New Jersey Section 2C:34-1.1 – Loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution

New Jersey’s Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution Law: What You Need to Know

New Jersey has a law on the books that makes it a crime to loiter in public places with the intent to engage in prostitution or promote prostitution. This law, known as “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution” or LPP, is codified at N.J. Stat. § 2C:34-1.1.

LPP laws have been controversial across the U.S., with critics arguing they lead to discrimination and profiling. So what exactly does New Jersey’s law say, how is it enforced, and what are the arguments around it? Let’s break it down.

What the Law Says

Under N.J. Stat. § 2C:34-1.1, a person commits a disorderly persons offense if they:

• Wander, remain or prowl in a public place with the purpose of engaging in prostitution or promoting prostitution as defined in N.J.S. 2C:34-1; and
• Engage in conduct that, under the circumstances, manifests a purpose to engage in prostitution or promoting prostitution.

“Public place” is defined broadly, including any place accessible to the public like streets, sidewalks, plazas, transportation facilities, parking lots, etc.

Potential penalties for a conviction include up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

How Is It Enforced?

LPP laws basically criminalize intent rather than action. Police can use their discretion to decide if someone looks like they intend to engage in prostitution based on the totality of circumstances.

Factors police might consider as evidence of loitering for prostitution include:

• Location and time of day
• Conversations, clothing, conduct
• Known status as a “prostitute”
• Beckoning to or attempting to stop pedestrians or cars

So even if someone isn’t actively soliciting, they could still be arrested if police believe their intent is to engage in prostitution.

Concerns Around Discriminatory Enforcement

A major criticism of LPP laws is that they lead to discriminatory enforcement against marginalized groups like racial minorities, transgender people, and women of color.

• In NYC from 2012-2015, 85% of LPP arrests were of women, 90% were people of color, and LGBTQ people were disproportionately targeted.
• LPP has been called “walking while trans” because trans women are often profiled and assumed to be sex workers.
• Past laws like the “American Plan” allowed profiling women based on race, rumors, dress, etc.
• Vague standards like “known prostitute” reinforce profiling those with past arrests.
• LPP contributes to a revolving door of criminal justice involvement.

So while LPP aims to curb prostitution, critics say it essentially allows stop-and-frisk policies targeting marginalized groups. Police accountability and reform advocates have called for LPP repeal on this basis.

The Case for LPP Laws

Supporters of LPP laws argue they are necessary to allow police to intervene before prostitution activities occur. Key arguments include:

• LPP helps curb quality-of-life issues like harassment of residents/businesses.
• It targets the demand side of prostitution by making “johns” think twice.
• Police need probable cause standards to conduct arrests.
• Prostitution itself is illegal so intent to commit it warrants prevention.
• Not enforcing LPP could attract illicit activities like human trafficking.

So proponents see LPP as a useful tool for police to proactively fight prostitution and associated public nuisance concerns.

Looking at the Bigger Picture

Stepping back, LPP laws and their enforcement bring up larger debates about:

• Racial and gender discrimination in policing.
• The balance between public safety and individual rights.
• The best legal approach to issues like prostitution and sex work.
• How to curb abuses of police power and ensure accountability.

Rather than strictly a legal issue, LPP involves social, ethical and policy questions as well. Reform advocates have proposed approaches like:

• Repealing LPP statutes to prevent discriminatory enforcement.
• Increasing police training on implicit bias and community relations.
• Decriminalizing sex work and focusing on harm reduction policies.

There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue. But abuses of LPP to profile marginalized groups raise serious concerns that merit further discussion.

The Bottom Line

New Jersey’s loitering for the purpose of prostitution law aims to curb street-level prostitution. But many argue it leads to discriminatory enforcement and unsafe conditions for vulnerable groups.

This complex issue sits at the intersection of criminal justice, civil rights, and social policy. There are reasonable cases to be made both for and against LPP laws. But addressing the potential for biased policing is crucial whatever approach is taken.

Reform advocates stress that reducing harm should be the priority – for sex workers, trafficking victims, and communities alike. And that requires looking beyond the letter of the law to address root causes and ensure justice for all.