In January, a 23-year-old woman sat in Phoenix Municipal Court listening to a prosecutor lay out the evidence against her. On the night of her arrest, she was scantily dressed, the prosecutor told the judge. She also had condoms in her purse and got into a car with a man.

In Phoenix, that was enough to charge her with a crime.

“Given the way the defendant was dressed, as well as a statement as to a date, and her getting in the vehicle with this witness — there is evidence of manifesting prostitution," a prosecutor told Municipal Court Judge Alex Navidad.

Or, more specifically, “manifesting an intent to commit or solicit an act of prostitution.” An obscure city ordinance in Phoenix makes this act a crime with a mandatory sentence of at least 15 days in jail.

The woman, whose name Phoenix New Times is withholding to protect her privacy, is one of more than 450 people in Phoenix who have been charged with manifestation of prostitution over the past eight years. The ordinance, which has been called unconstitutional by the ACLU of Arizona, allows the act of flagging down a car or wearing provocative clothing to be used as grounds to cite someone.

In 2014, the city’s prosecution of Monica Jones under the ordinance drew national outcry. Civil rights organizations condemned the arrest of Jones, a transgender activist and social work student. Even celebrities spoke out against the city’s use of the law.

But Phoenix has not stopped using the ordinance, according to data obtained by New Times.

A review of the data showed that hundreds of people — including 90 in 2022 — have been charged with manifesting prostitution since Jones’ case. Over the last two years, the majority of those charged were Black

  • meat_popsicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Man, don’t you just love thoughtcrimes? They don’t even need to wait for you to actually do anything - they can just guess you intend to do something and jail you.

    “No reasonable person would dress scantily” they say in a place that gets over 110f in the shade. “No reasonable person would carry condoms” they say when we have XDR Gonorrhea, HIV, and Hep C. “It was a known prostitution area” they say, assuming Google Maps publishes known prostitution areas so we can all know where to avoid. “It’s manifesting an intent…” but an intent is not a crime - there’s no injured party with a thought - what damages/punishment could possibly be awarded/inflicted to make a party whole?

    It’s fucking farcical how lawyers will defend laws like this, yet also claim to follow logic and reasoning.