spa encounter with police (long time ago)

茶树菇

So scared, lucky that I haven't met this situation.
As bros said above, 1 on 1 makes me feel safer.

dragondick

When shooting aeroplane, the big gun should be facing the sky, how do you explain that?!  

fireandice

playboyjoe 发表于 2017-10-8 09:50
Can police enter the hotel room without a warrant?

Yes if they have probable cause.

The requirement of probable cause works in tandem with the warrant requirement. A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. To obtain a search or arrest warrant, officers must present to the magistrate or judge enough facts to constitute probable cause. A warrant is not required for all searches and all arrests. Courts have carved out exceptions that allow police to search and arrest persons without a warrant when obtaining a warrant would be impractical.

The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. To illustrate, assume that a police officer has stopped a motor vehicle driver for a traffic violation. In the absence of any other facts indicating criminal activity by the driver, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officer conducted a full-blown search of the driver and the vehicle. The mere commission of a traffic violation is not, in and of itself, a fact that supports probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a crime. However, if the officer notices that the driver's eyes are bloodshot or that the driver smells of alcohol, the officer may detain and question the defendant, search him, and place him under arrest. Most courts hold that a driver's commission of a traffic violation combined with the appearance that the driver has used drugs or alcohol constitute sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the person is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause

tchai 发表于 2017-10-8 07:17
You're correct, babyme
In Qwailo advertisement it called "donation", not "price". Donat ...

You know the phrase 掩耳盗鈴? That is what you are doing if you think calling the payment "donation" will save you from prosecution. If it was really as simple as using coded words to defeat law enforcement then no one will be in jail.

The police can easily convince the judge that what you called a "donation" is in essence a payment for service. And since you admitted to giving a donation, that is enough for a conviction, case closed.

When facing arrest, your best strategy is to utilize your right to remain silent. Unless you are a lawyer, or have been advised by a lawyer, otherwise the more you talk the more the police will have to use against you. Many people have got in deep shit because they thought they were smart and could talk their way out of trouble.

playboyjoe

I don't think any police would break into a hotel room if they only suspect a John is having paid sex with a MM. There won't have sufficient evidence to support them to argue in court it is a probable cause for such a small crime.

jackastor

playboyjoe 发表于 2017-10-9 11:10
I don't think any police would break into a hotel room if they only suspect a John is having paid se ...

Usually they won't. Its not worth their time and effort UNLESS they suspect drugs or minors are involved. If one keeper wanted to screw over another keeper and made that anonymous call, then it just might happen. Of course that would really be playing with fire and I don't know if any keeper would make such drastic moves against their competitors.

I agree with what other bros have said. There's no doubt that house incalls with more than one girl and a bunch of customers waiting inside is the riskiest. But when it comes to condo incalls vs spas, its a tougher call. The likelihood of cops knocking on condo door is low, but if it ever happens, it'll be very very hard to convince the judge that you weren't there to purchase sex. On the other hand, spas are licensed businesses in plazas that have a big open sign so I can make a strong case that I'm just a law-abiding but naive person who went inside because I thought it was a legitimate massage parlor and I really didn't know they sell sex inside.

天天小

tchai 发表于 2017-10-7 23:00
黃sir，spa 係危險多個 1 on 1的。好彩你話打飛機 。住宅大廈的 1 on 1 原本是無商業活動的，除非有人投 ...

你真係以為只要堅持說冇錢銀交易警察法庭也無可耐何? 咪咁天真啦, 你真係當班差佬法官死嘅咩. 講真, 差佬好少會理呢D濕碎野. 不過如果真係要掃, 佢地絕對夠料做你. 單係間房入面大量用過嘅套套同埋唔同男人嘅精液已經足夠成立條女係做雞. 至於你點解會係果度, 而你當時又做緊咩, 你點解釋? 當然你可以9up一番, 你可以話條女係你個friend, 你地純綷傾計冇做其他野. 不過D差佬都唔係白痴. 你用咩借口都好, 差佬只需要分開你地兩個慢慢盤問, 你覺得兩份口供會夾得到咩? 仲有你手機記綠, 大把料做你啦. 個官亦唔會buy你老吹出黎嘅借口. 最後你只會講多錯多, 死得更慘.

相反, 去spa, 除非條女未成年, 否則冇野好驚, 亦都冇野要解釋.
"喂阿sir, 我路過見到間店門口寫住massage咪入黎按摩咯. 其他野我咩都唔知, 咩都冇做過. 就係咁簡單. "

tchai

fireandice 发表于 2017-10-9 06:08
Yes if they have probable cause.

C-Hing. Lay criminal charges is not by police. Only Attorney General could lay charge & bring criminals to court. Attorney General needs to read the signed document by criminals. In the course of this, police is witness only. The signed Alibi will therefore to be sent to Attorney General. The AG does not meet the criminal at all. The AG take (law) action based on Alibi only.

The criminals need to sign off their own Alibi which were drafted by the witness (or police). If John and MM both insists themselves in course of sex-trade & sign their names on Alibi therefore no body could help them out. Here now, in the Alibi you'll see the use of word "donation" is much better than using "price".

Law applies to true meaning of fact (such as donation). Law does not apply to guessing or presuming (such as price). English dictionary tells the defination of donation & price.

Also witness (police) needs to provide fact that he seen (by eye) the real sex-act and money-is-paid. Witness can not guess or heard there's sex-act & guess that money-trade is involved. Guess will not be accepted in law proceeding.

Real sex-act needs two persons. Means it needs two (not one) persons committed the same crime.

天天小 发表于 2017-10-9 18:28
你真係以為只要堅持說冇錢銀交易警察法庭也無可耐何? 咪咁天真啦, 你真係當班差佬法官死嘅咩. 講真, 差佬 ...

在西方法律舉證是属于控方，間房入面大量用過嘅套套同埋唔同男人嘅精液"是需要"證明屬於事主的，西方法律是不能 "估" 的。而且有 "疑點利益" 歸于的被告的法律。
在 spa 差佬可以容易進入，他有機會 "親眼" 見到整個過程，舉證是容易過 1 on 1 condo 的。

fireandice

tchai 发表于 2017-10-10 01:03
C-Hing. Lay criminal charges is not by police. Only Attorney General could lay charge & bring crimin ...

Please do not 一知半解就扮專家.

The Attorney General of Canada (French: Procureur général du Canada) is a separate title held by the Canadian Minister of Justice (Ministre de la Justice), a member of the Cabinet. The Minister of Justice is concerned with questions of policy and their relationship to the justice system. In their role as attorney general, they are the chief law officer of the Crown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_general#Canada

There is only one attorney general for each province, plus one more for the country. They advise the government on major legal issues. The attorney general doesn't have time to look at all the cases happening everyday. It would be like thinking Walmart's CEO has to personally approve every sale everyday in every store across the country. The people who lay charges are court prosecutors, and they work closely with the police. So even though in theory the police don't lay charges, in reality they do have a major say in what the defendant gets charged with.

The prosecutors DO meet the defendants (note: until they are successfully convicted, they are called defendant, not criminal) for major crimes (felony) to make deals (plea bargaining). If its a minor crime (misdemeanor), then there is no meeting.

Alibis are NOT drafted by the police. That is illegal. If the cops did that, then it would get tossed out in court, and the cops would probably face punishment themselves.

If a john and a mm both got arrest, they would be questioned separately, and inconsistencies (which there surely will because there's no way the john and mm could plan a full detailed story together to explain how they met and what they were doing together) will be used as evidence against them. At the very least they can charge you with obstruction of justice for lying to the police.  

By saying you gave a "donation", you already admitted to give money. The cops can make a case that the money was in exchange for sex. It doesn't matter what you call it. In fact some people have tried to argue that the money simply fell out of their pocket and the other person picked it up. Doesn't work. You can't just give some bullshit ridiculous story to explain your way out. Happens in movies, not real life.

"Law does not apply to guessing or presuming". Actually it does. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word is "reasonable". If the judge finds what you tell him to be unreasonable, then you are guilty.

So lets see. The cops can easily prove that the girl was a prostitute from all the information on her cell phone plus evidence such as used condoms. The cops can also prove that you don't know this girl. Unless from now on every MM you see, before you start the session, you plan a long detailed alibi with her and make sure that she remembers the details correctly.

So if the cops can prove she is a prostitute, and you didn't know her previously but now you are at her place of work (sex work to be exact), and you admitted to giving her money (which you call donation). That is a pretty solid case against you.

Once again, remember that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Key word is REASONABLE. You cannot expect the judge to find it reasonable that you somehow got yourself into a prostitute's place of work and gave her money (donation) for any reason other than to purchase sex.

Word games where you use one code word to mean another won't do you any good. The judge will accept the cops word as expert testimonial that "word A" is just coded language to mean "word B". In fact you are just making the prosecutor's job easier if you give smartass explanations like that. "Oh no your honour, I gave her a donation, not a payment." Thank you, and the court finds you guilty.

The main difference between a spa and a condo incall is that with a spa, you can make a reasonable case that you just mistakenly walked into what thought was a normal massage parlour, and that you were there to get a massage, not sex. With a condo incall you won't convince the judge that you accidentally walked in there, and if you try to make up a reason or excuse which the girl doesn't backup (remember that they will question you both separately) then you are finished.

tchai

Right, There's only one AG in the province whom is the head of all legal prosecutions. The prosecution proceeds upon the submission of police's (witness) report & defendent's (John) alibi. If "price" is used in the alibi that the case will lost 100%. If "donation" is used it still have a chance to win.

The go ahead prosecution (by AG) based on (1) proved EVIDENCES (money-for-sex) together with (2) the police/witness report & (3) John's alibi. Such as sperm (during intercourse). Witness did see (not guessing) the penetration. In incall I can be anyone walked in the unit & give "donation" to the girl (At least it is not offense the law). If the witness (police) fine me guilty he must (1) submit "my" sperm & needed to proof the sperm found inside the "tunnel". And (2) the traded-money belongs to me!

It's Ok to have sex with MM. But if you pay-for-sex then it's against the law. (Don't you know this, C-Hing?)

The whole senario to get out from the course is how "easy" or "difficult" in prosecuction. In Ontario nearly half of the criminal-offense cases were dropped due to non-urgent threat to public.

The court judges all cases based on FACT together with proved EVIDENCES.

Even MM singed/agreed it's sex-for-money but I insisted I didn't (死口唔認). Then this case creates 疑點! Such 疑點 were proved "my own money" and "my own sperm". 疑點 benefits defendants also law.

babyme

Wos, we have quite a few Bro who is into Criminal Justice area.

Just go 1 on 1 and you will be safe.  Not chance you will be in trouble .
Anytime with 2 or more mm anywhere risks LE surveillance and not worth it.
Especially when neighbors complain to lower their house value.