Skip to comments.Prostitute nabs crooked cop with his own badge
Posted on 09/29/2006 7:45:48 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
BOSTON (Reuters) - A prostitute forced repeatedly into having sex with a Boston policeman said she feared the abuse would never stop -- until she stole his badge.
When the officer, Michael LoPriore, telephoned her to get it back, the FBI was tuning in to their conversation, the 19-year-old's lawyer, John Swomley, said on Wednesday.
LoPriore, 37, was charged in federal court on Tuesday with depriving the woman of her rights by using his position as a police officer to force her to perform sex in his car in September 2004.
Under a plea agreement, the 12-year veteran of Boston's police force will plead guilty, resign and never seek another job as a police officer in Massachusetts. Prosecutors are recommending that he serve a year in prison.
Swomley said LoPriore had stopped the teenager in a downtown red-light district known as the "Combat Zone" while he was off duty and in his personal car.
After showing her his badge, he ordered her into the car and drove to several locations where he forced her to perform oral sex, he added.
"She told me the badge was stuffed in a little cubby in the front console. His head was back and he wasn't really paying attention to where her hands were," he said.
Prostitute? Sex? Abuse?
What am I missing here?
Kennedy Kill's 'em. Xlintoon "hooks 'em!" BTAIM sexual predation in Massachewsit seems commonplace.
Sounds like Bill Clinton.
One of the bad cops in DaVinci's Inquest had this happen to him.
Found out how much a "trick" normally costs and multiply by the # of tricks, order the Police officer to pay restitution, court costs, and fire him.
"What am I missing here?"
It's called "theft of services."
If you don't pay, you don't play.
There hasn't been a 'combat zone' there in over 20 years.
I keep seeing images of Eddie Murphy as Velvet Jones, touting his book "I Wanna Be a Ho"
Did they not say if the man is married? I didn't see it...
A prostitute does what she does for profit. He isn't paying. Also, he forced her, the article says, which is rape. Doesn't matter if she is a prostitute or not.
But since this guy's a police officer, they're debating whether or not he should do a year.
A cryin' shame. The bastards razed Scollay Square, too!
One story I read described that the prossie remembered seeing a baby seat in the cop's car . . .
49 states to go...
Does he lose his pension and health benefits?
This guy is a disgusting scumbag. For several reasons, some more obvious than others. I find it hard to believe that he is only facing a year in prison.
How many times do think this a$$clown did this before he ran into the wrong girl?
The police officer forced someone to perform sex with him. IIRC, that's a definition of rape. The fact that she performs it for pay with other people is immaterial, even though it's illegal. If a cop catches someone dealing drugs, it's not legitmate for him to force the dealer to give him drugs for free.
Not if the Police Patrolmen's Association has anything to say about it.
Corruption in "public service" unions in this state is the norm.I could tell you stories....but it would take days.
Very light sentence. Disgusting.
Women, even sluts (who may not be especially choosey) and prostitutes (who get paid for it), have the right to say "no" and to choose their partners.
This is Massachusetts,my friend.In this state,"public servants" are revered....even when they're doing time in state or Federal prison.
Or just about anyone in a position of power.
It doesn't seem like rape to me. Rape implies something precious was taken. This is like stealing a loaf of bread that was already for sale.
Since the early '90s, everybody knows that's not really sex.
Rape implies something precious was taken.
Gothca, so by your definition then, a prostitute cannot be raped. Interesting notion. Does that mean a college girl who has sex with a couple of different guys in her freshman year also cannot be raped? Where do you draw the line?
There are some good ones out there...that obey they laws they enforce and put their lives on the line to protect others. Hoever, what ticks me off is the ABOVE the law part. You know, the ones who are off duty and drive their own police cars 90 mph in a 60 mph zone out of their juristiction just because they can...not because they need to. And then you have those that go and DWI. They don't get (by and large) hauled off to jail like you or I would...they get a pass by fellow officers. Ask most officers and they will let a cop go who is blowing .15...but they will take you or I to jail. That's just plain criminal and gives cops the "above the law" stigma they have.
The scary thing is that if she had not taken his badge, there is no way that this guy would have been exposed.
Your post contradicts itself. Stealing is stealing, and this is rape. The cop is lucky to only be looking at a year.
Oh, I hope that wasn't left behind from the last youngster he coerced into performing for him. [/s]
The article leads me to believe that the actual charge is not a sex crime but more of abuse of position as a police officer so there would be no provision for registering as a sex offender. Not that I don't think he should. Plus it's Federal court, a state court may have handled that part differently. Anyway it's good to weed out a POS like this from the force.
You don't see a conflict here? First, do you consider prostitution a legitimate way to make a living? If he'd have given her 20 bucks instead of her suggested retail of 30 is it still rape? If a prostitute gets stiffed of her pay has she been raped? Get real.
Hub officer charged in detail pay scheme
By Donovan Slack, Globe Staff | February 24, 2005
A Boston police officer is charged with felony larceny for allegedly forging signatures on timecards last year and collecting pay for detail shifts he never worked, prosecutors said.
Patrolman Michael Lopriore, who has been on the force since 1994, allegedly was paid $1,102 for five shifts he did not work at an East Boston construction site in January and March 2004, according to Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
Conley's office filed a criminal complaint against Lopriore on Friday, alleging larceny by scheme. If convicted, Lopriore could be sentenced to five years in state prison.
"The evidence suggest a serious breach of public trust," Conley said in an interview yesterday.
Boston police officials declined to discuss Lopriore's status in the department, citing a policy against commenting on cases before they are resolved.
A phone number for Lopriore could not be found last night, and police officials declined to contact the officer on the Globe's behalf.
Conley said an Avon-based construction company, D'Allesandro Corp., sent a letter to the Police Department in April 2004, saying executives believed fraudulent detail timecards were being submitted for payment.
Police officers are routinely hired by private companies to provide security or direct traffic at road construction sites. Officers submit timecards for the details to the Police Department, which pays the officers and bills the companies.
The timecards are supposed to be signed by supervisors at the detail job sites, attesting to the officers' presence. Conley alleged that Lopriore forged signatures of D'Allesandro representatives on five occasions.
An investigation by a special prosecutions unit in Conley's office and the Police Department's Anti-Corruption Unit found that in 2004 on Jan. 7, Jan. 10, March 18, March 19, and March 20, the officer submitted timecards and collected pay for details at a construction site on Chelsea Street. Prosecutors say he never worked those shifts.
"Any employee in the private sector -- a janitor, a food service worker, or a bank teller, anyone -- would not be allowed to get away with filing out false timecards," Conley said. "Nor should a police officer, who is sworn to uphold the law, be allowed to fabricate details and make money fraudulently."
A Globe investigation in September disclosed extensive problems with the Police Department's detail payroll system, finding that payroll records indicated that 396 officers had been paid to work two details in separate locations at the same times between December 2001 and July 2004.
Police officials concluded that many of those cases were clerical errors: Either officers wrote the wrong dates or times on timecards, or data entry clerks entered them incorrectly on the payroll computer, causing the appearance of overlapping shifts.
Seven officers are facing disciplinary action after internal affairs investigations determined they were paid for overlapping shifts that could not be explained by clerical error.
Since September, police officials have ordered regular audits of detail pay, to ensure that officers are not paid for shifts they have not worked.
A police spokesman, Sergeant Thomas Sexton, said yesterday that the department is continuing its overhaul of the detail system to prevent cheating.
"The Boston Police Department continues to work to have the most efficient system in place to ensure that sworn personnel abide by and are held accountable to the rules and regulations of the Boston Police Department as they pertain to details," Sexton said.
Donovan Slack can be reached at email@example.com.
Really? Would you cite a legal source to support that "idea?" Because...I think the law thinks you're full of it....as do most normal thinking people.
Oh...and stealing is still stealing. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Rape is Rape...is has to do with forcing it upon someone else...and is not dependant upon the other's morals. I guess in your eyes...she deserved it.
The police in our city always carry baby seats in the police cars. Sadly, there's sometimes a baby in the home of criminals. And, said baby needs a ride when mommy and daddy get arrested.
Rape is non-consensual sexual contact, plain and simple. This girl didn't consent, the cop raped her. He should do the same time as any other scumbag rapist.
He's not lucky, he's a cop. Different standards for cops breaking the law and everyone else breaking the law. Couple of years ago a Boston cop killed a girl (Snelgrove) who was a bystander to some rowdy partyers - probably be accident, but if you or I killed someone by accident we'de still be looking at serious jailtime. He wasn't even reprimanded.
Also, it says "the 19 year-old". Is she 19 now or 19 then? If 19 now wouldn't that make her underage when this happened in 2004?