Individuals charged in New York with the crime of Prostitution, Penal Law Section 230.00, have to offer to or actually engage in “sexual conduct” as defined by both statutes and case law. In the Kings County (Brooklyn) Criminal Court case of People. v. Georgia A., 163 Misc.2d 634 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,1994), a NY criminal defense attorney successfully argued before a criminal court judge that his client should be acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish any “sexual conduct” existed in an “S & M” and dominatrix case.
In this particular matter the defendant met with an undercover police officer after they arranged for the appointment over the phone (this pre-dated Craig’s List and Backpage). The agreement between the two was for an “S & M” experience. Upon meeting, the undercover asked what he would get in exchange for $100 and the defendant informed him that he would receive “S &M” for that fee. Although the money was not exchanged at that time, the defendant changed her outfit. During this time, the undercover observed various videos and other items including whips and toys.
At some point the undercover notified the “field team” (a term often used to refer to other officers involved in the investigation and arrest). These officers entered the apartment and arrested the defendant.
At trial, the defendant testified that “as the dominatrix, she makes an assessment as to what a customer wants and/or needs and then performs that desire. [The defendant] stressed the fact that there is no sex or sexual conduct like sexual intercourse or physical contact with the person’s genitals. [The defendant] further testified that as a dominatrix, she wore a specific costume-black gloves, leather corset, panties and high heels.” Moreover, [the defendant] stated that there was no intercourse of any kind, but that a client might be spanked or paddled.
In finding that there was no “sexual conduct” the court found that “sado-masochistic acts described by [the defendant]: foot licking, spanking, domination and submission do not appear to fit within the category of sexual conduct referred to in the statute.”
While each case must be analyzed individually, the case of Georgia A. is a significant one in that it gives insight as to what may not be construed as “sexual conduct.” While this decision is from a trial court (not an appellate court), it is an important one and sets forth the position that sado-masochistic acts of footlicking, spanking, domination and submission are not “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the prostitution statute.
Regardless of the facts underlying your case, if you are charged with a crime relating to Prostitution, Solicitation, Unlicensed Massage or Promoting Prostitution, you should educate yourself on the law at EscortDefense.Com and retain the criminal defense firm of Saland Law PC, as the experienced criminal counsel you need to fight for your rights and integrity.