Do undercover police have to identify themselves in California?Prostitution?
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009 at
11:43 pm
sdog asked:
There seems to be a myth circulating, at least i think it is such, that when we, when police or people working for the police independently, are undercover as in stings posing as prostitutes, dealers, etc that they have to identify themselves if asked if they are working for the police.
My understanding is that this is not so.? This would seem to destroy any effectiveness in undercover operations. For instance, if I become a police officer and pose as either a ********** or a potential customer of one, all the john or ********** has to do is ask if i work for the police and any potential case is lost.?
What if someone contacts someone who does sensual massage or prostitution to trade just massage consensually, but does not trade money or illegal substances for it, is that illegal? Being that it is only consensual massage, not turning sexuality into a financial commodity, it seems that this would still be legal in California, or could we prosecute someone for this?.
If known, please include links to cite specific laws stating one way or the other.
There seems to be a myth circulating, at least i think it is such, that when we, when police or people working for the police independently, are undercover as in stings posing as prostitutes, dealers, etc that they have to identify themselves if asked if they are working for the police.
My understanding is that this is not so.? This would seem to destroy any effectiveness in undercover operations. For instance, if I become a police officer and pose as either a ********** or a potential customer of one, all the john or ********** has to do is ask if i work for the police and any potential case is lost.?
What if someone contacts someone who does sensual massage or prostitution to trade just massage consensually, but does not trade money or illegal substances for it, is that illegal? Being that it is only consensual massage, not turning sexuality into a financial commodity, it seems that this would still be legal in California, or could we prosecute someone for this?.
If known, please include links to cite specific laws stating one way or the other.
Tagged with: Myth • Police Officer • Prostitution
Filed under: Commodity Trading
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
If a ********** asks if they are a cop, then they have to tell them. Otherwise if she doesn’t ask everything is fare game.
dont you think that is something the agency you work for or want to work for should answer? if you have to get your information here, something is wrong.
They do not have to identify themselves. That’s the whole point of being undercover.
They don’t have to if they are in a sting operation. If a hooker takes a transaction for sex, then that person is going to get busted, especially if it’s with an undercover officer. A sensual massage isn’t illegal unless there is a sexual act done. Also, if they were free and no money was exchanged I think they would be working their fingers to the bone. 9-out-of-10 times I would guarantee that “something” is swapped for a sensual massage.
Undercover policemen do not identify themselves except when they have already arrested the suspects.
There is no law against consensual sex (or sensual massage)as long as both parties are over legal age (usually 16). As for your first question — I’m not familiar with CA laws, but it seems to me that identifying yourself as an undercover cop defeats the purpose of being undercover, so why even bother.
Well who would you rather try to pick your *** up hooker? A cop or some psycho.
An undercover officer DOES NOT have to identify themselves as a Police Officer. Period.
Nope, they don’t have to ID themselves and can even lie to you about their police employment.
No, we do not have to identify ourselves when we are working undercover – no matter who asks us what.
There is no statute anywhere that I am aware of that says this. Nor, as a lawyer who posts here often would say, is there a statute that says you don’t have to carry a rutabaga in your pocket while you walk down the street. We just don’t have to ID ourselves and you don’t have to carry a rutabaga (thanks to John S).
In a criminal prosecution, what *I* do for a living isn’t the issue. It’s what the crook does for a living that will be the issue.
Hello NO they don’t. They couldn’t catch a john or ********** in the act any other way. That’s why they have SURVEILLANCE footage etc. They only have to show INTENT.