# Soliciting Prostitution and Conspiracy **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197 "2014-06-20T12:20:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/21 "2014-06-23T19:52:54Z")
Since you’re looking for legal opinions/advice, moved to IMHO (from MPSIMS). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/22 "2014-06-23T20:01:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes – but that’s why the inquiry is fact-specific. I can credibly claim i bought herbal tea with no impermissible motive. Explaining why I bought (or accepted at no charge) clean urine is a more difficult task. You bought the tea because you like tea which is a permissible motive. However, you saw that I was selling it with the intention that a person would use it to defeat a drug test. Did you not then conspire with me to violate subsection (1)? ETA: Subsection (1) focuses only my intention, not yours. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/23 "2014-06-23T21:28:26Z")
Much simpler than all that: this is the buyer-seller exception. Without more, a mere buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. That’s been litigated to high heaven. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/24 "2014-06-23T21:36:12Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > No lawyer here, but in most states prostitution wouldn’t fall under conspiracy due to Wharton’s rule that you can look up. I’m in-house counsel for a large corporation and I emailed your post to several of my colleagues, all were impressed. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/25 "2014-06-23T22:23:12Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Much simpler than all that: this is the buyer-seller exception. Without more, a mere buyer-seller relationship is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. That’s been litigated to high heaven. Can I trouble you for a quick cite? Does it also apply to donor-donee relationships? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/26 "2014-06-23T22:57:01Z")
It’s all circuit opinions, so you can find bits and pieces of discussion all over the place. There’s some cases here: [ > [@](#): > > The lower federal appellate courts have acknowledged that evidence of a mere buyer-seller > relationship is insufficient to support a drug trafficking conspiracy charge. Some do so under the > rationale that there is no singularity of purpose, no necessary agreement, in such cases: “the > buyer’s purpose is to buy; the seller’s purpose is to sell.” > 47 > … > Again, in most cases the essence of conspiracy is agreement. “Nevertheless, mere association, > standing alone, is inadequate; an individual does not become a member of a conspiracy merely > associating with conspirators known to be involved in crime.” > 51 ]([http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf](http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf)) I would imagine whether it applies to donor/donee depends. If my dealer gives me my 10th rock for free, I can’t imagine how that’s a different analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197/27 "2014-06-25T21:44:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You bought the tea because you like tea which is a permissible motive. However, you saw that I was selling it with the intention that a person would use it to defeat a drug test. > > Did you not then conspire with me to violate subsection (1)? > > ETA: Subsection (1) focuses only my intention, not yours. I still say no – because the essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to break the law, and we never made such an agreement, nor did I intend to agree with you. Same result as if an undercover officer bought the tea. Any construction that allows a conspiracy when only one person intends to break the law is flouted by Wharton’s rule, which requires _culpable_ participation by two or more people. My conduct isn’t culpable – I know I’m going to use the tea for a completely legal purpose. Under the circumstances, completing the crime described in subsection (1) is _factually impossible_ (as distinguished from _legally impossible_). (Now, it might be said that you _attempted_ the crime of (1), but you did not complete it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soliciting-prostitution-and-conspiracy/691197.md?page=1)