Clarifying criminal vs. by-law charges

[KIKGASKAHNE]

DiP, I thought about your question overnite. I don't have a lot of resources at home, so my response is a bit of a guess. On the other hand, I suspect there are likely no reported cases on your point anyway.

First, you definitely meet the first two stages of the criminal test: 1. You would be "found in" the MP in the course of a hypothetical bust. 2. You have suffficient knowledge re the type of place you are in and what goes on there to make out "mens rea". Regardless of your own motives in frequenting the place, the cops would prove that others went there for the pruposes of sex. I don't read the section as imposing a requirement that each and every customer need to be searching for sexual gratification to make the place a bawdy house. The old adage that some guys go to brothels just to talk to the girls is well known.

So the issue is whether you have a "lawful excuse". I played with your facts a little. If you had no sex at all, I think you might have some chance of beating the charge in front of the right judge. The fact that you do get sex - although it is subsidiary to the emotional and personal connection you make - probably makes it very likely that the Court would not accept you as having a lawful excuse.

This is a topic which could do with more research and the scope of what would consitute a "lawful excuse" in particular is an interesting ?. Right now, I simply don't have the time to do this much work on an issue not related to one of my actual existing cases.

 

[Calamitty]

Except that is not what I said.

That is what oagre says I wrote, but since he has not read what I wrote, how would he know?

Nothing that I said pertains to the "rub 'n tug scene." If you want to know (and/or comment on) what I said, read my post in the previous thread... and I think it will be crystal clear to you! Dreamer knows what I am talking about: obviously, he read the previosu thread!

BTW, I agree that it could make for a wonderfully funny scene... particularly if it were staged a la Monty Python!

Perry

 

[BOsKO]

So, you say you are a lawyer: Don

 

[Robert W]

Dreamer,

SC business has gone downhill because of the explosion in number of MP's, the high cost of a single dance and the rip off prices that some clubs charge for VIP and drinks.

MP's have their place, but I think there are too many in operation and a few of them are rip offs or unsafe/unsanitary.

Very few have been plead out, many have been dropped. Some get dropped for lack of evidence, or the girl signs an agreement not to work in that town for x number of years. All the good, dependable and clean MP's have successfully fought and won their cases or had the charges dropped. The reason why they continue to remain in business is simple. They run a clean shop, no drugs, no underaged and no "forced" labour.

If criminal laws were being broken, would you not think the cops would be there every day, charging everyone that was in the place? Would you not think that the owners or mgmt or even the girls would be in jail?

Promoting hysteria is not a good idea. Respecting the limits of the MPA's is a good idea, however too many assholes try to get the girls to do or offer more. There should be more discussion on that aspect than the risks of getting "caught with your pants down".

FYI, I've been in attendance in the past when a MP was visited by the cops or bylaw officers. They really dont care about the guys in there unless the guy is getting a blow job or screwing someone. We all know that you cant get blow jobs or f/s at the popular and licensed MP's. So why be worried about it if it aint happening?

 

[mktmonitor]

I can feel a lawyer joke coming up very soon. It's inevitable. Something about 20000 lawyers and the bottom of the sea.

 

[jordan g]

That's been my experience too Sheik. I've been in a place during a by-law inspection. I was undressed but the MPA hadn't come in yet. After I heard some commotion, I got dressed, timidly walked out into the hall-way, saw it was clear and just left. Interestingly, I went back 90 minutes later to get the massage I wanted. That's when I started to learn the difference between by-law and a "raid".

By-law, which happened to me, was simply two overweight guys in golf-shirts rounding-up MPA's and giving them the third degree (and mayby giving out tickets), and asking them questions about what goes on there. Some of the news serials, like those on City TV show that sometimes the police will visit with by-law inspectors for various reasons (e.g. to protect the by-law officers, to observe what's going on). However, the press-releases that we see from York Region are "raids", where the police have gathered evidence and lay various charges, including found-in charges.

In this instance, it would seem to me they would care about anyone who is in there, regardless of "state-of-dress" or not. From what others have said, it does make sense that "state-of-dress" and other factors may be taken into account in terms of whether or not someone is convicted. For me personally, I don't even want the charge, even though there is a good likelyhood, from what others have said, that I won't be convicted. They may even take into account whether the place is licenced or not during conviction. I think a good argument could be made as follows "Your Honour, I checked-out the website, and did my research and I found that the place was licenced in the particular therapy I needed - that's why I was there." The argument is not perfect (e.g. an MPA talks and says "Oh sure 3Tees is a regular and during our sessions..."), but it may be good enough.

From what I know, being charged as a "found-in" could happen anywhere. It could be a house (remember the Thornhill madam a number of years ago), it could be a store, a restaurant, a religious facility or even a licenced establishment - as long as the cops have enough evidence to prove it. What is somewhat reassuring (though not for me personally) is that others have said the chances of actually being convicted of the charge are small.

 

[googley]

I think I know the difference, in theory at least. But the practice is likely to involve me nekkid and horrid and them

 

[keep_it_real9572]

It's actually long overdue.

 

[Smelly Cat]

Oagre is a respectful massageplanet.net member! He has a rich posting history on this board!
I

 

[Paula]

Oldjones, you and Aimless Wanderer do say the same thing, and I agree. Anyone sounding official whilst I am nekked is likely to throw me into a tizzy. Having seeing and experienced a bylaw inspection, I think that I would be much more confident in knowing what my position is the next time it happens. Also, after reading Marham's bylaw, the bylaw inspectors (on their own and without the police) in my opinion do not have the authority to do anything to customers.

It is the police that worry me. If I saw them, I would be much less brazen and more than likely do as they say. I do believe that the letter of the law does say that an officer cannot make one turn-over ID, or that an officer cannot force a statement from you. However, I get the sense that if I pull that shit with them, they'll simply say "You're under arrest for being a 'found-in'. Now show us your ID. Too bad you decided to give us a hard-time Mr. 3Tees, because before arresting you all we were going to do was check you out for warrants and let you go."

 

[gintzer]

I remember that argument was used when SC's were on the radar.

Now the MP's are on the radar.

We can argue all day about various points that will only be determined by future events. In fact I agree with most of your points.

However, as a reader of massageplanet.net I would like to know which MP's are currently being targeted, charged, in court, visited by the police or bylaw officers or have licensing issues.

With that information I can make an informed decision. If the information is deleted then I am left on my own.

 

[GSD PAL]

This is the first unemotional and completely accurate comment I have noticed in this thread. But maybe it is worth emphasizing that one cannot be taken to the station for "further investigation" without being under arrest. Moreover, one is not obliged to disclose ID unless there is a warrant provided which you have the right to read and evaluate. Even then,you are not obliged to answer any questions whatsoever without consulting a lawyer.

 

[SLA]

Perry, let me return to my previous ?. Are you going to actually discuss the law or are you just going to harrass and insult me? So far, you've refused to explain your argument. You just keep saying you're not going to "spoon feed" me. Well, how about spoon-feeding the few dozen or so other guys reading this thread who aren't lawyers. That way, everyone will understand what you are trying to say.

Re my not being able to access Ni: I don't have Quicklaw at home. If that case is on a general Court website as an accessible decision, tell me and I'll read it. I'm hardly the only lawyer in town who may not be familiar with every last web resource.

But you're not going to do that, are you? You're spa owner buddy is going to cut you a favour if you just stay on this thread and try and harrass and intimidate me. That's your little "job" for today. So info exchange isn't a priority for you.

 

[maggiebridget09]

Hi fellow massageplanet.netites. I know some of you are wondering whether you have to provide your ID if you happen to be in a MP and the LE people walk in, so let me clarify this question for you. As far as I know, if you are asked by by-law officers to provide your ID, and they are NOT with any uniformed police officer(s), you DO NOT have to provide them with your ID. How I know this is because one time, a customer was caught inside our spa when the by-law came in and when they asked him for his ID, he said, "I'm not gonna give you my ID. I don't have to give you anything. I know my rights." And they let him go. However, if there IS a uniformed police officer present, then you DO have to give them your ID. Otherwise, they DO have the right to arrest you and take you down to the station. (I think they can charge you with "obstruction of justice" or something along those lines.) Police officers have WAY more power then by-laws, just as a criminal charge is WAY more serious than a by-law infraction.



Hi antaeus, Nope, no news from my stupid psychics. I'm gonna fire both of them soon. Didn't meet nobody in September like one of them predicted. No changes in my love life OR career like they said, and didn't meet anyone by the name of John/Shawn/ or Paul that I'd be interested in. Interestingly though, I did meet a client by the name of Paul who was REALLY cute and whom I probably would've dated, but you know what, I know this is going to sound REALLY, REALLY shallow, (and I know some of you guys will HATE me for saying this), but he had a weenie that was really, I mean REALLY small. I'm talking about the size of my thumb. So how can I f**k it? I love bouncing up and down, so I don't think it's even going to stay inside of me if I do that. If I didn't like bouncing up and down, it's probably o.k., but I love bouncing up and down!!! So no, I definitely can not see myself dating him. I LOVE sex and for me, that's a huge part of a relationship, otherwise, what's the difference? might as well just be friends. To me, sex is what makes a relationship different from a friendship.

 

[b_dracula]

In this good discussion I think it should be pointed out that bylaws are License requirements for a body rub to keep its license. It has nothing to do with customers. The only penalty for a bylaw violation is a fine and possibly closing at least for a time of the Massage /body rub license holder.

If the MP is unlicensed, that is a different more serious charge but again not a customer issue. However, cops seem to be looking for criminal activities (not just bylaws issues) at the unlicensed MPA where most of the criminal busts occur.

I think your quite safe going to licensed, MP/body rubs that have a good reputation with their bylaw officers etc. It is also obvious certain cities or those under certain divisions (32?) of Peel there is far more desire to investigate MP's than in other cities.

 

[eclecticdoctor]

Oagre,

We need a claification on a point raised by Leah: if the by-law (or the cops for that matter) bust in on a session, are you required to identify yourself? I have no record of arrest, but I do consider my private life private, if you know what I mean.

Thanks for the help!

 

[Lisa A]

Imagine being the cop or bylaw officer who caught you in whatever act they had reason to believe was forbidden by the bylaws or the Criminal Code. Now Mr Smarty-No-Pants says, "I refuse to identify myself, and you can't make me".

So the ossifer says, "How do I know those are your pants on the chair? What name's in the wallet?"

And that's if they're playing nice.

 

[pink smiling]

Am just back from Europe and didn't get a chance to follow this thread over the last week +. I should have been clearer in my post. If you are arrested, the cops can take you to the station. They would have the required "reasonable and probable grounds" to arrest for found-in if they caught you in a MP during a raid with no obvious innocent explanation for being there - and especially if you were with a girl and naked, etc.

Once arrested, the "further investigation" would be with regards to your ID, whether you had any outstanding charges, warrants, etc.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Hi fellow massageplanet.netites. I know some of you are wondering whether you have to provide your ID if you happen to be in a MP and the LE people walk in, so let me clarify this question for you. As far as I know, if you are asked by by-law officers to provide your ID, and they are NOT with any uniformed police officer(s), you DO NOT have to provide them with your ID. How I know this is because one time, a customer was caught inside our spa when the by-law came in and when they asked him for his ID, he said, "I'm not gonna give you my ID. I don't have to give you anything. I know my rights." And they let him go. However, if there IS a uniformed police officer present, then you DO have to give them your ID. Otherwise, they DO have the right to arrest you and take you down to the station. (I think they can charge you with "obstruction of justice" or something along those lines.) Police officers have WAY more power then by-laws, just as a criminal charge is WAY more serious than a by-law infraction.

Leah: The mere presence of a policeman is insufficient to legally coerce the presentation of ID. As I noted -perhaps with insufficient clarity- a person has to be under arrest on the basis of a warrant that has been issued for your arrest. You are allowed to read that warrant before acquiesing to its requirement for ID. The warrant must be served on the basis that you have been found committing the act signified in the warrant. Without that, the cop, if he insists that you travel to the station for further investigation, can be charged with false arrest. If the gendarme forcibly tries to take you to the station or intimidates you into so doing, you are legally entitled to refuse and even take measures to escape the cop's grasp (not that I would recommend this). But, the point is that in Canadian Law it is legal to passively resist an illegal arrest. (Let them carry you out and then sue them for false arrest.)

If the police decide that they are not in a position to arrest you then you must be released to return to whatever it is you are about.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Lots of information and opinions, not much hard experience cited.

My experience was being in an MP in Oshawa which was raided. I had previously posted this on massageplanet.net in the old Durham/Kingston/Ottawa section.

This took place in April 2002.
It was about 6 pm and I stopped in for a quick massage. There were two young Russian girls (19 or 18 years old) working, a tall thin (I mean like model thin! Naked, her rib cage was clearly visible, although she wasn