Michigan's prostitution statutes have been the subject of significant judicial construction regarding the elements of each offense and the defenses available to the accused. In People v Lino, 447 Mich 567 (1994), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the constitutional dimensions of the pandering and prostitution statutes and confirmed that the statutes do not violate the substantive due process guarantees of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The court's analysis confirmed, however, that the statutes must be applied to conduct that the Legislature clearly intended to criminalize, and that vague or expansive prosecutorial theories that stretch the statutory language beyond its plain meaning are subject to challenge on vagueness grounds.

The entrapment defense in Michigan prostitution cases requires proof, usually through cross-examination of the undercover officers involved, that law enforcement officers did more than merely provide an opportunity for the defendant to commit the offense. In People v Juillet, 439 Mich 34 (1991), the Supreme Court confirmed the two-prong test under which entrapment may be established by showing either that the government created the crime or that the defendant was not predisposed. Where undercover officers engage in repeated solicitation, offer unusually attractive compensation, or exploit the defendant's personal circumstances to induce participation, these facts can support an entrapment defense. Defense counsel should obtain all communications between the undercover officer and the defendant, including text messages, recorded calls, and any recordings made during the undercover operation.

In cases involving internet-based sex work or escort services, the prosecution frequently relies on text messages, financial transaction records, and digital photographs obtained through warrants served on cellular carriers and internet platforms. The admissibility of this evidence depends on the validity of the warrants and the compliance of the investigating agency with the procedural requirements of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Warrants that fail to establish probable cause with sufficient particularity, that authorize an overbroad search of electronic communications, or that were executed without notice in violation of the statutory requirements are subject to suppression motions under MCR 6.311 and Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978).

Plea negotiations in Michigan prostitution cases should carefully address the potential immigration consequences of any plea. Under Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), defense counsel has a constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to advise non-citizen clients regarding the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Prostitution-related convictions under Michigan law may constitute crimes involving moral turpitude or crimes of moral turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act and may expose non-citizen defendants to removal, inadmissibility, and bars to naturalization. Attorney Maze coordinates with immigration counsel when representing non-citizen defendants to ensure that any plea disposition minimizes the risk of adverse immigration consequences.

For first-time misdemeanor prostitution or solicitation offenders, diversion programs and delayed sentence agreements may be available through negotiation with the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office. Successful completion of an approved program can result in dismissal of the charge and avoid a conviction of record. Attorney Maze is experienced in identifying and pursuing diversion opportunities and in negotiating the terms of diversion agreements that impose reasonable conditions and provide a realistic path to dismissal.