by the Communist pigs in Cuba, but not law-abiding cops in Canada, where people are protected against unwarranted search and seizure.