A Washington Post story by Tom Jackman reported that sheriff's deputies from the Spotsylvania County (Virginia) Sheriff's Department have been allowed to engage in illicit sexual intercourse in order to make prostitution cases against so-called massage parlors. Jackman's report states that, "They enter the massage parlors as undercover detectives. They leave as satisfied customers." According to court papers, during several visits to the Moon Spa last month, detectives allowed "masseuses" to perform sexual acts on them on four occasions and once left a $350 tip. A $350 tip of taxpayer's money! Wow, that lady must have been an terrific piece of ass!
The Sheriff claims his deputies have been engaging in sexual intercourse with massage parlor prostitutes for some time in order to obtain convictions in prostitution cases. The Sheriff advised that only unmarried detectives are used in these cases. (Obviously, the good Sheriff knows that married officers would soon become unmarried, when investigations permit or require them to have sex with prostitutes.)
Free sex! Gee whiz, if I were only young and single. It would be: Virginia, here I come and how do I sign up for the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Department?
In all seriousness, requiring or allowing officers to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute in order to make a case against her and the proprietor of the massage parlor is absolutely unwarranted. The Sheriff claims that his department is only one of a number of police agencies engaging in the same practice. However, according to the Washington Post, experts throughout the U.S. advise that they cannot find any other agencies which allow their officers to engage in sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
I have worked a number of prostitution cases. My agency had a very explicit policy - under no circumstances was an officer allowed to disrobe or allowed to have a sexual contact of any kind with the prostitute. If we thought that we could get away with it, we were "wired' to record our conversations, but this was not considered a necessity. All that was required in order to obtain a conviction was for the prostitute to disrobe, for money to be exchanged, and for the investigating officer to testify to that effect. All the experts cited in the Washington Post story, including prosecutors, agreed that this was all that was required for a conviction.
The only problems I ever experienced was when some prostitutes complained that I was not getting undressed while they were getting naked. When that happened, I would claim that the zipper on my trousers was stuck, and that always worked for me. In my opinion, an officer's integrity, and thus his credibility, would become questionable if his testimony revealed that he had sexual intercourse with a prostitute during the investigation.
Now, please give me ALL, and I do mean ALL, of the details in that investigation where the officer gave that prostitute a $350 tip.
No comments:
Post a Comment