People v. Lauria

251 Cal.App.2d 471, 59 Cal.Rptr 628 (1967)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Police investigated the call-girl activity of three prostitutes using Lauria's (D) telephone answering service, presumably for business purposes. A policewoman signed up for telephone service with D. She hinted that she was a prostitute concerned with the secrecy of her activities and their concealment from the police. She was assured that the operation of the service was discreet and 'about as safe as you can get.' She talked to D on the telephone and told him her business was modeling and she had been referred to the answering service by Terry, one of the three prostitutes under investigation. She complained that because of the operation of the service she had lost two valuable tricks. D defended his service and said that her friends had probably lied to her about having left calls for her. D did not respond to Mrs. Weeks' hints that she needed customers in order to make money, other than to invite her to his house for a personal visit in order to get better acquainted. D said, 'his business was taking messages.' She complained to D's office manager about two lost calls described as a $50 and a $100 trick. D and the three prostitutes were arrested. D said his own service had only 9 or 10, that he kept separate records for known or suspected prostitutes for the convenience of himself and the police. D said as long as they pay their bills he tolerates prostitutes on his service. Before the grand jury, D testified that he knew some of his customers were prostitutes, and he knew Terry was a prostitute because he had personally used her services, and he knew she was paying for 500 calls a month. D and the three prostitutes were indicted for conspiracy to commit prostitution, and nine overt acts were specified. The trial court set aside the indictment as having been brought without reasonable or probable cause. P appealed, claiming that a sufficient showing of an unlawful agreement to further prostitution was made.