NOPD fires two

[Duck Jenkins]

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=14326750

Two more NOPD Fired.

It said they arrested two women w/o a warrant for prostitution. I did not think every arrest needed a warrant? Is there more to this than reported? Any of you current/retired LEO out there care to educate me on this one?

 

[parallel]

Unwarranted doesn't mean without a warrant, it means without probable cause or merit.

 

[Duck Jenkins]

Unwarranted doesn't mean without a warrant, it means without probable cause or merit.

The report said without A warrant, but that did come from the news. I see you point and that does make more sense to me.

 

[parallel]

The report said without A warrant, but that did come from the news. I see you point and that does make more sense to me.

Which report said that?

ETA: Never mind I see it now. Seems as if that reporter doesn't know the difference.

 

[Duck Jenkins]

I wonder what law they are talking about when they stated the cops did not check to if they had prior arrest. It seems if a prior was a required, they would never get the first.

 

[parallel]

They're talking about two different crimes. They can't charge someone with prostitution loitering unless that person is a known prostitute (meaning they have a conviction for prostitution solicitation).

 

[03protege]

what he said

 

[Duck Jenkins]

They're talking about two different crimes. They can't charge someone with prostitution loitering unless that person is a known prostitute (meaning they have a conviction for prostitution solicitation).

That makes sense.

 

[parallel]

Based on that article, Ryan Waits is NOT very good at writing.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

They're talking about two different crimes. They can't charge someone with prostitution loitering unless that person is a known prostitute (meaning they have a conviction for prostitution solicitation).

Parallel, I am sure you meant well, but you are wrong. The statute is clearly available for everyone and for those not intimately knowledgeable, if you are going to give out information, please do so with a supporting citation less we continue to mislead and misinform unintentionally.

They do not NEED a prior charge for you to charge them, but what you described is most commonly how it is done since it is generally a BS misdemeanor anyway.

More importantly, the solicitation for prostitution charge is generally for the Johns and not the Hoes since the charge is soliciting for PROSTITUTES and not prostitution, which could be read either way:


For the JOHNS...

14:83. Soliciting for prostitutes
Soliciting for prostitutes is the soliciting, inviting, inducing, directing or transporting a person to any place with the intention of promoting prostitution.
Whoever commits the crime of soliciting for prostitutes shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
Amended by Acts 1980, No. 708, §1.

For the hoes...

14:82. Prostitution; definition; penalties; enhancement A. Prostitution is:
(1) The practice by a person of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation.
(2) The solicitation by one person of another with the intent to engage in indiscriminate sexual intercourse with the latter for compensation.
B. As used in this Section, "sexual intercourse" means anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse.
C.(1) Whoever commits the crime of prostitution shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
(2) On a second conviction, the offender shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than two thousand dollars or be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or both.
(3) On a third and subsequent conviction, the offender shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not less than two nor more than four years and shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than four thousand dollars.
D. Any offense under this Section committed more than five years prior to the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged shall not be considered in the assessment of penalties under this Section.
E. If the offense occurred as a result of a solicitation by the offender while the offender was located on a public road or highway, or the sidewalk, walkway, or public servitude thereof, the court shall sentence the offender to imprisonment for a minimum of ninety days. If a portion of the sentence is suspended, the court may place the offender upon supervised probation if the offender agrees, as a condition of probation, to perform two hundred forty hours of community service work collecting or picking up litter and trash on the public roads, streets, and highways, under conditions specified by the court.
F. All persons who are convicted of the offense of prostitution shall be referred to the parish health unit for counseling concerning Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The counseling shall be provided by existing staff of the parish health unit whose duties include such counseling.
Amended by Acts 1977, No. 49, §1; Acts 1987, No. 569, §1; Acts 1988, No. 666, §1; Acts 1999, No. 338, §1; Acts 2001, No. 403, §1, eff. June 15, 2001; Acts 2001, No. 944, §4; Acts 2008, No. 138, §1.

For da

and your massage parlour type places with happy endings.

14:83.2. Promoting prostitution A. Promoting prostitution is the knowing and willful control of, supervision of, or management of an enterprise for profit in which customers are charged a fee for services which include prostitution, regardless of what portion of the fee is actually for the prostitution services.
B. Whoever commits the crime of promoting prostitution shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both.
Acts 1984, No. 580, §1.

and

84. Pandering Pandering is the intentional:
(1) Enticing, placing, persuading, encouraging, or causing the entrance of any person into the practice of prostitution, either by force, threats, promises, or by any other device or scheme;
(2) Maintaining a place where prostitution is habitually practiced;
(3) Detaining any person in any place of prostitution by force, threats, promises, or by any other device or scheme;
(4) Receiving or accepting by a person as a substantial part of support or maintenance anything of value which is known to be from the earnings of any person engaged in prostitution;
(5) Consenting, on the part of any parent or tutor of any person, to the person's entrance or detention in the practice of prostitution; or
(6) Transporting any person from one place to another for the purpose of promoting the practice of prostitution.
Whoever commits the crime of pandering shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years, or both.
Amended by Acts 1978, No. 219, §1; Acts 1980, No. 708, §1.

and possibly

14:83.1. Inciting prostitution A. Inciting prostitution is the aiding, abetting, or assisting in an enterprise for profit in which:
(1) Customers are charged a fee for services which include prostitution, regardless of what portion of the fee is actually for the prostitution services,
(2) When the person knows or when a reasonable person in such a position should know that such aiding, abetting, or assisting is for prostitution, and
(3) When the proceeds or profits are to be in any way divided by the prostitute and the person aiding, abetting, or assisting the prostitute.
B. Whoever commits the crime of inciting prostitution shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Acts 1984, No. 580, §1.

 

[Duck Jenkins]

FYI : Sec. 54-253. - Prostitution loitering.

Is the law he was discussing with me and he is correct from the way I read it.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

FYI : Sec. 54-253. - Prostitution loitering.

Is the law he was discussing with me and he is correct from the way I read it.

Can you give an actual citation? Is that a local ordinance or something?

 

[JR1572]

It's a Orleans Parish city ordinance.

JR1572

 

[Nolacopusmc]

FYI : Sec. 54-253. - Prostitution loitering.

Is the law he was discussing with me and he is correct from the way I read it.

When someone asks for a citation, it generally includes a link or a quote to help eliviate the confusion based on you quoting a completely different statute than the one you were referring to...kinda like this:

Sec. 54-253. - Prostitution loitering.
(a)
It is unlawful for any person to commit the crime of prostitution loitering.
(b)
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Known prostitute or panderer means a person, who within one year previous to the date of arrest for violation of this section, has within the present knowledge of the arresting officer been convicted of soliciting for prostitution, prostitution, or a crime against nature. ​

Present knowledge of the arresting officer means information known to the arresting officer at the time the arrest is made for violation of this section. ​

(c)
A person is guilty of prostitution loitering by remaining in a public place, when he or she has been convicted within the previous one year within the present knowledge of the arresting officer of soliciting for prostitution, prostitution, or a crime against nature, and engages in any of the following conduct:
(1)
Repeatedly beckons to, stops, or attempts to stop or engage passersby in conversation;
(2)
Repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving arms or other body gestures; or
(3)
Is overheard by arresting officers engaging in a conversation soliciting or procuring another to commit prostitution.
(d)
This section shall not apply to persons having a bona fide reason for making such contacts, such as persons having a legitimate interest in commerce or a lawful purpose in communicating with others, including known prostitutes or panderers when engaged in behavior unrelated to prostitution, soliciting for prostitution or prostitution loitering.

They are almost verbatim like the state law, as state preemption exclusions require.

When dealing with these issues, I am generally referring to state law as that is what most municipalities use except for the "revenue generating" ones, and i guess prostitution could be one of those in NOLA.

In this case, the city ordinance clearly states the prior arrest is required and would refer to the provider.

Nevertheless, the solicitation and the loitering charges are two completely different charges regardless of referring to state or local ordinances. Future misinformation and confusion could be avoided by providing a proper citation when dispensing legal knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification nonetheless.

 

[parallel]

Holy **** dude. I wasn't trying to teach criminal law, we were merely discussing a news article. Am I to ask for or provide a citation every time someone post something? Maybe now that I'm talking about it I should post the definition of a news article lest (not less) "we continue to mislead and misinform unintentionally".

Also, perhaps YOU should have looked it up lest YOU continue to mislead and misinform unintentionally.

 

[DuckYou]

Am I to ask for or provide a citation every time someone post something?

It is in the forum rules that you are to, when engaged in a thread with Nolacopusmc, list and quote all pertinent laws preferably in MLA format.

 

[Duck Jenkins]

Oh Geez, Here we go again. Some people just like getting checked I guess. I love it when "know all type people" scream "your wrong, don't give misinformation. blab blab blab" and then BAM!

And in a lame attempt to save some face, spout off other opinions that have no factual base. Get a grip and btw, I fixed OP which should prevent any future misunderstandings.

Future misinformation and confusion could be avoided by providing a proper citation when dispensing legal knowledge.

} this can better happen if you read the post first and become more educated in local/state law, and learning how to use google.

 

[XD-GEM]

Multiple problems with that KSLA story. The story bears a WWL-TV copyright, yet the author on it has a WAFB-TV e-mail address; and the story is lifted in its entirety from the wwltv.com website, where the author is listed only as wwltv.com. If any of us had posted like that here, we'd get the ban hammer for copyright violations.

Journalism ain't what it used to be.

 

[leVieux]

Which report said that?

ETA: Never mind I see it now. Seems as if that reporter doesn't know the difference.

A reporter who doesn't know the difference in his own words? Sadly, you're probably very correct.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Oh Geez, Here we go again. Some people just like getting checked I guess. I love it when "know all type people" scream "your wrong, don't give misinformation. blab blab blab" and then BAM!

And in a lame attempt to save some face, spout off other opinions that have no factual base. Get a grip and btw, I fixed OP which should prevent any future misunderstandings.

} this can better happen if you read the post first and become more educated in local/state law, and learning how to use google.

Sir, something tells me I am WAAAAY more educated in all manner of law than you...just guessing. As far as your inference that I am "trying to save face", you might want to watch your word choice as making slings at a man's character sometimes has some unintended consequences. Not that I could care one iota what someone like you thinks, I am pretty sure I have proven myself more than knowledgeable to speak to local and state law where relevant.

Furthermore, this whole post is nothing more than a poor attempt at a personal attack/slight and provides nothing to the thread other than your vile opinion of me. You should feel ashamed you took the time to type it.

Again, a simple citation or distinction to a local ordnance would have been helpful and enlightening to the community as a whole. That is why I try to always include a citation or link to a specific statute when appropriate. However, reading you recent posts, I can see you truly could care less about the community and are here for your own entertainment...glad I could help with that.

It is in the forum rules that you are to, when engaged in a thread with Nolacopusmc, list and quote all pertinent laws preferably in MLA format.

I prefer APA...you should know that as it is the preferred method of citation for social sciences for which criminal justice is a part of. APA is for liberal arts. Sorry you also fail at smartass comments. Perhaps you should take your friends advice and learn to use Google a little better. Just a suggestion. Here is a link:

www.google.com

Holy **** dude. I wasn't trying to teach criminal law, we were merely discussing a news article. Am I to ask for or provide a citation every time someone post something? Maybe now that I'm talking about it I should post the definition of a news article lest (not less) "we continue to mislead and misinform unintentionally".

Also, perhaps YOU should have looked it up lest YOU continue to mislead and misinform unintentionally.

I could have looked it up had you taken the time to note that you were referring to a local ordinance. Or hell, do what is generally considered common and when you throw out your legal opinion, take the time to site sources.

While you were not trying to teach criminal law, you put a statement out there as fact without a citation to back it up. While not a requirement, it is generally a good idea to support legal statements as it not only lends credibility to your statement, but places a reference for others to research and learn. Unlike you, when I post something in a thread like this, I at least try to provide something credible and informative. That is why I include the citation when appropriate for others to learn and reference.

As far as me misleading and misinforming, you are clearly delusional as I think I pretty extensively provided citations to support what I was saying. Had you not been so lazy or knowledgeable in the first place, a simple reference would have clearly told all you were referring to a local ordinance.

HOWEVER, I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT READING YOUR MIND AND KNOWING. That is my fault and I own my failure at mind reading. I will work on it.



Point is....
Had Parallel made the distinction (through a citation) that he was referring to a NO Ordnance, then the whole confusion would have been avoided.

Perhaps I also should not have assumed he was referring to the state law and not a local ordinance, based on my personal knowledge that generally speaking when police are arrested, they are charged with state charges and not ordinances.


As an aside, oddly there are no malfeasance in office, false imprisonment, or other charges given the deliberate nature of their actions as claimed in the story.

The charges listed are ordinances and internal policy. Seems kind of a weak case. Generally when they have a cop dead to rights, they make an example and go state or federal where applicable. Nevertheless, this story has been bouncing around for a little while, and from what I gathered, these dudes needed to be caught for something.