Alberta MLA charged with trying to hire hookers for threesome at U.S. convention

[The Bread Guy]

Ooopsie....

Disgraced former Tory MLA Mike Allen — charged after a prostitution sting — isn't stepping down, yet.

He made that announcement Monday morning in Fort McMurray, where he is now sitting as an independent MLA for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo.

"I committed to having a conversation with my community prior to making a decision about my future and I will not short circuit that conversation by stepping aside immediately; as less difficult a route as that might be for me personally."

He said he'll have made a decision on his political future by the time the Alberta legislature sits again, Oct. 28.

"There are no excuses," Allen said at the press conference. "I will be saying sorry to a lot of people."

"This has not been a pattern of behaviour in the past," he added.

Allen faces one count of hiring or agreeing to hire a prostitute in a public place. The maximum sentence he faces is one year in prison and a $3,000 fine.

He was arrested Monday, July 15, in connection with an undercover online prostitution sting in Minnesota. He left the Tory caucus shortly after.

"With respect to the charges," Allen said, "there is not much I can say as I have only seen those via media sources. Until I have the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, there is nothing I will be able to say with respect to the specifics of the allegations."

The Minnesota court statement of probable cause states that the St. Paul Police Department's Human Trafficking Unit conducted a "John" sweep of the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota.

(....)

The statement goes on to say that at about 7:24 p.m. on Monday, Michael Trent Allen called the undercover officer in response to her advertisement and asked to schedule an appointment. At the defendant's request, the officer explained the various costs, the amount of time, and the numbers of available women. The defendant asked for the officer's address and took a limo to her motel."

About 8 p.m. on Monday, Allen "arrived at the motel, called the officer again, and went to her room. The defendant agreed to pay $200 in exchange for sexual intercourse with two women for one hour while wearing a condom. The defendant placed the cash on the counter and began to undress. The undercover officer have a predetermined bust signal, whereupon other officers entered the room and placed the defendant under arrest."

Allen is now to appear in St. Paul court on Sept. 30.

He had been in St. Paul on government business, attending the Council of State Government Midwestern Legislative Conference. Allen has since refunded the province $2,061.44 for the trip ....

Calgary Sun, 22 Jul 13

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Answered an advertisement, isn't that considered entrapment?

The guy wanted sex with 2 women and was willing to pay for it, hmm not much of a crime here.

For the record I am in favour of legal and safe prostitution. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Answered an advertisement, isn't that considered entrapment?

The guy wanted sex with 2 women and was willing to pay for it, hmm not much of a crime here.

Not a crime in Canada, US is different.

 

[Journeyman]

From the looks of the guy, they should throw a charge of Sexual Abuse in there too -- the things hookers have to put up with.   

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not a crime in Canada, US is different.

I realize it's a crime in that particular jurisdiction, but the magnitude is the question. I wonder how the judge will see the advertizing issue? Seems like a make work project for the police officers. Although likely the job is forced on them by their superiors.

 

[PMedMoe]

Answered an advertisement, isn't that considered entrapment?

I would say no more than if the police officers were undercover as prostitutes on the street.

 

[The_Falcon]

Answered an advertisement, isn't that considered entrapment?

The guy wanted sex with 2 women and was willing to pay for it, hmm not much of a crime here.

For the record I am in favour of legal and safe prostitution. 

I would say no more than if the police officers were undercover as prostitutes on the street.

The question of entrapment all comes down to semantics, ie what was actually written in the ad what is actually said in conversation (same goes for undercover street walkers).  The ad's in question typically don't ever say anything explicit (if you are in Toronto , look in the back of Now Magazine or the Toronto Sun, or go online and see for yourself).  It's all implied, wink wink nudge nudge wording.  When you get to see the actual surviellance tapes the, undercover officers will never discuss specifics unless the suspect does so first.  That's the key to avoid the entrapment issue, the suspect is the one that has to cross the threshold from implied activities, to specific acts first. 

And on a side note, the old "are you a cop" thing, holds no water.  They are allowed to lie and deceive a person, they aren't allowed to push/entice someone into committing illegal acts, that's what entrapment is.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well as long as he wasn't going to claim it on his travel claim I ok with this.  ;D

Thanks for the definition of entrapment.

 

[DBA]

With the main aspects of a crime being means, motive and opportunity I find it troubling when the police themselves provide or induce any of them. Doing so as an investigative technique I have no trouble with as long as the crimes where police helped with any aspect are not charged.

 

[The_Falcon]

With the main aspects of a crime being means, motive and opportunity I find it troubling when the police themselves provide or induce any of them. Doing so as an investigative technique I have no trouble with as long as the crimes where police helped with any aspect are not charged.

Why do you find it troubling?  If in this case the ad is one of dozens if not hundred of other ads, basically offering something illegal (for that particular jurisdiciton), then the police aren't baiting anyone to commit a crime.  Prostitution is pretty much illegal in like 99% of America, and it's not like the laws can't be found on the net, so ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Now if the police's ad was the only one, then I could kinda support an argument that they were trying to get people to commit a crime that they normally wouldn't have. 

 

[Nemo888]

If he didn't claim it as an expense I don't really see what the issue is other than laws about prostitution are Talibanesque in their puritanical fervor. They were two women of legal age engaged in a business transaction.

 

[George Wallace]

>

What would the charges have been if he had offered to pay for them to dine with him at The Keg or some other restaurant?  Men are always spending money on women, for many reasons.  Would that not solve the Feminists' hatred for all titles that contain "man", "son", "male", or any other male gendered association if we just started calling them all "prostitutes"?

>


Just thinking way outside of the box.  ;D

 

[The_Falcon]

>

What would the charges have been if he had offered to pay for them to dine with him at The Keg or some other restaurant? 

You mean like the Eddie Murphy, I was just driving them home?  If there wasn't an agreement to pay for sex, they couldn't charge him with anything.  Maybe freak him out a bit, and lecture him about calling ads in the back of a newspaper, and agreeing to meet strange women in a motel somewhere.  The article highlights what I mentioned, he had to start talking specifics before they engaged him in further conversation, and it was only after he reconfirmed those specifics and pulled out the cash did he get the bracelets.