## Facts

- Louis Lauria operated a lawful telephone answering service in Hollywood; several prostitute customers used the service to receive and route calls.
- Police conducted an undercover investigation into “call-girl” activity involving three prostitutes who used Lauria’s service.
- An undercover policewoman subscribed to the service and, in conversations with Lauria’s staff and later with Lauria, made statements implying she was engaged in prostitution and complained about losing profitable “tricks.”
- Lauria responded that his business was taking messages and did not take steps shown to further the prostitution activity, though he allegedly invited the undercover officer to meet socially.
- Upon arrest, Lauria stated another answering service had many more prostitutes, and he maintained separate records of known or suspected prostitutes, which he said were available to police upon request; he also stated the service tolerated prostitutes as long as they paid their bills.
- In grand jury testimony, Lauria admitted he knew some customers (including one frequent user) were prostitutes.
- A grand jury indicted Lauria and the prostitutes for misdemeanor conspiracy to commit prostitution; the trial court dismissed the indictment for lack of probable cause, and the prosecution appealed.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances does a supplier of lawful goods or services, who knows they are being used for criminal purposes, become a member of a conspiracy to further that criminal activity?
2. Whether evidence that Lauria provided answering-service facilities to prostitutes, with knowledge of their prostitution, established probable cause that he intended to participate in a conspiracy to commit prostitution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the conspiracy indictment as to Lauria.
- The court held that knowledge that one’s services are being used for criminal purposes, without more, does not establish conspiratorial intent, particularly where the target offense is a misdemeanor.
- The evidence did not show direct participation by Lauria in furthering prostitution or circumstances supporting an inference that he intended to join or advance the illegal venture.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy requires an agreement plus intent to further the unlawful objective; mere knowledge that one’s lawful business helps criminals is not enough.
- A supplier’s intent to participate in a customer’s crime may be shown by:
  - direct evidence of intent to participate; or
  - inference from circumstances indicating intent, including the supplier’s special interest or “stake” in the illegal activity, or (in some contexts) the aggravated seriousness of the crime.
- For comparatively minor offenses such as misdemeanor prostitution, courts generally require evidence beyond knowledge—such as special profit, tailored assistance, or other conduct indicating a stake in the venture—to infer conspiratorial intent.

## Conclusion

Because the record showed at most that Lauria knew some customers were prostitutes and continued to provide ordinary answering services without proof of intent to further prostitution or a stake in the venture, probable cause for conspiracy was not established, and dismissal of the indictment was affirmed.


People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)