Edit: Removed. Looks like I stumbled across a fake news site without knowing. It was a good fake, but it's removed now, anyway. :p Who would have supposed. :p

[ October 16, 2005, 17:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Here's from the article:

TAMPA - Two Hillsborough County sheriff's detectives working a prostitution case listened on a bugging device as their undercover informant in a nearby motel room got oral sex from a woman he paid $200.

Court records present a scene of the detectives finally bursting into the motel room and arresting 35-year-old Karadine Rieder. She and the informant were naked, and in the middle of the sexual act.

Two years after Rieder's arrest, the case against her faces the possibility of dismissal because of the conduct of the officers.

It is the second time in a month that questions have been raised about the behavior of officers investigating prostitution in Tampa.

Last month, a jury in another prostitution case heard a detective testify that it is permissible for undercover officers to have some forms of sexual contact while investigating.

Tampa police Detective Dale Tuvell told the jury that while undercover officers are "discouraged" from touching the pubic areas of dancers in strip clubs, "that would be appropriate" as long as there is no sexual intercourse.

"They would be allowed to touch any area that would not compromise or commit a sexual act," Tuvell testified. "We don't penetrate. That's basically about it."

After five days of testimony, it took the jury just three hours to acquit the defendant, a club owner accused of allowing prostitution on the premises. The Tampa Police Department had spent two years building the case against him and other club owners and dancers.

Paul Sisco, who represents one person arrested in the two-year investigation, says the strategies of the officers need to be brought out into the public light.

"I don't think the average citizen knows members of the Tampa Police Department are being sexually gratified to some extent in these back rooms" to make arrests, Sisco said.

"I'm not certain most of the public would consider it prudent spending of public funds to get our officers aroused."I say, WTF? If it's bad and illegal to exchange sex for money between consenting citizens (I actually believe it is, but let's continue for a while), then how can it be permissible for officers to have sex with suspects to nail them for it?

Wonder what's next. In some countries and some states in the US, as well as the US Army, adultery is a crime. So will married officers have sex with adultery suspects? :rolleyes:

Working in the police or military intelligence or anything like that doesn't justify screwing around. Sex is still sex. Wonder if the officer in question was at least single.

Further:

Karadine Reider's attorney, public defender Michelle Lambo, argues that the sheriff's detectives could have arrested Rieder as soon as she took $200 from the informant and offered to perform oral sex on him.

"The sheriff's deputies' conduct is outrageous," she said, "because they did not enter the room until Ms. Rieder removed her clothing and began performing oral sex."Yeah. But cops don't seem to care, especially American ones (do a search on threads including "strip search" started by member chevalier if you're interested).

"There's nothing that allows the government to engage in sexual activity to make a sting operation or to make a bust," Lambo argued.Correct.

Sheriff's Detective John Couey testified before Behnke that it's not uncommon for informants to take their clothes off during prostitution stings, because the women want to be assured the men aren't cops.Eh? And wonder how female officers behave. Some police units use fake prostitutes who are in fact undercover policewomen. Do they also strip naked because the men want to make sure they aren't cops?

Assistant State Attorney Monica Frost argued that it was difficult for Couey and another detective, who were listening from a motel room down the hall, to discern whether a sex act had actually begun.

"So he (the informant) may have waited too long" to signal detectives, Frost said. "But it's not so outrageous that the case should be dismissed against this known prostitute."

Behnke told the two attorneys: "It may come down to what the term outrageous is and what my view of that is."The prostitute was selling sex for money. The officers used sex to further their investigation, i.e. get the job done. Where the hell is the difference?

Edit: Some more reading:

Here (long URL) (http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/2004projects/massage/stories/p1_policeconduct.html)
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/california/canews02.htm

http://informationr.net/ir/10-1/paper209.html

Oh, and here's something about female officers playing sluts:

The so-called School Buy Program was established in 1974 and has proved to be an effective method of combating drug sales on and around the city's high school campuses, police said.

Twelve years ago, the program was mired in controversy when a female undercover officer allegedly maintained an "improper" romantic relationship with a Granada Hills High School football player, whom she later arrested. While some civil libertarians have challenged such undercover operations as a violation of the students' rights and privacy, the courts have upheld their legality.

Some critics contend that undercover programs overly punish and stigmatize students, few of whom are serious drug dealers.From http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread1545.shtml

Oh, and here's some more:

http://www.vancourier.com/issues04/081104/news/081104nn7.html

It's one of the perks :D

F***ing ridiculous. Just goes to show where the Tampa Bay Buccaneers get their depraved attitude.

Working in the police or military intelligence or anything like that doesn't justify screwing around No, but it certainly makes it much easier. If a citizen is giving money for sex, he gets thrown in jail. If a cop does the same, he gets away by saying he was "on the job" (!). In the worst case scenario the charges get dropped, but that's about it.

That's the problem with paying people for protecting. You're giving them more power than you have, and they WILL abuse it.

*whispers at chev: dude - check out that site a bit more, you might not find it a very credible source :p *

The Onion is the ultimate "fake news" publication. :lol: It's quite hilarious, and though I haven't read it in a couple months, I'd like to point out that a running gag they had while I was reading it was a supposed middle part of an article that had a 'continued from' that didn't connect to any other pieces, and simply reapeated the phrase "Bystanders were amazed by the large amounts of blood." over and over until it was 'continued' on another page with no articles. They also referenced other sections of their paper that didn't exist. :lol: