Arrested after speaking with a (cop) prostitute: what happens now?

[roberto gasta]

Hi

Last friday at 4am here in Queens -NY I've started a conversation with a fake prostitute, that keptp offering "free services, let just us go around the corner".....
Stupid me, I fell into the trap
And. Few steps later walking with the "b*#*" a group of cops surrounded me and arrested me for "patronizing a prostitute"; with me other 6 guys fell into the same trap;

After one and 1/2 day in jail
The judge, after I played guilty, downgraded my charges into a non-criminal charge of disorderly conduct with a fine to pay $150 + 120$ search fees.

Next year I will reapply (I withdraw the first N400 application based on the 3 years rule cos my wife filed for divorce) for the N400:

Have you ever been arrested?
Do I have to say yes??
How does this will reduce my chances of passing the interview?
Do I need a lawyer?

Pls I need to know where I stand now

Thanks

 

[Kun]

N400 clearly specifies whether you tried using a prostitute or not. I think that USCIS wants to know is whether you are doing this in this country illegally. If you are doing, then I don't know how it impacts their decision making.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Disorderly conduct in itself is not a CIMT, so you should be fine. Just bring your court documents to interview.

 

[Bobsmyth]

N400 clearly specifies whether you tried using a prostitute or not.

That's incorrect. The question on the N-400 about prostitution asks if you were ever a prostitute or procured (pimped) anyone for prostitution. It doesn't ask if you ever used services of a prostitute.

 

[barry4me]

Have you ever been arrested?
Do I have to say yes??
How does this will reduce my chances of passing the interview?
Do I need a lawyer?

You should answer YES to ever been arrested, because you were and it is recorded.
Since one of the questions on N-400 is
Have you ever:
b. Been a prostitute, or procured anyone for prostitution?

So yes, I think you should get a lawyer to smooth things over with USCIS.
Even though the charges were reduced, good moral character is stipulation for citizenship.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Since one of the questions on N-400 is
Have you ever:
b. Been a prostitute, or procured anyone for prostitution?

.

Again, that question relates to being a prostitute or procuring anyone (pimping) for prostitution, not using the the services of a prostitute.

 

[WBH]

That's incorrect. The question on the N-400 about prostitution asks if you were ever a prostitute or procured (pimped) anyone for prostitution. It doesn't ask if you ever used services of a prostitute.

The question actually reflect old obsolete attitude: It is wrong for a woman
to sell sex for a living but it is OK for a man to buy sex. I am surprized thsi question is still there without changing.

 

[Usher]

The question actually reflect old obsolete attitude: It is wrong for a woman
to sell sex for a living but it is OK for a man to buy sex. I am surprized thsi question is still there without changing.

Yeah, they should put a question there for the males, "Have you ever been a Gigolo and/or a Pimp?"

 

[tnwalker]

In the state of NV it is legal. I guess immigration laws are different?

 

[WBH]

Yeah, they should put a question there for the males, "Have you ever been a Gigolo and/or a Pimp?"

I know some countries place a "Holder of this passport is
a customer of prostitution" stamp on passport of foreign
tourists who visitted prostitutes there.

 

[WBH]

In the state of NV it is legal. I guess immigration laws are different?

Good moral character is not based only on criimanl history. Prostitutes
and pimp are not considered to have good moral character by current law
no matter they are legal or not. Being a habitual drunkard
will fail good moral chacter too

 

[Bobsmyth]

The question actually reflect old obsolete attitude: It is wrong for a woman
to sell sex for a living but it is OK for a man to buy sex. I am surprized thsi question is still there without changing.

The question isn't gender specific and relates equally to both male and female prostitutes/pimps.

 

[roberto gasta]

Disorderly conduct in itself is not a CIMT, so you should be fine. Just bring your court documents to interview.

HI Bob,

I should be fine? i hope so, ive heard some people advising to wait 2 or 3 years from the conviction date ( was i convicted? if someoe plays guilty and is ordered to pay a fine is that a conviction?)

Some other said to wait 5 years from the conviction

Should i reopen my case and play not guilty hoping the charges to be dismissed (but then what will the consequences be if they found me to be guilty?)

 

[Bobsmyth]

You pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, not prostitution. Does the charge on your court document appear as disorderly conduct NY PC 240.20? If so, it's not a CIMT and in itself doesn't affect your moral character determination enough to deny your case.

 

[WBH]

The question isn't gender specific and relates equally to both male and female prostitutes/pimps.

Though it is not gender specific, traditionally most prostitutes are famels
and most customers are male (that is why the custemoer are often called Johnny not Joan) so teh question reflect a sexist attitutde.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Though it is not gender specific, traditionally most prostitutes are famels
and most customers are male (that is why the custemoer are often called Johnny not Joan) so teh question reflect a sexist attitutde.

How so as you can equally argue that most pimps are males? The question has nothing to do with customers. The question only deals with prostitutes and pimps.

 

[WBH]

How so as you can equally argue that most pimps are males? The question has nothing to do with customers. The question only deals with prostitutes and pimps.

But anyway it is not fair. How come prostitute and pimps do not have
good moral character and customers patronizing prostitute can have
good moral character? I think the other way is more likely

 

[VisaNutz]

Again, that question relates to being a prostitute or procuring anyone (pimping) for prostitution, not using the the services of a prostitute.

How can you say that for sure? Why would "procuring anyone for prostitution" automatically mean "pimping"? Procuring anyone for prostitution could also mean "hiring" someone for prostitution - to use his/her service.

Also, IOs are allowed to look into the details of the incident leading to the conviction.

 

[Bobsmyth]

But anyway it is not fair. How come prostitute and pimps do not have
good moral character and customers patronizing prostitute can have
good moral character? I think the other way is more likely

But you can be found lacking GMC if you use the services of a prostitute. It's just not an automatic inadmissibility as being a prostitute or pimp is.

 

[Bobsmyth]

How can you say that for sure? Why would "procuring anyone for prostitution" automatically mean "pimping"? Procuring anyone for prostitution could also mean "hiring" someone for prostitution - to use his/her service.

The legal definition of procure in this sense means to obtain sexual partners for others. It has nothing to do with being a customer. Procure and hire are not interchangeable terms as you claim.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/procure

Also, IOs are allowed to look into the details of the incident leading to the conviction.

Correct, but you are not obligated to provide more information than what the court records show. The OP was convicted and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. There's no reason for the IO to pursue the issue further unless the IO is not convinced of the OPs GMC.