LGBT News HIV-Positive gay men targeted by St. Louis County Police

We know the answer to the first question from the article. There are no known victims, and as far as we know he hasn't infected anyone. In fact the police are actively calling out to the general public to come forward if anyone wants to accuse him of infecting them. The answer to your second question is an unfortunate one. There are scores of queer men out there who do not know their status. Either they've never been tested, or are not tested as often as they should be. We do not know if that was the situation in this case, but statistically there is a good chance that it was since this is common.

He may have known his status or he may not have known his status, but regardless of this fact he didn't break any laws because there is no law that requires him to reveal his status or to even be truthful about it when asked. The police KNOW that he didn't break the law by not revealing his status, assuming that he knew it. Of course, that doesn't mean that he won't be charged with some other crime that he may have committed after he agreed to interact with the police and answer their questions. After all, in order for them to know he has HIV, they had to do testing which involved some form of consent on his end.

This brings us to...

I agree with this except I would go further. Never talk to the police, ever, even if you think you're innocent, and even if it is just for a speeding ticket. If you get stopped by the police for any reason, obey their commands, be respectful, but invoke your 5th, 4th, and 6th Amendment Rights. That's your right not to self-incriminate (refusing to answer questions) that's the 5th, your right not to consent to unreasonable searches and seizures (this requires them to get a warrant or to develop some type of probable cause) that's the 4th, and your right to an attorney which is your 6th Amendment right.

These are the most important rights you have when interacting with the police. No matter how trivial it is, you should never speak to the police unless you are reporting a crime or need help. If you get pulled over for speeding, one of the first things the cop is likely going to ask is something like, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" It does not matter what you say here, because either you're going to be lying to the cop, or you are going to be incriminating yourself and that is a confession that can be used against you. So, the proper answer to any question a cop attempts to ask you, even if it is something as trivial as, "Hello! How are you feeling today?" is the following: "Hello Officer. I'm sorry I don't answer questions, I'm invoking my 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment Rights. Am I being detained or am I free to go?" This obviously is not going to please the cop, and he or she may get angry with you. They may continue to try and ask you questions. However, you continue to repeat that over and over again. "I realize this is upsetting for you. However, I am invoking my 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment Rights. Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If the cop gets angry and starts giving you orders, you follow the cops orders. You don't resist. You just keep invoking your rights and asking if you are being detained or if you are free to go. Don't get angry. There is no point in it, because in this situation you have no power. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you, and cops have a huge degree of power over you and can even exercise illegal uses of their power. You don't want to escalate the situation, which is why you remain calm. Your goal is just to wait it out until you can get a lawyer. Once you get a lawyer, the tables fucking turn, and if the cop violated your rights that's how and when you fight back.

Understand that cops serve one primary function and one primary function only. That is to help prosecutors build their case against you. They are out there actively looking for people breaking the law (and whether or not you know it--you've broken the law many times), and after they find said potential law breakers their role becomes to help build that case for the prosecutor. There is nothing you can ever say to the police that is going to make you innocent, and if you are innocent that is a thousand more reasons to keep your mouth shut. If a cop gives you an order to do something, make it clear, "I do not consent, but I will not resist." Resisting or arguing with a cop will always make it worse, because in that moment a cop can do anything they want to you. They can order you to strip naked and rape you right in broad daylight on the sidewalk. You are powerless to do anything to stop them, because not only do they have weapons which they can use to harm or kill you, the law gives them tons of power and authority over you. What they have to do is justify their actions at a later time, and that is when you catch them. That is when you get your lawyer, and if you are targeted or singled out because you are LGBT we have tons of lawyers on our side that are willing to fight for us ranging from Lambda Legal to the ACLU.

However, the only thing that protects you is those three beautiful amendments: the 4th, the 5th, and the 6th. Invoke them. They are your only protection.

Below is a video of a law professor discussing his love for and the importance of the 5th Amendment. There is also a cop discussing what the professor said. I should point out that this law professor teaches at Pat Robertson's Regent University. This means he is a conservative of the Religious Right, and so if a law and order conservative is telling you that you should keep your mouth shut when interacting with the police, you should damn well listen.

[YOUTUBE]6wXkI4t7nuc[/YOUTUBE]

This is another useful and helpful video discussing on how to handle police encounters.

[YOUTUBE]s4nQ_mFJV4I[/YOUTUBE]

Seriously, if the cops are going to start looking for ways to prey on us again, then it's in everyone's best interest to be fully informed, and know how to protect yourself and fight back.

 

Oh, yes. I'm quite confident that it increases the chances you'll get a ticket rather than a warning. After all, you've made the cops life more difficult. In a routine traffic stop, he wants you to admit your guilt so he can mark it down and move on. However, it's better to get a ticket than open yourself up to further scrutiny later on.

Imagine the scenario where you are working openly with the cop, and answering all of his questions. You're trying to avoid the ticket. Then suddenly he asks you something that you know would be incriminating. For example, whether or not you have any marijuana in the vehicle. Now, whether or not you do could be beside the point. If anyone else has driven your car recently, you cannot 100% guarantee that there is nothing there. You could lie to the cop, and say no, but if he conducts a search and finds some then you've lied to the police. Further, you've increased the chances that you'll get searched because as soon as he asks if you have any marijuana and THEN you assert your 5th amendment rights? Yes, well he isn't supposed to take that as an admission of guilt, but he will and you've basically told him that you either know or think there might be marijuana in your vehicle. All he needs is some probable cause to do a search, and if you've let your window all the way down that could be as simple as him claiming that he smelled it.

Then do you remember all those innocent questions he was asking before? He was fishing. The moment after you've admitted your guilt to speeding or whatever and he got his confession, his next goal is to fish around to see if he can find anything else to charge you with. Where are you going? Where do you work? Where do you live? Where do you go to school? Have you heard about X and Y? Potentially any question he asks you is an opportunity for him to hang you with something, perhaps something you had no involvement with.

So, now imagine this scenario. You've admitted that you work at 7/11, and that you are heading to Rock Hill Road to visit your friend. You've also admitted that your friends name is Jason Jones. You were volunteering information left and right until he asked if there was any marijuana. Well, you had let Jason borrow your car a few days ago since he doesn't have a car right now. However, you know Jason smokes pot, so you wisely decide to take the fifth and fourth -- no more questions and no consent to searches. However, the cop decides that he "smells" marijuana. He asks you to step out of the car, handcuffs you, and decides that he has "probable cause" for a search. He finds some small amount of marijuana or a half-smoked joint or something under one of your car seats, obviously left by your friend Jason. You get arrested for possession, because it is your car.

Of course, little did you know that your friend Jason was busted a few hours before. His house was raided by the police because he had been accused of dealing. Now, Jason's use of your car was completely innocent, he just traveled to his mother's house. So, now police have you on record admitting that you know Jason, that you were on your way to meet with him, and that you were in possession of marijuana. Both Jason and yourself work at 7/11, so that means you have regular contact. The cops have just enough evidence to threaten to charge you with being involved in what Jason is involved in... at this point, you are in a shit position. The prosecutor is likely offering you a reduced sentence and a decent plea deal, in exchange for you testifying against your friend Jason at trial (hello star witness!). You have nothing to do with anything! You're completely innocent! You don't even smoke pot!

Unfortunately, you're now in this difficult position all because you couldn't keep your mouth shut. Those little innocent questions that you were politely trying to answer to avoid that speeding ticket were enough to hang you. You could try and fight it in court, to prove your innocence! Of course, like the cop said in the first video, the reality is most people assume your guilty otherwise you wouldn't be there. It is always an uphill battle, and the lawyer you hire is likely not to be one of the best because you are not filthy rich.

It never pays to speak to the police. It is unlikely that you can beat that ticket in court, but if you want to try your chances go up by keeping your mouth shut. Even if you have to pay the ticket, it is always better to be overly cautious than to get swept up into something that you have no involvement in, because the police are not our friends. The police are never our friends. Their primary job, and really their only job, is to look for evidence to help convict you of a crime.

I'm not saying that individual cops out there aren't decent people, even nice people, that mostly try and do the right thing. There are lots of nice people in law enforcement, and over the years I've known some of them. However, it is important to know what it is exactly they do. They aren't your friend, they aren't your advocate, and they don't want to help you--though they will frequently lie and pretend to want to do all three.

 

I agree with everything you've said. However, I want to highlight this part, because it is something people keep missing in this thread.

While it is completely unethical to lie about your status to your sexual partners, it is not actually a crime. What the accused is supposedly guilty of in this case is NOT an actual crime. There is no law on the books that says you have to reveal your HIV status to your sexual partners, or that you can't lie about it. There are also no known victims.

The accused in this case broke no laws, because there were no laws for him to break. This is a major reason why this case is so infuriating, and why it was such an obvious entrapment operation.

It is important for everyone to understand what had to be going on in order for the police to find this guy. They had to be trolling craigslist, hook-up apps, and other online sources where gay and bisexual men frequently hookup for sex. They had to pose as gay men looking to have sex. They had to waste these mens time and lead them on, and get them to admit their HIV status. Those men that claimed to be HIV negative they had to then setup a meeting with for sex. However, once the men in question arrived at that meeting, they had to be detained for questioning. They were likely asked again if they were HIV negative, and were likely "encouraged" (i.e. lied to or intimidated by the police) to submit to HIV testing. Their information was then collected so the police could stay in touch with them and they were set free.

Sometime later that test came back. Now, I am going to give the police of the benefit of the doubt here and assuming they are doing their due diligence. This means the next step taken by police is get a judge to grant them access to the medical records of everyone who tested positive. Now, anyone who tested positive previously, and thus knew their status and lied about it would then be arrested. Everyone who tested positive, but had not previously been tested... well who the fuck knows what the cops did with that information.

Out of who knows how many gay and bisexual men they've swept up in their little entrapment operation, they managed to find one guy who lied. Maybe they can prove he lied, maybe they can't, we don't know. In either case, his lying is still not a crime.

Really, this takes us back to the days when police were raiding gay bars and bathhouses. We know they are not also conducting similar operations for straight people. So they are profiling gay men specifically.

Most of the people they swept up are likely in the closet, or are so humiliated that they were caught hooking up that they will never step forward and admit what was going on. So, the police can continue to harass the community in that area.

Of course, this does nothing to keep gay and bisexual men safe from HIV. This just puts the community more at risk, and harms the members of our community who are the most vulnerable and who need our protection. It is *OUR* responsibility to deal with the HIV epidemic in our own community, and there is nothing the police can do to help. If the government wants to help, then let them give money to LGBT organizations that focus on education and outreach, and stop blocking our ability to reach young LGBT people who are the most at risk for getting infected.

This man committed no crime. The cops know that. Assuming they don't find a way to slap some other charges on him, he is ultimately going to be released once this goes to trial--assuming that he doesn't just take a plea deal. (WHICH HE SHOULD NOT TAKE!) This, of course, has effectively ruined his life. It has outed him to the entire community (and really the world now-a-days thanks to the internet), and made his HIV status publicly known. We don't know whether or not he can afford the bail, and if he can't he's going to remain in jail until the trial. This could take months and months. And if he can't afford the bail, he can't afford a decent lawyer. This means he is likely going to lose his job, and if he doesn't own his home, it likely means he'll also lose that too because he isn't going to be able to pay rent.

 

Of course, if someone is recklessly and knowingly infecting one ore more people they should be held accountable. (See Chip's friend's experience.) However, for those cases to be valid someone would actually have to be infected and then come forward and file a report to the police.

Even if we were to go as far as to say that this type of action is valid by police, because it catches people who may be seeking to recklessly spread the virus, that does not excuse the fact that in order to conduct such an entrapment operation, the police would have to entrap many more innocent gay or bisexual men. That is not worth the risk or trade off, especially due to the historical harassment and abuse the police have perpetrated against our community.

This is true, as seen here in this case.

As far as I can tell, this man has broken no law. He just allegedly lied about his HIV status. There are no known victims. We know there are no victims, because after the police filed charges, and he was publicly outed, they sent out a call for any potential victims to come forward and they openly said there were no known victims.

So, even if recklessly infecting others with HIV were a crime, he wouldn't be guilty of it as things currently stand.

Yes, exactly, and that is more money than most people can afford. So it is clear here that they are actively trying to ruin this man's life. There is no other way to interpret their actions, aside from their direct attempts at harassing the entire local community. This is literally the modern day equivalent of them raiding bathhouses and gay bars just like they did in the past.

Exactly. It could take years, this is possible. This is part of my reason for concern, because we don't know if he's coming up with the $5,000 to get out. LGBT people are at additional risks in these types of situations than cis-heterosexuals, because when we are outed like this it could mean the loss of friends and family on the outside. This means that there may be no one on the outside trying to scrape together enough money for bail. This basically leaves him stuck there until the trial.

Thanks for the link. That is a good explanation for the laws. Under Missouri law below is what is illegal.

Stat. § 191.677: Class B Felony, Class A Felony

1. A person knowingly infected with HIV may not donate blood, blood products, organs, sperm or tissue, except for the purposes of medical research.

2. A person knowingly infected with HIV may not expose another person to HIV without the knowledge and consent of that person, in any of the following manners: (A) Through the contact with your blood, semen, or vaginal secretions during oral, anal, or vaginal sex; (B) By sharing needles; (C) By biting another person or purposely doing anything else which causes the HIV infected person's semen, vaginal secretions, or blood to come into contact with the mucous membranes or non-intact skin of another person.

In cases of (A), (B), or (C) the use of protection, such as a condom, is not a defense. Being in violation of these provisions is a class B felony, so long as the victim is not infected with HIV. If the victim becomes infected it is a class A felony.

Stat. § 565.085: Class C Felony

This involves HIV positive individuals in custody of the department of corrections, and knowingly infecting people. Therefore this does not apply to this case.

Stat. § 565.085Stat. § 567.020: Class B Felony

This involves the act of prostitution. If a prostitute is knowingly infected with HIV, and then engages in the act of prostitution, they have committed a Class B Felony. The use of a condom is not a defense.

==========

Okay those are the laws from the above link. It seems the article may have not been entirely accurate, or at least there is a murky grey area that could allow the police to establish an entrapment operation.

The article discusses Statute § 191.677, but only discusses the first part and not the second. The law explicitly states, that it is against the law if you are knowingly infected with HIV, to expose another person to HIV without their consent through contact with your blood, semen, or vaginal secretions during oral, anal, vaginal sex, or with their mucous membranes or non-intact skin.

The murky grey area exists because there is a question of whether or not you must have INTENT to knowingly expose someone to your blood, semen, or vaginal secretions to someone who is unaware of your HIV status. The alternative reading of the law, if you read it literally, requires there to actually be PHYSICAL CONTACT to first be made for it to be illegal.

I was able to look up the exact law as it was passed here.

It does not mention General Intent or Specific Intent in the law. If I understand General Intent correctly, it would require the undercover cop to actually physically be exposed. If I understand Specific Intent correctly, there is a very grey area, where the cops could argue that simply refusing to disclose his status was enough. They may also have to prove that he intended to expose the undercover cop to his blood or semen, either through showing a desire to place it on his mucous membranes or non-intact skin, or show specific intent that he was interested in anal or oral sex.

Here is what specific intent requires.

What really causes the most issue here in this case, and makes it a grey area, is the fact that he could have intended to have safe sex and not expose someone to the virus. In fact, he could have actively been taking his medication and ensuring his viral loads were low and in check. He could have intended to use a condom, and take all the precautions in the world. Yet, simply because he did not disclose his status it may have been just enough to hang him, because under the law none of that matters.

This means if he was trying to hook up for oral or anal sex, and insisting that they use a condom for safety, it wouldn't have mattered. However, I'm not sure if the law itself has to state that it is a specific intent or a general intent crime. Because the law itself does not even mention the word intent. If the law DOES have to mention whether or not the individual has to demonstrate specific or general intent to commit the crime, then he clearly did not break the law. The only way he could have broken the law was if he had actually had oral or anal sex with the cop, OR if he exposed his blood or semen to the cops mucous membranes or any non-intact skin. This would have required them to actually have sex, or at a minimum, for the accused to have masturbated or cut himself and either shot his load or bleed all over the cop. It's pretty obvious that this didn't happen, since this was an entrapment operation.

There is also the legal standard of entrapment. If this is a specific intent crime, this would heavily depend on the conversation had between the police and the accused. For example, let's say the accused was only looking to hook up for mutual hand jobs. However, the cop started talking to him and talked about how he loved anal sex. In other words, he was encouraging the accused to hook up for anal sex. Not disclosing your status for hand jobs is not against the law, but having oral or anal sex without disclosing your HIV positive status clearly is. If the cop was looking to have anal or oral sex, and was encouraging people to hook up as a result of that, it could be considered entrapment.

If all that is required is specific intent to commit the crime, he was looking to have oral or anal sex, and he knew his HIV status was positive but did not disclose; then he is clearly guilty under Stat. § 191.677. However, I have my doubts as the cops are clearly looking for people to come forward to accuse him of hooking up with them and infecting them.

Of course, that means nothing regarding the ethics of such a law, or the fact that the police are obviously sweeping up who knows how many innocent gay men in their little operation which is obviously profiling gay and bisexual men.