Outrageous Government (Mis)Conduct: Due Process as a Defense in Paid-Sex Sting Operations

After paying for sex, the man was not charged with prostitution or solicitation: in fact, he was not charged at all. On the contrary, police paid him a total of $180 for the time he spent receiving oral stimulation and engaging in sexual intercourse with the female employees. The man discussed the sexual encounters with police, who laughed and joked with him on multiple occasions about the acts.

Philanthropy Editor, Volume 169, University of Pennsylvania Law Review. J.D. Candidate, 2021, University of Pennsylvania Law School. I am endlessly grateful to Professor David Rudovsky for his supervision, and to Professors Sandra Mayson, Dorothy Roberts, and Justin Murray for their generosity with their time and guidance. I also owe thanks to my wonderful Law Review editors, particularly Hannah Pugh and Andrew Lief, and to Matt Jerrehian, Kenny Felder, and Michael Graf. Finally, many thanks to Professor Seth Kreimer for germinating my interest in substantive due process protections in first-year Constitutional Law, and to Dean Beer and Emily Sieber at the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office for introducing me to this particular brand of police misconduct in the first place.

Search

Print or Digital

Volumes & Issues

Years

Topic

Types

Outrageous Government (Mis)Conduct: Due Process as a Defense in Paid-Sex Sting Operations