Do undercover police have to identify themselves in California?Prostitution?

Question

There seems to be a myth circulating, at least i think it is such, that when we, when police or people working for the police independently, are undercover as in stings posing as prostitutes, dealers, etc that they have to identify themselves if asked if they are working for the police.
My understanding is that this is not so.? This would seem to destroy any effectiveness in undercover operations. For instance, if I become a police officer and pose as either a prostitute or a potential customer of one, all the john or prostitute has to do is ask if i work for the police and any potential case is lost.?
What if someone contacts someone who does sensual massage or prostitution to trade just massage consensually, but does not trade money or illegal substances for it, is that illegal? Being that it is only consensual massage, not turning sexuality into a financial commodity, it seems that this would still be legal in California, or could we prosecute someone for this?.

If known, please include links to cite specific laws stating one way or the other.

Answer 1

Undercover policemen do not identify themselves except when they have already arrested the suspects.

Answer 2

They don't have to if they are in a sting operation. If a hooker takes a transaction for sex, then that person is going to get busted, especially if it's with an undercover officer. A sensual massage isn't illegal unless there is a sexual act done. Also, if they were free and no money was exchanged I think they would be working their fingers to the bone. 9-out-of-10 times I would guarantee that "something" is swapped for a sensual massage.

Answer 3

There is no law against consensual sex (or sensual massage)as long as both parties are over legal age (usually 16). As for your first question -- I'm not familiar with CA laws, but it seems to me that identifying yourself as an undercover cop defeats the purpose of being undercover, so why even bother.

Answer 4

Of course not. Self-preservation is the most basic of human rights. But they'd better darned well be ready to justify their actions. The initial rush to judgment in these cases always seems led by people who forget that policemen are people, too. There is an investigation into these matters, and howling before the investigation is done is foolish. Don't trust the investigation? What's the alternative? Maybe we should just not have police at all. New York did, after all, exist for a long time before there was a NYPD. We could all carry pistols and be responsible for our own protection, and we'd have nobody but ourselves to blame.

Answer 5

An undercover officer DOES NOT have to identify themselves as a Police Officer. Period.

Answer 6

Hello NO they don't. They couldn't catch a john or prostitute in the act any other way. That's why they have SURVEILLANCE footage etc. They only have to show INTENT.

Answer 7

They do not have to identify themselves. That's the whole point of being undercover.

Answer 8

Nope, they don't have to ID themselves and can even lie to you about their police employment.

Answer 9

Well who would you rather try to pick your *** up hooker? A cop or some psycho.

Answer 10

dont you think that is something the agency you work for or want to work for should answer? if you have to get your information here, something is wrong.