When police officers rammed down the door of the massage parlor in a squat stucco building in south Minneapolis, they saw a young woman, topless and wearing only her underwear, jump off the massage table and her naked client.
The police had their case, solid evidence that prostitution was going on at the site, which had been a concern of neighbors for some time.
The only problem is they already had their case more than 30 minutes before they burst through the door, before the undercover officer took off his clothes, before the woman disrobed and got on top of him, before he moaned and commented on her body and long before she began touching his genitals.
The public defender's office argued this week that the officer, Steven Lecy, had a good case as soon as the woman agreed to a "body to body" massage for money, widely known on the street and to undercover officers as a sex act. A judge agreed, and dismissed all charges against the woman.
The rest of the officer's behavior after the transaction was made was "gratuitous" and "outrageous government conduct" and a violation of the due process guarantees of the U.S. and state constitutions, according to Mary Moriarty, chief public defender of Hennepin County.
Moriarty should know. Female undercover officers arrest johns and get convictions all the time without letting the men touch them, and certainly long before any sexual conduct is made, she said. It's a double standard that has gone on for a long time, and allowed male officers to get way too far into a sexual situation before they make their bust. Sitting in her office late this week, Moriarty seemed a bit surprised by the media attention to this case.
"We see stuff like this a lot," she said, shaking her head.
"This was not something off a spa menu," said Moriarty. "Why is it we have male undercover police officers having sex for over 30 minutes before an arrest? Any cop knows what body-to-body massage means, and the woman was topless" during much of the massage. "The conduct of the officer was outrageous. As the judge pointed out, if there was any ambiguity why not just clarify it" while being audiotaped?