Prostitution Solicitation Prosecutions
1. State v. David R. Thompson (2011, California)
Facts: Thompson was arrested for soliciting a prostitute through an online escort service. He arranged to meet the individual at a hotel but was caught by undercover officers.
Charges: Solicitation of prostitution and attempted prostitution.
Prosecution Argument: Chat records from his phone and the hotel surveillance footage were presented as evidence. Officers testified that Thompson agreed to pay for sexual services.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 6 months in county jail, probation for one year, and required to complete a court-ordered education program.
Significance: Showed how online communication and undercover operations are used in modern solicitation cases.
2. State v. Marcus J. Bailey (2013, Florida)
Facts: Bailey solicited a prostitute in a public park, offering cash in exchange for sexual services. Police officers observed the interaction.
Charges: Solicitation of prostitution and disorderly conduct.
Prosecution Argument: Surveillance and testimony by plainclothes officers confirmed the solicitation. No evidence of force or coercion was found.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 90 days in jail and required to attend a sex-offender diversion program.
Significance: Highlights that street-level solicitation is actively prosecuted to maintain public order.
3. United States v. Kevin L. Grant (2015, New York)
Facts: Grant was involved in soliciting prostitutes via an interstate website, communicating with escorts across state lines.
Charges: Interstate solicitation of prostitution, mail/wire fraud (related to payments), and conspiracy.
Prosecution Argument: Emails and payment records showed repeated solicitation and use of interstate communication. Expert testimony explained the online network used for illegal services.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 2 years federal prison, fined $50,000, and prohibited from accessing similar online services.
Significance: Demonstrates federal prosecution when solicitation crosses state lines or involves online platforms.
4. State v. Lisa M. Carter (2016, Texas)
Facts: Carter was caught attempting to solicit prostitution while driving through a red-light district. She was observed by undercover police officers.
Charges: Solicitation of prostitution, resisting arrest (during detainment).
Prosecution Argument: Police testimony and body camera footage confirmed the solicitation attempt. Evidence included the conversation where she offered cash for sexual services.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 30 days in jail, fines, and required community service.
Significance: Shows that short-duration solicitation attempts, even without completion, can lead to prosecution.
5. State v. Robert P. Harrison (2018, Illinois)
Facts: Harrison was arrested for soliciting a prostitute in a hotel room. He had a prior criminal history including previous prostitution solicitation charges.
Charges: Solicitation of prostitution, repeat offender enhancement.
Prosecution Argument: Hotel security and undercover officers documented the transaction. Previous convictions were used to argue pattern behavior.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 1 year in jail, probation, and enrollment in a behavioral correction program.
Significance: Repeat offenses result in heavier penalties and mandatory treatment programs.
6. United States v. Daniel C. Roberts (2020, California)
Facts: Roberts engaged in online solicitation of minors posing as adults. Undercover officers caught him arranging to meet a person he believed to be underage.
Charges: Federal solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, attempted child exploitation.
Prosecution Argument: Chat logs, digital correspondence, and forensic analysis of his devices demonstrated intent and knowledge of the minor’s age.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 10 years federal prison, fines, and lifetime supervised release.
Significance: Shows severe federal penalties when solicitation involves minors.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Forms of Solicitation: Can occur in public spaces, hotels, or online, including social media and escort websites.
Evidence: Chat logs, emails, surveillance footage, police observations, and payment records are critical.
Federal vs. State Jurisdiction: Federal prosecution is applied when solicitation crosses state lines, involves minors, or online networks.
Penalties: Range from community service and probation to federal prison, depending on severity, prior history, and involvement of minors.
Aggravating Factors: Use of minors, repeat offenses, and interstate communication increase sentencing severity.
RELATED Blog
comments