Law enforcement has long sought, with mixed results, to combat prostitution offenses in New York City. Back when prostitutes used to walk the streets of notorious neighborhoods in Manhattan, police would arrest prostitutes for just “loitering for the purpose of prostitution” (basically, walking on the sidewalk dressed like a prostitute talking to potential customers about tricks). Police would also go undercover and pose as johns to get prostitutes to make illegal offers of sexual conduct for fees. Police officers continue to pose as prostitutes to entice johns to make illegal offers, though nowadays they are more likely to find a target inside of a nice establishment in the city instead of on the sidewalk. Indeed, undercover police officers dressed as attractive prostitutes often target middle aged men alone at hotel bars and proposition them to see if they will “take the bait,” so to speak. These sting victims oftentimes have legitimate entrapment defenses, but not after already having been humiliated and having had their livelihoods placed in danger as a result of the arrests.

With the advent of the internet, much of the prostitution business moved online to websites like Craigslist and Backpage. Prostitutes and escorts would post ads on these sites and johns would simply call them to make appointments. The postings were so numerous that despite some law enforcement efforts to make undercover arrests of these prostitutes – and perhaps more effectively, arrests of johns via false prostitution ads – the sheer volume of ads on these sites made it impossible to realistically stop the trade via undercover operations. Ultimately, the “escort” sections of these sites were shut down by law enforcement threats to hold the managers of these sites criminally and civilly liable.

Now, however, much of the prostitution trade has entered a grayer area: the world of Sugar Daddies and “arrangements”. Many women who do not consider themselves to be prostitutes sign up to participate on websites like sugardaddy.com and seekingarrangement.com. Though these websites post vehement disclaimers that they do not support prostitution, the “arrangements” that they facilitate look a lot like it. Basically, wealthy older men (the “sugar daddies”) look for younger women (the “sugar babies”) seeking “relationships” that involve money in exchange for their “companionship.” The prospective couple matches online and then meets in real-life, and eventually these relationships typically evolve to the point that the man gives money to the girl in exchange for companionship that includes sexual contact. Many “sugar babies” are open about their lifestyle and do not consider themselves to be engaging in illegal conduct, although most would acknowledge that they would no longer receive payments from their “sugar daddies” if they withheld sex from them.

In a way, these sugar babies and sugar daddies essentially exist within a gray area of the law. These relationships are not always explicitly sex-in-exchange-for-money relationships, though these elements are typically understood by the parties to be fundamental to the relationship. It could even be said that these relationships are not so different from the typical relationship between a wealthy man and his wife. But regardless of the legality of these relationships (and they are generally questionable under existing law), law enforcement would have difficulty curbing these relationships. After all, the typical relationship between a baby and a daddy can take several dates before sexual contact (or the discussion sexual contact or money) begins. As such, it would be difficult for law enforcement officers to invest that much time in pursuing a potential arrest in a sugar baby or sugar daddy. Moreover, the illegal “offer or agreement” to engage in sexual contact for money is not always so explicit, as the parties talk in terms of “relationships” instead of specific sex acts. This further frustrates law enforcement efforts to pursue these sorts of cases, as they would need an explicit statement to make an arrest. Of course, it is still theoretically possible that an undercover police officer could pose as a sugar daddy or sugar baby to catch someone interested in an illegal relationship. That could certainly have a huge chilling effect on the entire underground “sugar daddy” market. However, for now, our attorneys are unaware of any such arrests being made by law enforcement in New York.

If you or a loved one have need of the services or advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney, you should strongly consider contacting the attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor who has been widely sought after by news and television reporters for his expert opinion on sex crimes and investigations.

Making graffiti on property without the owner’s permission to do so is a class “A” misdemeanor in New York State, punishable by up to one year in jail. In recent years, the City has stepped up it’s effort to combat graffiti writing and enforce this law, with the New York City Police Department going as far as creating an anti-graffiti task force and offering cash rewards for people who continually violate the graffiti statute.

MAKING GRAFFITI

A person who is accused of making graffiti will, lo and behold, be charged with the crime of “Making Graffiti,” which is defined in Penal Law §145.60(2). This law states that “[n]o person shall make graffiti of any type on any building, public or private, or any other property real or personal owned by any person, firm, or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without the express permission of the owner or operator of said property.”

“Graffiti” is defined in Penal Law §145.60(2) as the etching, painting, covering, drawing upon or otherwise placing of a mark upon public or private property with intent to damage such property. In other words, the acts of using a paint pen, a liquid aerosol container, a permanent marker, a pencil, a knife or a chisel to carve a marking out of property are all equally illegal under the graffiti statute. It should be noted that any argument that a graffiti maker merely intended to “improve” the property he/she marked will fail if the owner of the property has not provided consent.

POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI INTRUMENTS

The charge of “Making Graffiti” is usually accompanied by the charge of “Possession of Graffiti Instruments,” which is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. According to Penal Law §145.65, graffiti instruments include “any tool, instrument, article, substance, solution or other compound designed to etch, paint, cover, draw upon or otherwise place a mark” if possessed “under circumstances evincing an intent to use the same in order to damage such property.”

In cases where a person is caught in the act of making graffiti with such an instrument, possession with intent to use that instrument to damage such property will be obvious. In cases where individuals are not actually observed using the instrument to make graffiti but are caught possessing something believed to have been used to damage property pursuant to Penal Law §145.60(2), law enforcement may resort to circumstantial methods of proving that the individual intended to use it to damage property. An example would be where a person possesses a marker or aerosol spray can matching the color of graffiti markings on nearby property, or that person has matching paint on his or her fingers, hands or clothing. As always, the easiest way for law enforcement to establish possession with intent (as well as the actual making of the graffiti, for that matter) is to elicit a statement from the individual admitting as such. For this reason, we urge anyone accused of committing a crime to consult with an experience attorney prior to engaging in ANY discussion with law enforcement.

For more information on understanding graffiti arrests, read Part 2 of Understanding the Law of Making Graffiti.

“Understanding the Law of Making Graffiti in New York, Part 1”