Client Arrested for 647(b) When Leaving Motel, No File

Our client had just left the Lazy 8 Motel at the corner of Figueroa and 109th Street in South-Central Los Angeles.  He had met a prostitute at the hotel, paid her for sex and was driving his car out the parking lot onto Figueroa to head north.

A uniformed Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer in a marked LAPD car was just driving north on Figueroa at the time and pulled over our client.  He told our client that he was being arrested for solicitation of prostitution, Penal Code § 647(b).

Our client, from India and not a U.S. citizen, was 30 years old.  Police asked him if he had just met a prostitute at the hotel and he refused to answer.  He was then arrested and taken to the 77th Street LAPD station where he was then cited and released, but not formally arrested.  Our client’s car, however, was towed.

When the client was released, he signed a promise to appear in the downtown Los Angeles criminal courts building (CCB), also known as the Clara Shortridge Foltz courthouse, about two months later.

After being released, the client called Greg Hill & Associates.  He described what had happened to him and wanted to know what would happen to him in court.

Greg was puzzled by such facts, which were odd to Greg because the prostitute was not arrested at the same time and the client did not know if she ever was arrested for meeting with him.  The client left the hotel and the prostitute stayed at the hotel.  This was not, in other words, like most cases where a “John,” a man asking a woman for sex in exchange for money, is detained while speaking with a woman police also arrest for solicitation of prostitution.  It also was not a meeting for sex with a police decoy.

At most, Greg explained to the client, the case might be loitering for purposes of prostitution if the police officer had observed our client driving around the hotel several times and the hotel was a well-known location used for prostitution.  However, Greg explained, Penal Code § 653.22 (“Loitering for Purposes of Prostitution”) was repealed on January 1, 2022 by Senate Bill 357, so our client could not be guilty of this because it was no longer a crime.

Greg candidly told the client that based on such unusual facts, he thought the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office would not file the case.  There was no evidence that our client exchanged money for sex at all.  Our client had refused to admit to the police that he had indeed just done that (and had sex).

The client, however, was keenly interested in retaining Greg Hill & Associates because the client could not be in court for the arraignment since he had to be back in India for his mom’s surgery.

Greg therefore charged the client only half his normal fee because he was certain no case would be filed, but Greg would nonetheless appear at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Courthouse just in case the police officer fabricated facts on the police report to justify his detention and the order to tow the client’s car.  While Greg hoped the police officer would be honest in his report, this was never guaranteed.

So, on the day of the arraignment, Greg appeared on the client’s behalf at the Clara Shortridge Foltz criminal courts building in downtown Los Angeles.  No case was filed, which was reassuring to Greg.  Greg then went to the criminal clerks’ office to confirm this and was given a “DA Reject” number for the citation number on the citation received by our client.

Greg then advised the client, back in India with him mom, of this development.  Greg explained to the client that a “DA Reject” does not mean that the case cannot be filed later if further information is considered that supports a filing.  In other words, Greg told the client, do not celebrate.  A case still could be filed up until the one year date after the event when the statute of limitation expires.  

Greg explained to the client that our office would periodically call the CCB clerks’ office to check on if a case had been filed.  Greg also told the client to closely monitor his mail at home, as he might receive a letter notifying him that a case had been filed.

However, Greg commented to the client, he thought no case would be filed, based on the lack of facts establishing our client even met a prostitute at the hotel, let alone agreed to pay her money in exchange for sex.