Being charged with solicitation or patronizing prostitution in Minnesota can have consequences far beyond a fine or possible jail sentence. A prostitution-related charge can affect your reputation, employment, professional licensing, family relationships, and future background checks. Just as importantly, an arrest does not mean the State can prove the charge.
What people commonly call “solicitation of a prostitute” is generally prosecuted in Minnesota as patronizing prostitution under Minnesota Statute § 609.324. The statute makes it a crime for a person, while acting as a patron, to intentionally hire, offer to hire, or agree to hire another person to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact.
Understanding exactly what the State must prove—and examining how police obtained their evidence—can be critical to defending the case.
What Is Solicitation of Prostitution Under Minnesota Law?
Minnesota law defines a “patron” as someone who engages in prostitution by hiring, offering to hire, or agreeing to hire another person for sexual penetration or sexual contact. “Prostitution” includes not only actually engaging in the sexual act, but also hiring, offering to hire, or agreeing to hire someone for that purpose.
For an alleged patron involving another adult, Minn. Stat. § 609.324, subd. 2 provides that a person commits the offense if the person intentionally engages in prostitution with someone 18 or older, or hires, offers to hire, or agrees to hire that person for sexual penetration or sexual contact.
That means police generally do not have to wait until sexual activity occurs. Money does not necessarily have to change hands either. An alleged agreement or offer can be enough if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made an agreement involving sexual activity in exchange for compensation.
This is why the exact words used in text messages, online communications, recorded conversations, or discussions with an undercover officer can become extremely important.
What Are the Penalties?
Patronizing an adult prostitute under § 609.324, subdivision 2 is a gross misdemeanor. A Minnesota gross misdemeanor can generally carry up to 364 days in jail and a $3,000 fine. The prostitution statute also provides for a minimum $1,500 fine following conviction, subject to limited provisions allowing community service in place of some or all of that minimum fine based on financial hardship.
A second qualifying prostitution conviction occurring within ten years can become a felony, punishable by as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
There are also circumstances that can substantially increase the consequences. For example, committing a prostitution offense in a designated school or park zone can elevate what would otherwise be a gross misdemeanor to a felony carrying up to two years of imprisonment and a $4,000 fine.
If a vehicle was used during the offense, the court must also determine that fact and report it to the Department of Public Safety for notation on the person’s driving record. For a first prostitution offense, that information is generally classified as private data but remains accessible to law enforcement.
Possible Defenses to a Minnesota Solicitation Charge
The appropriate defense depends heavily on the evidence. Common areas a defense attorney may investigate include:
- No intentional agreement to exchange money for sexual activity. The prosecution must establish the required intent. A conversation that is ambiguous, joking, incomplete, misunderstood, or susceptible to another interpretation may not establish the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- No actual offer or agreement. Discussing sex, meeting someone, entering a hotel, or communicating with an escort does not by itself necessarily prove that the defendant hired, offered to hire, or agreed to hire the person for statutory sexual contact or penetration.
- The context of recorded statements. Many cases arise from undercover operations. Audio, video, texts, advertisements, and police reports should be compared carefully rather than relying solely on an officer’s characterization of what was said.
- Identification issues. Online investigations may involve telephone numbers, social-media accounts, websites, or electronic communications. The prosecution still must establish who actually sent the communications.
- Illegal searches or seizures. Depending on the circumstances, a defense may challenge a vehicle stop, detention, arrest, search of a phone, search of a hotel room, or other evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections. Evidence obtained unlawfully may sometimes be suppressed.
- Entrapment in appropriate cases. Merely interacting with an undercover officer is not a defense—Minnesota law expressly says the involvement of an undercover operative does not itself provide a defense. But genuine entrapment is different. Minnesota courts recognize an entrapment defense when the government goes beyond merely providing an opportunity and instead improperly induces the crime, such as through persuasion, badgering, or pressure, and the defendant was not predisposed to commit it.
Entrapment is therefore highly fact-specific. An officer placing an advertisement or offering an opportunity to commit the offense ordinarily does not, standing alone, establish entrapment. Minnesota courts distinguish between providing an opportunity and actually inducing someone to commit a crime that the person was not otherwise predisposed to commit.
“But Nothing Happened”—Is That a Defense?
Not necessarily.
One of the most common misunderstandings is that there cannot be a prostitution charge if no sexual activity took place. Minnesota’s statute specifically includes hiring, offering to hire, or agreeing to hire another person. Consequently, an arrest can occur before anyone has sex and before money is actually paid.
The defense may instead focus on whether there really was an agreement, what the agreement actually involved, whether the accused possessed the required intent, and whether the State’s interpretation of the conversation is supported by the complete evidence.
For example, a few words taken from a longer text exchange can sound very different when the entire conversation is reviewed. The same is true of undercover audio or video. Obtaining the complete recording rather than relying solely on a police report can therefore be particularly important.
Undercover Prostitution Stings in Minnesota
Many solicitation cases originate from law-enforcement sting operations involving online advertisements, hotels, text messages, or undercover officers.
Minnesota law specifically provides that the mere fact an undercover officer was involved is not a defense to a charge under § 609.324.
That does not mean law enforcement’s conduct is irrelevant. A defense attorney may still examine who initiated the discussion of sexual activity, who first mentioned money, whether the officer repeatedly pressed the defendant after an initial refusal, whether conversations were recorded completely, and whether the officer’s report accurately describes the communications.
Those facts can bear directly on whether the prosecution can prove intent and agreement and, in unusual circumstances, whether an entrapment defense exists.
Solicitation Involving a Minor Is Very Different
Cases allegedly involving someone under age 18 are treated far more severely.
Under § 609.324, hiring, offering to hire, or agreeing to hire a person under 18—or, in certain circumstances, a person the defendant reasonably believes is under 18—can constitute a felony. Depending upon the alleged age, maximum sentences range from five years to twenty years of imprisonment. Minnesota law also provides that mistake concerning age is not a defense to a prosecution under § 609.324.
Those cases should therefore be distinguished from the typical gross-misdemeanor allegation involving two adults.
“Solicitation of Prostitution” Can Also Mean a Different Minnesota Crime
There is an important terminology issue.
Minnesota Statute § 609.322 is titled “Solicitation, Inducement, and Promotion of Prostitution; Sex Trafficking.”That statute generally addresses conduct such as soliciting or inducing another person to practice prostitution, promoting someone’s prostitution, profiting from prostitution, or engaging in sex trafficking. Those offenses can carry extremely serious felony penalties.
That is different from the ordinary situation in which someone is accused of attempting to purchase sexual services from an adult. The latter is generally prosecuted as a patron offense under § 609.324.
Because the word “solicitation” is commonly used for both concepts, determining the actual statute and subdivision charged is important.
What Should You Do After Being Charged?
A solicitation arrest can be embarrassing, and the natural instinct may be to explain the situation immediately to police, an employer, a spouse, or others. From a defense standpoint, it is often better to first determine exactly what evidence exists.
Police reports may be only part of the case. Relevant evidence can include undercover recordings, body-camera footage, surveillance video, text messages, call records, online advertisements, hotel records, payment information, search-warrant materials, and communications that occurred before and after the alleged offer.
An experienced Minnesota criminal-defense attorney can evaluate whether the prosecution can prove each element of the offense, determine whether evidence may be suppressed, explore defenses, and evaluate whether the case may be dismissed, reduced, or resolved in a way that minimizes its long-term impact.
Charged With Solicitation or Patronizing Prostitution in Minnesota?
Being arrested does not make you guilty. Solicitation cases can turn on a handful of words, the context of a conversation, an undercover officer’s actions, or whether investigators followed constitutional requirements when obtaining evidence.
If you have been charged with patronizing or soliciting prostitution in Minnesota, speak with a criminal-defense attorney before making statements about the allegations or accepting a plea.
Judith Samson represents individuals facing prostitution and solicitation charges throughout Minnesota. Contact us at 612-209-3337 or [email protected] to discuss your case confidentially.
This article provides general information about Minnesota law and is not legal advice for any particular case. Minnesota statutes and court decisions can change, and the defense available in any individual case depends on its particular facts.
Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
