COPS in BBY

[Rosa]

a regular eforum.xxx here but not signing in here for fear that pigs are on a watchful eye. i was stop by 2 cruisers on my way out of atlantis. was asked a bunch of question with the intention to scare me (but i know my rites and i know the law). played my cool. after 20 mins they let me go.

papasan flag me outside of 7-11 and was worried what i said to them. Lucy was outside too. spoke to her and base on all reviews you guys put in here, i must say she is exactly how everyone describe her to be.

had a lengthy talk with lucy and told her atlantis is safe. i told the cops nothing. here is a tip for all you eforum.xxxs;

atlantis has a few cameras outside the premise. they are on watchful eye for you as well when you're inside. but the cops park a fair distance in the alley (in the back) so you can't see them. lucy and papasan apologize and said they couldn't warn me in time. bi-law in bby states they can stop and question you at any time but don't let them scare you.

would i go back. yes! but be weary where you park and where you exit.

enjoy, my fellow eforum.xxxerts.

 

[Google Help]

What were the cops trying to accomplish? They should do something better with their time.

 

[harrry]

This is exactly what they do with their time - make work for themselves. That's why the chief of police is always in the paper and on the radio whining about how they never have enough money. They whine every year and they get it because they threaten the civil councils with fear of more breakins and other terror, but it never ever seems to be enough. Funny how wherever you stand in a busy area in Vancouver or Burnaby or New Westminster, you'll see a cop car every 5 minutes virtually all hours of the day. Fighting crime is like trying to fill in a black hole.... it's a neverending war (like the war on terror).... the cops need to be under civilian control (instead of their own "professionals") that can make them account for every penny they spend and make them show what they've been able to produce.

All police jurisdictions are virtually the same in Canada or the US.... but I gotta say, Vancouver is especially awful. That is not to say that the Vancouver cops have not done some really good things, like the bait car program. But that program stands head and shoulders above their other activities, and their performance is truly abysmal. They are far worse than Translink in wasting your tax dollars.

 

[K D]

I've noticed the RCMP parked outside some of the Massage Places, not just in Burnaby. Luckly I have never been stopped or questioned, though have shied away when I spot them. Not sure if they are taking plates or anything. Probably just passive harrasment... while having donuts...

 

[Yourasssmells.]

...bi-law in bby states they can stop and question you at any time but don't let them scare you.

This can't be true. The Supreme Court of Canada is the last word on these kinds of issues, not Burnaby City Council. What the cops are doing to you is absolute bullshit.

I know that a lot of people don't like when people post their legal sermons on this board, but let me just say... you did the right thing... say nothing. Eventually (probably in a few minutes) they'll have to let you go about your business (see below). Do not answer any questions unless you are under arrest, and even then don't say anything but your name and address! EVER! They are only asking you questions hoping that you will say something dumb that incriminates you and gives them the grounds to further detain or arrest you... and then they laugh about it afterwards among themselves...

The police can always stop you when you are driving a car, and they can demand a driver's licence and vehicle registration, which identifies you... But they MUST LIMIT THEIR INVESTIGATION TO VEHICLE RELATED MATTERS... unless they form grounds to detain you for a criminal investigation (see below again)... which, trust me on this one, they are miles away from having in this instance.

See: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1990/vol1/html/1990scr1_1257.html

For the grounds to detain you.... see: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol3/html/2004scr3_0059.html

I won't spell it all out for you but the key part is:

Although there is no general power of detention for investigative purposes, police officers may detain an individual if there are reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a particular crime and that the detention is reasonably necessary on an objective view of the circumstances. These circumstances include the extent to which the interference with individual liberty is necessary to the performance of the officer's duty, to the liberty interfered with, and to the nature and extent of the interference. At a minimum, individuals who are detained for investigative purposes must be advised, in clear and simple language, of the reasons for the detention. Investigative detentions carried out in accordance with the common law power recognized in this case will not infringe the detainee's rights under s. 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter. They should be brief in duration, so compliance with s. 10(b) (right to counsel) will not excuse prolonging, unduly and artificially, any such detention. Investigative detentions do not impose an obligation on the detained individual to answer questions posed by the police. Where a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that his safety or the safety of others is at risk, the officer may engage in a protective pat-down search of the detained individual. The investigative detention and protective search power must be distinguished from an arrest and the incidental power to search on arrest.

Many of these cops, unfortunately, don't know the law from a horse.s ass (probably due to their training at the stables in Regina)... Unfortunately for us, "Donut College" isn't great training in the subtleties of the law... Fortunately for us, it is the courts not the police that have the last word on these things.

 

[Izzy r]

What do you say then.

Why am I being stopped.

Why I was in there is none of your business. (how would that go over).

Arrest me or fuck off and pound sand?

 

[Amy Y]

I think the key is to just be really stingy with your comments. The less you say the better. I know this seems sort of counterintuitive, and that it might be better to give them a line about "oh I was just visiting a friend of mine that works there" or something like that, but you're really better of just saying nothing at all.

Many of the questions police ask are of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety, even if it doesn't seem like it at first. For example.... "What were you doing in there?" "Why do you go to these places?" "I know what you are up to... you might as well just tell us." "Do your friends know that you go to places like this?" There is no answer to these questions that is going to help you in any way. The purpose of these kinds of questions is just to get it out of your mouth that you admit that you were in fact in the massage parlour, and possibly to get you nervous and rambling about something which tends to show that you believed you were doing something wrong. Best to just say nothing.

For whatever reason, most people - when they are on the spot in these situations - will tend to tell a story that admits everything up to a point, but then they cut it off where they think "guilt" starts. Don't do this... all you are doing is making the cop's job easier by establishing for them what they would otherwise have great difficulty ever establishing - and which Crown counsel would tell them to "forget it" if they ever tried to submit charges for approval just on the basis of their own observations made from the unmarked crusier sitting in the alley. What you say is key. It's worth 100 times more than their observations in its ability to incriminate you. This goes for any kind of an offence... not just something bogus like a common bawdy house offence. Why do you think the police expend so much time and energy trying to get statements from people? Without those statements they can't establish the basis for a charge much of the time.

More importantly, they have no right to compel an answer to these sorts of questions, or any questions for that matter. It doesn't matter if you are under arrest or if you are the electrician who was just inside to do renovations. You don't have to answer. Ever.

If the cop is really pushing you, you can ask whether you are under arrest, and if so what for? You can also ask whether you are being detained, if so what for, or whether you are free to go. In really weird circumstances where the cop has no clue as to the limits of their power (or they are just fucking with you, which is much more likely), you can just say something like, "I'm exercising my right to silence. I'm not going to be answering any questions." This doesn't incriminate you or give them the right to arrest you to figure out what your "deal" is. Quite the opposite. It blunts off their so-called criminal "investigation", probably for good.

The right to silence is protected under section 7 of our Charter. If the cop is pushing you on why it is you are exercising this right then they are most likely, as I say, just fucking with you without having any intention of ever recommending a charge against you. (I think that is really what this whole AMP thing is about)

You can also phone your lawyer on your cell phone and tell the police officer that you would like a few minutes to speak to your lawyer before hearing his questions. This takes balls to do, but some people do it. The cop has no ability to tell you who you can or can't call on your phone if you aren't under arrest. People do it all the time when they get stopped for drunk driving. The smart cops will let you make the call (or 3 calls or 4 calls or whatever you want). The dumb ones will try and take your phone away... thereby blowing a huge hole in the Crown's ability to ever get a conviction if it turns out that you have done something illegal.

Stand up to these buggers! Know your rights and exercise them. They can't use the Charter against you... it's YOUR SHIELD AGAINST THEM!

 

[genisjose]

Anyone here had the experience of being caught in a micro during a raid ? Thats my biggest fear, hence have only frequented a micro once. Long time ago, and was single at the time. Nowadays, pooning done overseas in Asia mainly.

Is there a charge of being in a house of ill-repute ? I guess no different than getting caught with a SW, off to John-school I imagine.

 

[hooba booba]

I had 2 incident happen to me:
1. In Accupressure-Kingsway. LE rush in the room without knocking, luckly, I had just finish my business and was in the shower. They get out right away and try another room. Nothing happen to me, they didn't even ask my name and driver licence.
2. Atlentis-Rumble St. An unmark car with 2 guy inside stare at me as I walk out the place. I stare at them too. Nothing happen, they didn't stop me at all.
I drove away as usual.
I think the LE is trying to protect the good customer of these businese, since their Businese Licence FEE is 10 times higher then a 7-11 store.
Since then, I did not return to those places. Now I'm pooning in Coquitlam or Richmond.

 

[stevejobs]

What part of ghostie's advice did you not understand?

 

[Raisin]

There are only two offences in the Code which I think could possibly cause trouble for a patron of an AMP (I know this gets spelled out on this board regularly... but bear with me... I'll edit it down as much as possible):

s. 210(2)(b) and s. 213

The relevant part of 210(2)(b) for an AMP patron would be:

"Every one who is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house... is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

What is a "common bawdy-house"? This is something which has bedeviled the courts of this country for a long time. There is a definition of "common bawdy-house" at s. 197. It reads:

"common bawdy-house" means a place that is

(a) kept or occupied, or

(b) resorted to by one or more persons

for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;

Where "massage parlour" stops and "common bawdy-house" starts is the tough part. If people are getting sexual services then I would think it is pretty clear that it is a common-bawdy house.... hence the desire of the police to burst in on people in the act... to see if sex is being provided.

Sections 198(1)(a) and (d) provide presumptions which would help the Crown to establish that something is a "common bawdy-house". In essence they are: (a) peace officer is willfully prevented, delayed or obstructed from entering; and (d) the keeper of the house has previously been convicted of keeping a "common bawdy-house".

This is one of the reasons why you should keep your mouth shut when exiting and AMP: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT INFO THE POLICE ARE WORKING WITH! Maybe the papasan/mamasan has a previous conviction. Maybe the papasan/mamasan doesn't know what they are doing and tried to delay police from entering while they hit their cop alarm? If this were the case, and maybe the police have some other evidence that sex is being provided in there.... and you say that you were just in there getting a "massage" from one of these same girls... then I think you are coming close to bringing yourself into the limits of the offence... Worse yet, you could be getting your pooner bros in trouble if you say what you were actually doing in there... because the police might be one step away from raiding the place and then those poor saps will be "found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house",

If you are out in the parking lot then you aren't being "found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house", but I wouldn't want to take my chances with "creative" police interpretations of the Code.

The other offence is, s. 213, the so-called "communicating" offence.

This is more of a "street prostitution" offence... but it could concievably have some application to AMPs if we edit the words of the section this way:

"Every person who in a public place ... in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person ... for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Note that "public place" includes... "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied..."

Is an AMP a place to which you have access by invitation, express or implied? Yes, I think it is at least arguable that it is... so again... watch what you say to the police if they stop you... you're not completely off the hook as a "John". It's true that most of the offences created in sections 210-213 of the Code are in relation to the "industry" (the providers, procurers, pimps, "livers" off the avails of, "house-keepers", etc.), there are some "John offences" as well.

Keep your wits about you boys... force the cops to have their shit together eight ways from Sunday if they have any ideas about doing anything to you... and don't give them any help by saying anything. Stand your ground, shut your mouth, and they'll throw you back and look for a dumber fish to snag.

However, note also s. 212(4) - "obtaining for consideration the sexual serices of a person under 18". If you have any sense that there is anyone under 18 working in an AMP, leave right away and never go back. That 212(4) offence is a whole different ball-game than the other "John offences".

212(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

This one doesn't require it to be in public or anything like that. It's just strictly "did the person obtain (or communicate for the purpose of obtaining) the sexual services of a person under 18." If the police can set out an evidentiary basis for this, your going to be going down for an indictable offence. Steer clear if you hear any rumours!

 

[Sanat]

ghostie you crack me up. LOL

I've learned the more you say to a cop the more fuel you give them to burn against you. So its best to zip-it.

 

[Jasmine B.]

Don't say anything to them.
Abandon your vehicle.
And run.
Fast.
And don't look back.
And if they catch you...
...resist arrest.
Furiously.
After all,
you've done absolutely nothing wrong...

 

[Mackay]

When you call police officers pigs you don't diminish the profession but rather yourself and reveal yourself as.....well....downright ignorant having far more anger than brains.....

Police officers are neither pigs nor heroes but imperfect (though generally good) men and women doing a difficult job in a profoundly imperfect world. Do police officers and police organizations make mistakes...exercise bad and/or unwise judgement...???? Of course...but so do doctors, lawyers, engineers, mechanics, carpenters plumbers and the like.....Indeed....I probably should not even engage you in this discussion and any intelligent civillity would be lost you you.

 

[xXaliciaXx]

I've recieved some questions by PM that I'll try and answer here... but where are all the AMP/law pros like Hifisex? Feel free to chime in...

Someone is interested in the issue of what is "private" and what is "public" in terms of a place to communicate for the purposes of prositution.

The second question is when does an establishment become a "common bawdy-house", i.e., how much bawdy-badness has to go on before it gets such a naughty legal label?

I'll deal with the second one first... to the extent I can.

There is a 1978 Ontario Court of Appeal case which held that evidence that, on two occasions on the same night, employees of a massage parlour offered to perform "indecent" acts with customers was insufficient to establish that the premises were habitually resorted to for such acts and, there being no other evidence of "habitual use" in this case, the accused were acqitted of the offence under s. 210. This case is called R. v. Ikeda and Widjaja if anyone is interested.

This suggests to me that the test for "common bawdy-house" is pretty tough for the Crown to meet. If the police are going to gather evidence for a common bawdy-house charge, it seems that they are going to have to have a lot of evidence over an extended period of time.

An "incall location" would seem to be even more difficult to establish as a common bawdy-house, which is probably why there are so few of these cases out there. It's just too hard to build a case of "habitually resorted to for such acts." The police would rather take the easy way out and try to shut the place down on licencing and by-law grounds, with the assistance of City Hall, if the AMP has becomes a thorn in their side.

There was another interesting case I was looking at, which may be of interest to my PM friend... the summary says:

A hotel may be found to be a common bawdy-house notwithstanding that not every room is used for the purposes of prositution where evidence is led that during a two-week period, on over 100 occassions, prostitutes were seen to be bringing their customers to the hotel and to a certain floor of the hotel. This is from a B.C. Court of Appeal case called R. v. Tremblay from 1980 (again, from back when they still tried to prosecute these offences rather than resorting to licencing shut downs and low-level harrassment of patrons).

Both these cases suggest to me that to be a common bawdy-house, it has to be habitual, and by that the courts means really habitual. Not just 2-3 guys a day coming over to an SP's house.

Outcall avoids the Criminal Code alltogether (the public place and bawdy-house aspects that is, if not the procuring, pimping, living off the avails, under 18 stuff), but on this reading of the law.... a single SP working out of a residence or discrete, low traffic, poon place will avoid the Code as well.

On the issue of what is private and what is public, the best guide is to look at the definition in s. 213(2):

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

When you think of this in terms of an SP's home, incall location, or a hotel room... it doesn't work. The public does not have access as of right to any of these places.... nor by invitation, express or implied.... An implied right of access would be an "open for business, come on in"-type situation, like an AMP or the local 7-11. It is private property but you have an implied right of access. It does not mean "the owner or occupier of the property has invited you over for a visit". If that were the case then all our homes would be "public places", when in reality the dwelling house is the gold standard of what is not public in our society. Our law considers the home to be a refugee from the public, hence the need for search warrants, warrant to arrest in a dwelling house, etc. all the other special protections for dwelling places.

So, ghostie's final call is that while s. 213 may, however difficult to establish, have some application to an AMP situation, it has no application to an SP's home, incall location, or a hotel room...

Hope that helps... HifiSex! Help ghostie out with the tough questions here

 

[JackNapier092]

Well... considering the cops are frequent customers of most of these places on their days off, I think they know what's really going on in there.

 

[rayzir]

you should have dropped ya pants, and show them pigs, how much of a eforum.xxx ya really are!!

 

[thedivineoomba]

but the only problem is...
what if if you got a tan on ya... if you run and resists arrest, they might phuck you up like the brazilian dude in the UK!!!!

 

[Lee333]

Some tips from our neighbors to the south... still some of the same constitutional rights still apply. Worth viewing in my opions...

keep safe guys.. follow some of the advice in the videos...

http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips

 

[Pompal 09.]

My PM friend asked me a follow up question... maybe we can help him or her out with it?

If a particualar hotel room or residence was used repetitively by "invited" undercover cops, informants etc. a common bawdy house charge might be established?

There are a couple more things I can point to without totally taking the day off and heading to the library

The "frequent or habitial use" idea comes from a 1968 Supreme Court of Canada case called R. v. Patterson. The Court found that the words "kept or occupied" or "resorted to" connote a frequent or habitual use of the premises for the purpose of prostitution. The Court referred tho three kinds of evidence which could be used to prove this frequent or habitual use:

1. Actual evidence of the continued and habitual use of the premises for prostitution...(this would be actual evidence of sex being provided ... probably obtained by undercover cops or agents or people who, for whatever reason (immunity), decided to give such evidence).

2. Evidence of the reputation in the neighbourhood of the premises as a common bawdy-house (this would be basically the "neigbours" giving evidence that the place in question is well known as a poon palace... this probably has less impact now then back in the 60s or 70s if one of these was to go to trial)

3. Circumstantial evidence which would allow the court to properly draw the inference that the place in question was resorted to habitually as a place of prostitution. (I'm not 100% sure on this but I would think that a wide variety of evidence could be given on this basis: Are there a lot of guys coming in, staying for a hour and leaving, is the cash flow inconsistent with simply massages being provided, are there sex related items found inside that wouldn't normally be need for massages (large numbers of condoms, etc.)? Stuff like that - things which would allow the court to draw the inference that this is a CBH).

In the case of a particular hotel room, I think a CBH could be established, but the police would have to have the evidence to meet the rather stringent "continued and habitual use of the premises for prostitution" test. If we look at that Tremlay case I was mentioning above, then we could probably take over 100 visits in 2 weeks as a minimum to establish a place as a CBH. Undercover cops and agents, at least I think anyway, are not going to put that kind of effort into one agency working out of one hotel room. Anyone have any experience with something like that which they care to share?

The best answer I can come up with right now is that the police would have the following kinds of evidence to work with to establish a hotel room as a CBH:

The three kinds of evidence set out in Patterson (actual, reputation and circumstantaial);

The presumptions set out by s. 198(1)(a) and (d) - delaying or obstructing police officer from entering, and previous convictions for CBH offences.

The main thing going for the AMP/accused in this would be the "frequent or habitial use" idea, and how the courts have interpreted this to be something akin to almost "open and notorious" provision of the services of a prostitute.

Mamasans and Papasans, keep it discrete. Same applies to patrons and girls working there. The less open people are the harder it will be for the police to establish charges.

Another interesting note I found is that, apparently (although ghostie disagrees ) being found to be entering or leaving a common bawdy-house is sufficient to establish a charge of being "found in" a CBH

Note says: ...evidence that the accused was seen entering or leaving was sufficient to prove the offence, his presence in the bawdy-house not being the object of subsequent admission but by being discovered by the contemporaneous observation or inspection by police. R. v. Lemieux, 1991, Quebec Court of Appeal.

If that is still good law, or is law out West here... then that really sux!! The plain reading of 210(2)(b) would seem to require you to be found in the CBH, not observed to be walking in or out.

That raises the stakes boys... if police have been doing a long-term investigation into an AMP and feel that they have sufficient evidence to establish the place as a CBH, then any poor sap, according to this case anyway, walking in or out, could be subject to a charge under 210(2)(b)...

ghostie will have a look at this in more detail and get back...