FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 101
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 101 Table of Contents

101.8 Prostitution And Pimping

    101.8.2 Prostitution And Pimping: Miscellaneous Issues

    101.8.2.1 Loitering With Intent To Commit Prostitution: Constitutional Challenge
    101.8.2.2 Prostitution: Equal Protection Challenge Based On Failure To Prosecute "Johns"

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 101

PRACTICE NOTE: There is no question but that loitering in a public place is constitutionally protected activity. (Papachristou v. Jacksonville (1997) 405 US 156, 160 [92 SCt 839; 31 LEd2d 110].) It is also unquestionable that status alone, such as being a "known prostitute," cannot by itself be criminal. (Robinson v. California (1962) 370 US 660 [82 SCt 1417; 8 LEd2d 758].)

    Hence, a loitering /prostitution statute may be subject to constitutional challenge unless it includes a specific intent to commit prostitution. (See e.g., City of Seattle v. Slack (WA 1989) 784 P2d 494, 498.)

    Some courts have struck down statutes prohibiting "loitering for prostitution" laws. (See e.g., Brown v. Anchorage (AK 1978) 584 P2d 35, 37; Wyche v. State (FL 1993) 619 So2d 231, 235; Profit v. Tulsa (OK 1980) 617 P2d 250, 251.) The statutes in those states were interpreted to permit conviction even though the loiterer had no intent to commit prostitution. These statutes were struck down because they permitted conviction based on the fact that the defendant was a known prostitute and the liability was based on status in violation of the federal constitution.

    In California, the prostitution/loitering statute has been interpreted to require a specific intent to commit prostitution. (People v. Pulliam (CA 1998) 62 CA4th 1430, 1434 [73 CR2d 371]; see also FORECITE National™ 88.1.10 [Constitutional Challenge To Criminalization Of Loitering With Intent To Commit Drug Offense].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.15.1 [Obscenity/Pornography].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.19.2 [Sex Crimes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 101

PRACTICE NOTE: In a jurisdiction where both prostitutes and "johns" may be prosecuted for prostitution, it has been held that intentional discrimination which results in the prosecution of prostitutes and not "johns" violates the federal constitution and requires dismissal of the charges. (See Commonwealth v. An Unnamed Defendant (MA 1986) 492 NE2d 1184, 1186.)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.15.1 [Obscenity/Pornography].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.19.2 [Sex Crimes].