Just so you know, there is no legal bar to an undercover officer touching you as described and then arresting you after you agreed to to sex for money.
However, the majority of police departments have guidelines that forbid their officers from doing this. In this article discussing Albuquerque, we learn:
The issue here is public perception, though, not legality – four days after the Washington Post ran the story, Sheriff Smith announced that “public reaction” caused him to decide to suspend the tactic.
I wonder if you could clarify how this worked (& the process in general, FTM).
At which point did you ask them to touch you? Had you already made clear what you were proposing? If so, wouldn’t that be solicitation already? And if not, under what pretext were you asking them to touch you?
Ok, most of the time a guy would pick me up, we would get into light conversation, exchange names, flirt lightly, and dance around it, until I thought it was appropriate to take things a step further, and see if he was serious. I would ask him to give me a kiss or fondle me. Its not something that can be explained, and every time was a little different. Its not foolproof, and being under the influence affected things as you could imagine.
So it sounds like you asked for the touch before even hinting at payment. In light of that, I don’t see the basis for assuming that a cop couldn’t do it. I can understand that a cop might be leery of doing something that counts - to some extent - as prostitution. But if all you were doing was hanging out to that point, what he would be doing by touching you was not illegal at all. It would be different if it were clear by that point that it was a sex-for-money exchange.
Anyway, thanks for answering. Perhaps you might be amenable to starting an “Ask the Former Prostitute” thread.
The place they busted is called “Grab-n-Go Bikini Hut” but the owner had them sign contracts stating that they wouldn’t engage in such conduct. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when he is “interviewing” new employees.
Even as someone who generally supports the legalization of prostitution, I think this is a public nuisance. That being said, if I were in charge this would be prosecuted under indecent exposure and lewd public acts rather than prostitution.
Just one more step closer to turning “Idiocracy” into reality. After this much publicity, expect to see “gentleman’s lattes” at Starbuck’s with “extra foam” within a few years.
