Ever get caught in a raided MP?

[tay]

I have been caught in a raid - MP won't be named (figure it out).

Standing in the lobby beside me was a clean cut, well-built dude ("the cop"). Since he was there before me, he got to see all the MPAs available... and picked the flakiest one. Lucky me, I picked the hottest one. My MPA lead me to the room, had me shower and walked in. She was topless when the cops came in... surprise!! I was still towelling off. We were told to our "stuff" and come to the lobby. Boy was it crowded... a dozen of us all together.

What I can't understand is how the MP and all the MPAs have valid licenses, but continue to get hassled.

It appears the cop with the "flakiest" MPA asked for a no-no, and the MPA said yes. This is stupid because I have never been asked for or I have never requested for a no-no. Rules are rules. So, why call me and the other 10 people into the lobby? It should between the "flakiest" MPA, the cop and the MP manager.

In conclusion, my MPA and I explained to the cop how NOTHING occurred. So after waiting for 90 minutes, and out the $50 door fee, I decided to never to go back to this MP again. Unfortunately, I don't go there anymore - but I have sessions with the same MPA... and we just laugh.

 

[Lalala09]

I have never been there for a bust but funny thing is I don't think I'd really give a shit, probaly more pissed off about the money I lost AND MY tax money being wasted busting me

 

[Frankie Jay]

it's entrapment if they initiate it

 

[jordan g]

That's why at reputable MPs, girls get fired for offering above MP limit stuff.

Often it only takes 1 bad apple. MP becomes a target when word get around.

 

[jkhdjsadg(:]

Hey Paper,

Sorry to hear about you getting caught in the crossfire. I didn't think you could get in trouble for being in an MP. Besides, we are only there for a massage and not into anything sexual like the ppl over in the SP forums. I assume they could nail someone with a "found in" bawdy house charge but it would be a stretch if you were just getting a massage. If the girl takes her top off thats her choice and just a byproduct of human nature

What was the fallout?

 

[Pompal 09.]

That's only true on TV.
They can do anything and get away with it in real life.
Rosie could tell you some stories...

 

[Pompal 09.]

Unlike in the United States, entrapment is not illegal in Canada.

 

[God answers all questions]

SAD & BIT DISGUSTING TO HEAR SUCH NEWS! THAT A LICENCED MP WAS BURSTED OR RAIDED BY LE's.
They should burst crimes, not MP's

 

[Erick]

This is correct.

 

[Shard]

So as I approach one of my fav mp places, I see all the comotion inside, reaching for the door handle... Gasp!!.. dont open it, let go, and peer a little inside the hard to see window.... and decide not to go of course.... So, was it the same place? ...

I want to see my mpa as well but not wanting to go to this palce again at least for a long while.

Anyway, I was in a place , buck named, girl massaging me, door opens, cop tells me to be honest and it will be easier for me. I asked what I am charged with and what I need to be easier? I told him I was there for the massage and the business do offer massages therefore i was confused, he kept insisting I should be honest, which I was, so anyway, they wasted my time. I left after 90 minutes.

 

[...Just Me :)]

A "Found-In" charge is exactly what someone could be nailed with. The law says that if you don't have a legitimate reason for being in a location that is considered to be a Bawdy House, then you are considered a Found-In. It makes no difference if you were caught in the act, just getting a massage, fully clothed or had one foot out the door. If you are on the premises, you may be charged as a "Found-In" on the spot. Whether or not the place is licensed, or whether the MPA's are licensed makes no difference. The logic is that no license gives a business the opportunity to run what is considered a Bawdy House.

Depending on the mood of the cops and whether the jurisdiction is trying to crack-down on MP's, the cops may or may not lay Found-In charges against everyone, and then let you settle it in court (i.e. cast as wide a net as possible and then let people wiggle out of it on their own). Markham did this quite a bit when they wanted to send messages. The cops do not necessarily have the authority to let someone go if they provide a legit reason for being there. If their supervisors say "round-up everyone", you can talk until you're blue in the face, but you'll still be charged. It's not to say that everyone will be charged all the time - many won't. It is, however, a possibility.

When you go to court, it is up to the Crown to first prove that the MP is a Bawdy House, and second, you have the opportunity to provide a reason for being there. This is where someone would have the opportunity to say that unlike an SP location, that they were there just for massage. Whether or not the Judge buys it is entirely up to fate though.

Bottom line - you could be charged as a "Found-In" no matter what, and trying to wiggle out of it in court may not work either.

 

[killabunnyo]

pardon my ignorance...so does this mean that places like Allure and SRM (where they proudly display their rates ad say that they are licensed) can be subjected to raids like anyone else? or are you simply talking about establishments where bodyrubs have been claimed illegal (like Richmond Hill)?

I'm confused

 

[Wallachian]

Any place - licensed or not - is subject to a raid. But the cops have one of theri own go in with his cell phone on, while the rest of the cops are taping the conversation in a van nearby. Then it's ... hello, get your clothes on and come with us.

The only thing to piss me off is wasting 90 minutes (and my mommy is looking for me) and "possibly" getting mail for a court date (explaining I was found in a common bawdy house, etc.). Wow, is my mommy gonna be pissed.

Meanwhile, I was not effected in anyway. The cops let me go after taking my false name and number (as I had no I.D. with me... wink, wink, LOL)

 

[jenny_lynn_23]

What about the license plate they recorded when you left?

 

[Pompal 09.]

Allure and SRM are in Mississauga, and they have different local by-laws there than in Richmond Hill or other jurisdictions. Nude, topless, BS, are sanctioned by the Mississauga by-laws (I've read them), so they can be advertised. However, the letter of the Mississauga by-laws does not sanction release with those activities. It's like SC's can engage in nude dancing - they do not however, sanction anything more. And in Toronto, MP's are licensed under Holistic Centres, so they advertise accordingly using words like "head to toe", "full body" and "stress release".

But to answer the question, in my opinion, any place that offers release, regardless of how they advertise, the licenses they have or what the local by-laws say can be subject to Bawdy House charges under the Criminal Code of Canada. No Provincial or Municipal By-Law can contravene the Criminal Code of Canada - and these By-Laws do not, as they do not expressly state that you will get a release. If you are getting a release, or in a place that offers releases, you are breaking both the By-Law and the Crimial Code of Canada by being in a Bawdy House. If you have to go to court, you may say "but they advertised these services, and there is a license from the city so I thought it was legit" as a justification. It may work, it may not - I'm not a lawyer and won't comment on legal strategy or how a Judge would take a submission like that (I would assume though that saying "But they advertised these services" could lead a Judge or Prosecutor to simply say "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.").

Richmond Hill did not declare MP's illegal in their jurisdiction - their police force simply began enforcing the letter of the law in the Criminal Code. Mississauga and Toronto could just as easily enforce the letter of the Criminal Code in licensed places. Why Richmond Hill chose to have strict enforcement of the Criminal Code could be for any number of reasons - including political and complaints from surroundings businesses and communities. Why Mississauga and Toronto are not enforcing with the same degree could also be for any number of reasons.

I know nothing about Mississauga, but Toronto does enforce. They do it in two ways. They send-out By-Law officers who look for violations in the By-Laws. They can issue fines and tickets to be paid by MPA's or owners (clients are not given tickets because the By-Laws govern the activities of owners and employees of MP's, not clients). These are just like getting parking tickets. No criminal record and no issue if paid on-time. The other enforcement is by Toronto Police, who conduct investigations. If they gather enough evidence to show that an MP is a Bawdy House, they raid it, and may lay charges as described in my previous post.

As I said, I know that Toronto does engage in these activities (you can see posts on this board and there have been newspaper articles to back this up) and I have seen By-Law officers come out of MP's disussing various violations. In my opinion, Mississauga could engage in these activities just as easily. They have their reasons for behaving the way they do, and in my opinion, could change to enforce the strict letter of the Crimial Code whenever they want.

 

[mr p]

thanks for the info...it's quite fascinating really...

hope mississauga and brampton do not follow richmond hill's lead...that would be extremely unfortunate.

 

[doodoo in my pants]

I've been busted before.

At a place near Whiskey..russian place. I know what you're thinking, but this place is actually clean, no extras. There's no bodyslides with a lot of girls there so i know it's clean.

What I didn't konw is that this place is not licensed! Long story short, by-law came in. Luckily, she was still clothed and I was naked. We had a chat, they let me go.

Man, that was one fucking scary experience.

 

[Meep Zorp]

You might have some more responses after tonite.

 

[Leo]

Section 495 of the Criminal Code says that Bawdy House arrests cannot be made without a warrant. Therefore when the arrests are made, the house has already been "found and convicted" (though I fail to see how a house can be convicted) of being a Bawdy House, by virtue of the warrant. As such, at the time of arrest, you have been found in SOMETHING - the warrant says so.

Now, I'm assuming that the validity of the warrant can and would be challenged by anyone who is "Found In", or the person who is "The Owner." I do not believe that if the owner gets off that the found-ins will get off automatically. Sure, the owner (or anyone charged) can attempt to prove that the warrant for deeming the business a Bawdy House is not valid, and that will likely apply to Found-Ins - so if one person's lawyer or defence manages to prove the warrant invalid, I do agree that the underlying crime is not there for anyone charged. However, an accused owner could simply prove that there are no financial ties to the Bawdy House as well, therefore leaving Found-Ins still on the hook.

I do agree that no one should rush to plead guilty, and I do agree that being convicted could take years and that a lot of evidence would have to be presented. I'm not sure what you mean by a "legal statement that it was a Bawdy House" and that "most cases are usually settled without an admission of wrongdoing." I'm sure that no one - the owner, the employees or the clients would rush to sign a legal document or agree that the premises was a Bawdy House - that's why the police gather evidence and a warrant is issued based on it. I'm assuming that if the warrant is found to be valid during the criminal trial, then the charges stick, regardless who admits to what.

To me your logic of settling without a statement of wrong-doing is akin to saying that I can simply get off of murdering someone by saying I didn't do it. I believe that if the evidence points to me murdering someone, I can be convicted regardless of what I say. If the evidence the warrant is based on is strong, and if the warrant is deemed valid, then I'll be screwed by the courts regardless of what I or others do or do not admit to.

I would assume however, that the warrant would be challenged by any of those parties, and if it were upheld, then the underlying crime is there - regardless of what the accused say, or do not admit to. To me, the likelihood of conviction is strongly based on the strength of the warrant. I do agree with you that if the warrant is found to be invalid, the underlying crime is not there and no convictions will be made. So yes, do not rush to plead guilty - but on the other hand, if someone did rush to plead guilty and later on, it was found that the warrant was found to be invalid, I would think the person who plead guilty would have the conviction overturned.