In the District of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) makes numerous arrests for solicitation of prostitution through sting operations. Sting operations commonly involve undercover officers attempting to exchange sexual favors for money or vice versa. Due to the undercover nature of MPD’s sting operations, many people arrested for solicitation attempt to assert an entrapment defense. However, entrapment is a difficult defense to assert in a DC Solicitation case.
Under DC Solicitation laws, you must assert an entrapment defense for it to apply in your solicitation case. Entrapment occurs where law enforcement officials induce someone to commit a crime that they can prove they would not have otherwise done. To assert an entrapment defense, you must first make a showing that MPD induced you to participate in the solicitation of prostitution. This rule means that you have to present some evidence to show that the police coerced, threatened, or fraudulently persuaded you to commit a crime, which can be difficult to do when they do not record the sting operations.
Showing inducement can be challenging though because undercover officers are allowed to use fake names, false appearances, and decoys—among other tactics—to legally persuade you to participate in solicitation of prostitution. Officers are also permitted to initiate discussions about solicitation and exchange money involved in the crime. Furthermore, a mere request by a undercover cops to participate in criminal activity, standing alone, does not qualify as an “inducement.” Unfortunately, the police rarely record the sting operations, which leaves the only evidence of the crime as the undercover officer’s recantation of what the parties supposedly said.
Once a defendant makes an inducement showing, the government must then prove that the defendant was ready and willing to engage in the solicitation of prostitution. To determine whether a defendant was ready and willing to engage in the solicitation of prostitution, the fact-finder can consider evidence such as the defendant’s prior similar conduct, the defendant’s reputation or character, the defendant’s acceptance to do the crime, or other circumstantial evidence. This means that the government can argue that going to a hotel in response to an online ad can show intent to engage in the crime of solicitation.
Usually, evidence of your past conduct and your character is not admissible in court but by asserting an entrapment defense you permit the government to introduce such evidence. This fact is another reason why asserting an entrapment defense can be problematic because evidence about a defendant’s past conduct or character may be more harmful to the case. Depending on the individual’s background, this issue may or may not be a problem for asserting an entrapment defense. Because the entrapment defense is difficult, often times its better to seek diversion or try and get the case dismissed on a discovery issue or otherwise.
While entrapment is a difficult defense to assert, it is not impossible strategy with an experienced DC Solicitation lawyer fighting on your behalf. At Scrofano Law PC, we have successfully challenged DC prostitution cases. If you or someone you know has been arrested for solicitation of prostitution, contact Scrofano Law PC immediately for a full consultation.
More Blog Posts:
DC Prostitution Sting Results in Influx of Community Service, November 12, 2013, No Papered: A Washington DC DUI Lawyers Blog