24/7 call for a free consultation 212-300-5196

AS SEEN ON

EXPERIENCEDTop Rated

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN TODD SPODEK ON THE NETFLIX SHOW
INVENTING ANNA

When you’re facing a federal issue, you need an attorney whose going to be available 24/7 to help you get the results and outcome you need. The value of working with the Spodek Law Group is that we treat each and every client like a member of our family.

Client Testimonials

5

THE BEST LAWYER ANYONE COULD ASK FOR.

The BEST LAWYER ANYONE COULD ASK FOR!!! Todd changed our lives! He’s not JUST a lawyer representing us for a case. Todd and his office have become Family. When we entered his office in August of 2022, we entered with such anxiety, uncertainty, and so much stress. Honestly we were very lost. My husband and I felt alone. How could a lawyer who didn’t know us, know our family, know our background represents us, When this could change our lives for the next 5-7years that my husband was facing in Federal jail. By the time our free consultation was over with Todd, we left his office at ease. All our questions were answered and we had a sense of relief.

schedule a consultation

Blog

Penal Code 653.22 PC | Loitering With Intent to Commit Prostitution (repealed)

Penal Code 653.22 PC | Loitering With Intent to Commit Prostitution (repealed)

California’s Penal Code 653.22, also known as the loitering with intent statute, made it illegal to loiter in public areas with the intent to commit prostitution. This controversial law was aimed at reducing the public nuisance of prostitution-related activities. But critics argued it was unconstitutionally vague and open to discriminatory enforcement. In 2016, after years of debate, PC 653.22 was ultimately repealed based on concerns that it infringed on constitutional rights.

Background of Penal Code 653.22

PC 653.22 was enacted in California in the 1990s during a nationwide push to give law enforcement more tools to crack down on prostitution-related crimes. At the time, many communities were struggling with issues like streetwalking, solicitation of johns, and the presence of pimps and prostitution rings operating openly. The loitering law was intended to allow police to intervene and make arrests before acts of prostitution actually occurred.

The statute made it a misdemeanor to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution. Officers could arrest if they had probable cause to believe the person was lingering or wandering about for the purposes of prostitution. Merely loitering with bad intent was enough – no actual solicitation was required. Supporters argued this would give law enforcement power to stop prostitution before it started. But critics raised concerns about vagueness and overbroad enforcement.

Constitutional and Practical Challenges to PC 653.22

Soon after passage, Penal Code 653.22 came under legal attack. Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups argued it was unconstitutionally vague. The language made it a crime to loiter with “intent” to commit prostitution, but what constituted intent was unclear. The law also failed to define what exactly counted as “loitering.” Critics argued this vagueness could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

In addition to the vagueness challenge, opponents argued Penal Code 653.22 violated constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of association. By criminalizing loitering with mere bad intent, it infringed on basic liberties protected by the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union was among the groups that spoke out against the law on these grounds.

There were also practical concerns that the loitering law would simply push prostitution activities to other areas, without solving the root causes. Law enforcement retained other statutes to go after acts of prostitution or solicitation itself. But criminalizing loitering was seen as an overreach.

Debates Over Discriminatory Enforcement

One of the biggest criticisms of PC 653.22 focused on the potential for discriminatory enforcement. Opponents argued the vague loitering law gave police too much discretionary power to target marginalized groups like people of color, transgender individuals, or the homeless. Even if not intended, the law could be applied unevenly in practice.

Christine Twomey
Christine Twomey
2024-03-21
Just had my Divorce case settled 2 months ago after having a horrible experience with another firm. I couldn’t be happier with Claire Banks and Elizabeth Garvey with their outstanding professionalism in doing so with Spodek Law Group. Any time I needed questions answered they were always prompt in doing so with all my uncertainties after 30 yrs of marriage.I feel from the bottom of my heart you will NOT be disappointed with either one. Thanks a million.
Brendan huisman
Brendan huisman
2024-03-18
Alex Zhik contacted me almost immediately when I reached out to Spodek for a consultation and was able to effectively communicate the path forward/consequences of my legal issue. I immediately agreed to hire Alex for his services and did not regret my choice. He was able to cover my case in court (with 1 day notice) and not only was he able to push my case down, he carefully negotiated a dismissal of the charge altogether. I highly recommend Spodek, and more specifically, Alex Zhik for all of your legal issues. Thanks guys!
Guerline Menard
Guerline Menard
2024-03-18
Thanks again Spodek law firm, particularly Esq Claire Banks who stood right there with us up to the finish line. Attached photos taken right outside of the court building and the smile on our faces represented victory, a breath of fresh air and satisfaction. We are very happy that this is over and we can move on with our lives. Thanks Spodek law 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙌🏼❤️
Keisha Parris
Keisha Parris
2024-03-15
Believe every single review here about Alex Z!! From our initial consultation, it was evident that Alex possessed a profound understanding of criminal law and a fierce dedication to his clients rights. Throughout the entirety of my case, Alex exhibited unparalleled professionalism and unwavering commitment. What sets Alex apart is not only his legal expertise but also his genuine compassion for his clients. He took the time to thoroughly explain my case, alleviating any concerns I had along the way. His exact words were “I’m not worried about it”. His unwavering support and guidance were invaluable throughout the entire process. I am immensely grateful for Alex's exceptional legal representation and wholeheartedly recommend his services to anyone in need of a skilled criminal defense attorney. Alex Z is not just a lawyer; he is a beacon of hope for those navigating the complexities of the legal system. If you find yourself in need of a dedicated and competent legal advocate, look no further than Alex Z.
Taïko Beauty
Taïko Beauty
2024-03-15
I don’t know where to start, I can write a novel about this firm, but one thing I will say is that having my best interest was their main priority since the beginning of my case which was back in Winter 2019. Miss Claire Banks, one of the best Attorneys in the firm represented me very well and was very professional, respectful, and truthful. Not once did she leave me in the dark, in fact she presented all options and routes that could possibly be considered for my case and she reinsured me that no matter what I decided to do, her and the team will have my back and that’s exactly what happened. Not only will I be liberated from this case, also, I will enjoy my freedom and continue to be a mother to my first born son and will have no restrictions with accomplishing my goals in life. Now that’s what I call victory!! I thank the Lord, My mother, Claire, and the Spodek team for standing by me and fighting with me. Words can’t describe how grateful I am to have the opportunity to work with this team. I’m very satisfied, very pleased with their performance, their hard work, and their diligence. Thank you team!
Anthony Williams
Anthony Williams
2024-03-12
Hey, how you guys doing? Good afternoon my name is Anthony Williams I just want to give a great shout out to the team of. Spodek law group. It is such a honor to use them and to use their assistance through this whole case from start to finish. They did everything that they said they was gonna do and if it ever comes down to it, if I ever have to use them again, hands-down they will be the first law office at the top of my list, thank you guys so much. It was a pleasure having you guys by my side so if you guys ever need them, do not hesitate to pick up the phone and give them a call.
Loveth Okpedo
Loveth Okpedo
2024-03-12
Very professional, very transparent, over all a great experience
Bee L
Bee L
2024-02-28
Amazing experience with Spodek! Very professional lawyers who take your case seriously. They treated me with respect, were always available, and answered any and all questions. They were able to help me very successfully and removed a huge stress. Highly recommend.
divesh patel
divesh patel
2024-02-24
I can't recommend Alex Zhik and Spodek Law Firm highly enough for their exceptional legal representation and personal mentorship. From the moment I engaged their services in October 2022, Alex took the time to understand my case thoroughly and provided guidance every step of the way. Alex's dedication to my case went above and beyond my expectations. His expertise, attention to detail, and commitment to achieving the best possible outcome were evident throughout the entire process. He took the time to mentor me, ensuring I understood the legal complexities involved to make informed decisions. Alex is the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with and has made a meaningful impact on me. I also want to acknowledge Todd Spodek, the leader of the firm, who played a crucial role in my case. His leadership and support bolstered the efforts of Alex, and his involvement highlighted the firm's commitment to excellence. Thanks to Alex Zhik and Todd Spodek, I achieved the outcome I desired, and I am incredibly grateful for their professionalism, expertise, and genuine care. If you're in need of legal representation, look no further than this outstanding team.

Racial profiling was a major concern. In the 1990s, data showed African Americans were arrested on prostitution-related charges at far higher rates than other groups in California cities. Critics argued vague loitering laws enabled selective and biased enforcement. There were similar concerns that transgender women would be profiled and targeted unfairly under the loitering statute.

Civil rights advocates pointed to statistics showing disproportionate arrests of marginalized communities as evidence the law was being applied discriminatorily. They argued vague statutes enabled unconscious or overt bias, even if officers were not intentionally profiling. There were calls for the loitering law to be narrowed or repealed to prevent discrimination.

The Repeal of Penal Code 653.22

After years of debate, California lawmakers ultimately repealed Penal Code 653.22 in 2016. Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1322 into law, which decriminalized loitering with intent to commit prostitution. Several factors led to the repeal:

  • Ongoing concerns about vagueness leading to arbitrary or biased enforcement
  • Criticisms that the law infringed on constitutional freedoms
  • Lack of evidence it was an effective anti-prostitution tool
  • Changing attitudes toward sex work and criminalization
  • Increased public awareness about marginalized communities impacted

Supporters of SB 1322 argued the loitering offense was overly broad and failed to address the root causes of prostitution. They also said other statutes remained allowing police to crack down on acts of solicitation or prostitution itself. With the loitering law repealed, California joined other states reforming laws seen as discriminatory against certain groups.

Remaining California Prostitution Laws

While no longer criminalizing loitering with “intent,” California retains other laws to address prostitution-related crimes after the repeal of PC 653.22:

  • PC 647(b) – prohibits soliciting or engaging in any act of prostitution, punishable as a misdemeanor
  • PC 266 – bans pimping and pandering, including soliciting customers for prostitution
  • PC 236.1 – makes human trafficking a felony, including trafficking for commercial sex

Police also retain authority to make arrests for lewd conduct in public, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and other offenses. But the repeal of the loitering law means simply hanging around areas known for prostitution is no longer a crime by itself.

Debating the Impacts of Repeal

The repeal of PC 653.22 remains controversial today. Supporters argue it ended an unconstitutional and discriminatory law that failed to reduce prostitution. But others contend it limited law enforcement’s ability to take a proactive approach and tackle the issue.

Some police and prosecutors say the loitering offense gave them probable cause to intervene before acts of prostitution occurred. They argue the repeal has hampered efforts to address streetwalking, pimping, human trafficking, and other crimes still plaguing many communities.

However, civil liberties groups counter that other statutes still give law enforcement adequate tools. In their view, ending the problematic loitering law prevented further abuses while allowing police to focus on actual criminal acts, not just the vague standard of “bad intent.” They also argue the repeal encouraged addressing systemic issues contributing to prostitution.

Overall, the impact of repealing PC 653.22 is still unfolding. But the heated debate reflects broader discussions about balancing public safety, constitutional rights, protection of marginalized groups, and finding the most fair and effective laws to combat complex societal problems like prostitution.

The Ongoing Legal Debate

The repeal of California’s loitering with intent law resolved one legal debate but opened others that continue today:

  • Should loitering laws aimed at prevention be reinstated if narrowed to address vagueness concerns?
  • Do police now lack tools to proactively stop human trafficking and violence against sex workers?
  • Should prostitution be decriminalized entirely as a matter of personal liberty?
  • What is the right balance between public safety and protection of rights for marginalized groups?

Reasonable minds can disagree on these difficult public policy questions. There are good faith arguments on both sides from those seeking to end exploitation while promoting freedom and constitutional policing. The repeal of PC 653.22 was one step, but crafting equitable laws and policies to address prostitution remains an ongoing challenge.

The National Context

California’s repeal of the loitering law mirrored a national movement away from criminalization over the last two decades:

  • Many states have repealed loitering or vagrancy laws seen as vehicles for discrimination.
  • Some cities have ended blanket enforcement of prostitution laws, focusing only on cases involving exploitation.
  • New York stopped prosecuting those selling sex, targeting buyers and traffickers instead.
  • Other locales debate decriminalization as a “harm reduction” approach.

But prostitution laws remain complex across the U.S. Some states still take a strict prosecutorial approach to both buying and selling sex. Others are shifting to treat sex work as a public health issue, not solely a criminal justice one. The intersection of prostitution, rights, and the law continues to evolve.

Key Takeaways

In summary, here are some key points about California’s now-repealed law against loitering with intent to commit prostitution:

  • PC 653.22 aimed to allow police to intervene before acts of prostitution occurred.
  • Critics argued it was unconstitutionally vague and open to discriminatory enforcement.
  • There were concerns it led to racial profiling and targeting of marginalized groups.
  • The statute was repealed in 2016 based on civil liberties and fairness concerns.
  • Police retain other laws to crack down on acts of prostitution or solicitation.
  • Debate continues around balancing rights, public safety, and finding effective policies.

The repeal of California’s loitering law removed a problematic statute but left many complex issues unresolved. Crafting fair laws to address prostitution while protecting rights remains an evolving legal challenge. Reasonable people can debate where the right balance lies.

Lawyers You Can Trust

Todd Spodek

Founding Partner

view profile

RALPH P. FRANCHO, JR

Associate

view profile

JEREMY FEIGENBAUM

Associate Attorney

view profile

ELIZABETH GARVEY

Associate

view profile

CLAIRE BANKS

Associate

view profile

RAJESH BARUA

Of-Counsel

view profile

CHAD LEWIN

Of-Counsel

view profile

Criminal Defense Lawyers Trusted By the Media

schedule a consultation
Schedule Your Consultation Now