Good Samaritan Sex Offender
Radley Balko | September 12, 2007, 2:11pm
The Chicago Sun-Times tells the story of Erasmo Palacios, who, after dropping off his six-year-old daughter at school, was with his wife Rocio and their 22-year-old daughter, all on their way to breakfast when they saw a woman waving her arms. Thinking she was in distress, they approached her in the car, at which point...
...the woman approached their car, parked outside Manolos restaurant, leaned in to the passenger side where Rocio was sitting and asked Erasmo if he wanted oral sex for $20 or sex for $25.
The couple laughed, realizing this wasnt a woman in distress after all.
But within seconds, Chicago police swarmed the family car, hauling Erasmo Palacios out in handcuffs. He was charged with solicitation of a prostitute.
His daughter, who had just run in to exchange her coffee for a hot chocolate, screamed, while his wife cried in fear.
Eight hours later, Palacios, who has no criminal record, was released from custody. And weeks later, charges against him were dropped.
The police report improbably charged that Palacios solicited sex from the undercover officer, even as his wife sat in the passenger seat, and his daughter was on her way out from getting a beverage. Makes you wonder how many men have been wrongfully arrested for solicitation who didn't have their wives and daughters nearby to vouch for them. Also makes those websites cities put up posting mugshots of suspected (not convicted) johns all the more invidious.
The punchline: Though the charges were dropped, the city seized the family's car under laws allowing the forfeiture of automobiles used in the solicitation of prostitutes. The city won't return the car until the Palacios pay $4,700 in towing and storage fees.
kragshot | September 12, 2007, 4:13pm | #
Guys, this is very typical for Chicago. The Chicago Dept. of Revenue is not directly connected to traffic enforcement or the general police, but they work closely with them both in regards to impounded vehicles and Denver Boots.
In nearly every case where a vehicle is turned over to Revenue, even if the impounding has been ruled to be unwarranted, the poor SOB whose car has been turned over to the department will be forced to still pay to get his car back.
The Chicago Department of Revenue are the biggest bunch of gangsters and racketeers in the country, only seconded by the current Presidential administration.
Their vans normally cruise low income neighborhoods and randomly put boots on vehicles, and force the poor folks to pay to have them removed or they impound the vehicles and either force them to pay ridiculous amounts to get them back or sell them at auction.
One guy I knew had his car unjustly impounded for parking tickets that should not have been billed to his car. He went to court and had the tickets removed. However when he went to Revenue to get his car and despite having a statement from the court claiming that he did not owe for the tickets, they refused to turn over his car. He had to go back to the judge and get a direct court order to force them to turn over his car. When he did, they took another ten days to do it. And to add insult to injury, two weeks later, they put those very same tickets back on his car again and he had to go through all of that crap again. Just for the record, he no longer lives in Chicago....
And as for the poor guy in this story, odds are that he will not get his car back, as there are many reports that they take very expensive cars that they get and re-auction them off very quickly, to avoid having to give them back. Once the car is gone, they can stall forever regarding the money, if they are ordered to return the vehicle.
Crooks, I tell you...they are a bunch of crooks.
PurdueBoy | September 13, 2007, 12:05am | #
We'll obviously some people that are commenting didn't bother to click on the link and read the rest of the article. THEY ARE SUING THE CITY. That is what the article was about. that was the title of the article for gods sake. if you don't feel like clicking on it. Here is the COMPLETE article:
CHICAGO --
It was Rocio Palacios who first noticed the woman who appeared to need help.
It was 8 a.m. when she and her husband, Erasmo, dropped their 6-year-old daughter off at school and had picked up their 22-year-old daughter to go out for breakfast when they saw the woman waving her arms at 53rd Street and Kedzie Avenue last November.
The Palacioses, of Chicago, claim the woman approached their car, parked outside Manolos restaurant, leaned in to the passenger side where Rocio was sitting and asked Erasmo if he wanted oral sex for $20 or sex for $25.
The couple laughed, realizing this wasnt a woman in distress after all.
But within seconds, Chicago police swarmed the family car, hauling Erasmo Palacios out in handcuffs. He was charged with solicitation of a prostitute
His daughter, who had just run in to exchange her coffee for a hot chocolate, screamed, while his wife cried in fear.
Eight hours later, Palacios, who has no criminal record, was released from custody. And weeks later, charges against him were dropped.
Now, Erasmo Palacios is suing the city and the officers involved in his arrest, saying they violated his civil rights during an incident he described as both frightening and ridiculous.
Im so lucky I was with my wife -- imagine if I had to try to tell her and she wasnt with me, he said, before laughing at the image. Shed never believe me. Never.
A Chicago police report offers few details, saying only that it was Erasmo Palacios who asked for sex, never mentioning his wife in the car or his daughter nearby.
Attorneys Lonny Ben Ogus and Joe Cavanaugh also want to know what happened to the familys 1983 Mercedes. It was impounded that November day and, Palacios said, his wife and daughter were even threatened with arrest as they tried to stop police from taking it, as they were left stranded that morning.
The city wants more than $4,700 in towing and storage fees if he wants the car back.
City officials declined to comment on the status of the familys car and the Palacios case, while the undercover female officer involved in the arrest couldnt be reached.
Copyright 2007, Sun-Times News Group
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
