Prostitution & Solicitation Defense in Maryland


Law enforcement in Maryland has specific task forces dedicated to the arrest and conviction of those who engage in prostitution or solicitation. A variety of “sting” operations are utilized to catch those who are offering sexual services for money, or for those who are trying to engage the services of a prostitute. When one has been arrested and charged with this crime, it is critical that you get legal representation from a Maryland criminal defense lawyer to assist you in fighting the charge. This is particularly important if you have a prior criminal record. At the Law Offices of John Adams we are prepared to aggressively defend any client charged with prostitution or solicitation charges. The firm has a successful track record with defending this charge and will fight for you relentlessly.

 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Maryland Defending Prostitution & Solicitation Charges

It is important that your criminal defense lawyer is experienced with the criminal court system and its personnel, as when making negotiations on behalf of the client. It is immensely important to have dealt with the prosecutors on many occasions. The attorney then knows better how to strategize the case and adjust the case accordingly in situations in which a reduced charge or plea bargaining is needed.
The criminal defense lawyer from the Law Offices of John Adams is involved with criminal defense as the primary activity and spends a majority of time dealing with the criminal court system in Maryland. You can rest assured that your case will be made a priority and that every effort will be made to defend you. You will be given the respect and dedicated attention that you deserve.

§ 11-303. Human trafficking (a) Prohibited — In general. -(1) A person may not knowingly: (i) take or cause another to be taken to any place for prostitution; (ii) place, cause to be placed, or harbor another in any place for prostitution; (iii) persuade, induce, entice, or encourage another to be taken to or placed in any place for prostitution; (iv) receive consideration to procure for or place in a house of prostitution or elsewhere another with the intent of causing the other to engage in prostitution or assignation; (v) engage in a device, scheme, or continuing course of conduct intended to cause another to believe that if the other did not take part in a sexually explicit performance, the other or a third person would suffer physical restraint or serious physical harm; or (vi) destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess an actual or purported passport, immigration document, or government identification document of another while otherwise violating or attempting to violate this subsection. (2) A parent, guardian, or person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of another may not consent to the taking or detention of the other for prostitution.(b) Prohibited — Minor. (1) A person may not violate subsection (a) of this section involving a victim who is a minor.(2) A person may not knowingly take or detain another with the intent to use force, threat, coercion, or fraud to compel the other to marry the person or a third person or perform a sexual act, sexual contact, or vaginal intercourse.(c) Penalty. (1) (i) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of the misdemeanor of human trafficking and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or both. (ii) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section is subject to § 5-106(b) of the Courts Article. (2) A person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of the felony of human trafficking and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 25 years or a fine not exceeding $ 15,000 or both.(d) Venue. — A person who violates this section may be charged, tried, and sentenced in any county in or through which the person transported or attempted to transport the other

If you are being investigated or charged with prostitution immediately contact an experienced Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney. Call the Law Offices of John Adams
DO NOT BAIL OUT! —– CALL AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRST!! The criminal defense attorneys at the Law Offices of John Adams will quickly and aggressively act to preserve any evidence that can be extremely valuable to your defense. Instead of paying for bail, we can secure an O. R. own recognizance or “O.R.” (or “supervised O.R.”). This means that you do not have to pay bail because the judge believes that you will show up for your court appearances without bail.
If you are arrested , the first thing you should do is to politely decline to say anything other than that you would like to speak to your attorney. You should immediately seek council of a Maryland criminal defense attorney. Your attorney can then examine the case, look at the evidence, evaluate the witnesses, and work with you to structure your defense.
At the Law Offices of John Adams located in Maryland our goal is to vigorously and aggressively defend people who have been charged or accused of criminal offenses including prostitution and other sex crimes.

 

ENTRAPMENT

Otherwise law abiding citizens who were unfairly lured into the offense by savvy cops can use Entrapment as a defense. Entrapment can be used as a defense in a prostitution case. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped. A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer or (his/her) agent engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy. Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct. If an officer or (his/her) agent simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant’s confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment. In evaluating this defense, focus is primarily on the conduct of the officer. However, in deciding whether the officer’s conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, the Court also considers other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant’s responses to the officer’s urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed. When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, the Court considers what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation, not so much the defendant’s particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime. The court must instruct on a defense when the defendant requests it and there is substantial evidence supporting the defense. The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a defense if there is substantial evidence supporting it and either the defendant is relying on it or it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. When the court concludes that the defense is supported by substantial evidence and is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case, however, it should ascertain whether defendant wishes instruction on this alternate theory. Substantial evidence means evidence of entrapment, which, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the defendant has shown the defense to be more likely than not.

 

Decoy Programs Permitted

The use of “ruses, stings, and decoys” to expose illicit activity does not constitute entrapment, as long as no pressure or overbearing conduct is employed by the decoy. The conduct of an unwitting decoy may constitute sufficient badgering, cajoling, or importuning that entitles the defendant to an entrapment instruction.
Lack of trustworthy evidence or Insufficient evidence.

Where there is no recorded evidence of the “agreement” to engage in prostitution a big red flag can be raised. Why didn’t the officer record the conversation for evidence? What is the Law Enforcement Agency hiding? Jurors may be hesitant to convict a defendant if there is no recoding. “Insufficient evidence” encompasses a number of issues such as there wasn’t a clear and definite agreement to engage in a prostitution but rather an ambiguous conversation. An agreement to engage in sex, but no agreement that it would be for money or other consideration is a defense. If you didn’t specifically intend to engage in a sex act, you can’t be convicted. This means that if you reply to an ad intending only to secure a date or companion, you shouldn’t be convicted. Or if you were found in a place known for prostitution (a certain intersection, or in a certain “massage” parlor,) that doesn’t mean you were actively involved in prostitution / solicitation.

 

Contact a Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney from the Law Offices of John Adams if you have been arrested for prostitution or solicitation and are seeking a high quality, aggressive criminal defense lawyer to fight for you.