DMN: Dallas revises controversial prostitution ordinance to begin enforcement again

Dallas Morning News (10/11/2023) -

A judge ruled this summer that the “manifesting the purpose of engaging in prostitution” ordinance was unconstitutional and overbroad.

The Dallas City Council voted Wednesday to revise the controversial prostitution law found unconstitutional this summer to allow police to resume enforcement.

The changes to the city’s “manifesting the purpose of engaging in prostitution” ordinance are intended to allow Dallas to “uphold the original idea” of the policy, City Council member Cara Mendelsohn said at a meeting this week.

City and police officials said Wednesday the ordinance is a necessary tool to tamp down on prostitution and sex trafficking in the city. Critics have argued policies such as the ordinance seek a legal shortcut to fight crime or essentially criminalize “talking while walking.”

The ordinance allows police to issue citations if a person is a known prostitute; repeatedly beckons to others or tries to engage them in conversation; or attempts to stop a vehicle by waving, hailing “or any other bodily gesture.”

Police cannot arrest people unless officers give them an opportunity to explain their conduct.

Much of the original ordinance remained with the revisions. The city added definitions to various terms and now requires “intent” for a violation. Officers must also consider if potential violators are interfering with the “free passage” of others or are in a “location frequented by persons who engage in prostitution.”

It’s unclear when Dallas police will resume enforcement. The department did not immediately provide comment Wednesday.

Dallas police Major Devon Palk told City Council members human trafficking is the root issue and “countless” business owners and residents want help dealing with the problem.

“This ordinance gives us an ability to encounter individuals that are involved with prostitution,” Palk said “One, to deal with that quality of life issue, but that encounter also gives us the ability to speak with them, try and get that case on their trafficker as well as push them into services.”

Texas law already penalizes solicitation of prostitution, which requires police to meet a higher standard than the ordinance. Palk said the state statute is typically investigated by undercover detectives in larger-scale operations. The ordinance, a misdemeanor that carries a fine of up to $500, allows patrol to address complaints if specialized investigators are unavailable, he said.

Twelve council members approved the modifications. The change comes about three months after Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals Judge Kristin Wade ruled the law was unconstitutional because it was vague and overbroad.

Dallas challenged Wade’s ruling in an appeal filed last month, which is pending, according to court records. The city declined to comment to The Dallas Morning News this week, citing the pending litigation.

Adam Bazaldua is the only council member who voiced opposition to the revisions. Two council members, Omar Narvaez and Jaime Resendez, were absent.

Bazaldua said the revised ordinance isn’t humane, doesn’t help victims of sex trafficking and will make the issue “out of sight, out of mind” for residents rather than alleviate it.

“I’m still trying to see if you can make a case to me why this very arbitrary and vague language is not just more of a probable cause tool to harass those who are victims of sex trafficking versus actually getting to the root of the problem,” Bazaldua said.

The original ordinance had been in place for decades but has long been criticized for the leeway it affords officers. Other cities across the country have had similar laws criticized for the broad discretion they give officers. In New York, a state anti-loitering law created to address prostitution was repealed in 2021. California repealed its anti-loitering law in 2022.

Wade’s decision in Dallas in July came just as police were ramping up enforcement efforts in the department’s Northwest Patrol Division, which includes Harry Hines Boulevard, Walnut Hill Lane and Shady Trail — long regarded by police as the city’s main corridor for sex work.

Her ruling pertained to a case involving Iqbal Jivani, who was cited last year with the Class C misdemeanor after being accused of loitering with the purpose of engaging in prostitution in the 11100 block of Shady Trail.

Gary Krupkin, Jivani’s attorney, told The News after reviewing the changes that officials haven’t fixed several issues and the ordinance still gives officers too much discretion to stop people. He said police are able to determine “without oversight” the areas frequented by offenders.

He said confrontations by police under the ordinance could be interpreted as a “pretextual excuse” to find other crimes without “justifiable probable cause or reasonable suspicion.”

”Merely wrapping the presently unconstitutional ordinance in a cloak of legalese and ambiguous language does not immunize it from being unconstitutional,” Krupkin said in a written statement.

Adam Bazaldua is the only Dallas City Council member who spoke in opposition to revisions of the city's "manifesting the purpose of engaging in prostitution" ordinance Wednesday at City Hall.(Aria Jones)
After Bazaldua raised questions about the training patrol officers receive in comparison to specialized detectives, Palk said the department will offer additional training because of the ordinance changes.

“Partnerships and working with patrol is one of the ways that we get our job done,” said Palk, who commands the special investigation division, which includes the narcotics and vice units.

Criminalization vs. services

An attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas previously told The News the ordinance paves the way for sex workers to be criminalized based simply on appearance.

Palk said police offer services to the majority of women they encounter during prostitution and trafficking-related incidents. Mendelsohn, who chairs the city’s Public Safety Committee, said the issue is about a desire to protect women, not to criminalize them.

“The reality is that prostitution is not Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts,” she said. “It’s sexual slavery and it’s abuse. It’s exploitation. It’s human trafficking. The potential for violence is always present, health risks, and it’s the continued victimization largely of young women.”

Council member Carolyn King Arnold said she would support the ordinance because it is needed for quality of life, economic development and housing. She said the city can’t get the level of equity it seeks without “some sense of stability and public safety.”

Basically... my car can breakdown in a particular area & cops can falsely accuse me of prostitution intentions without probable cause or I can wave at someone whilst walking to the store & cops can twist it so, I can be charged

"Police cannot arrest people unless officers give them an opportunity to explain their conduct."

This is BS. The cops will twist someone's words just to get them arrested. Never explain anything to them.

I like how Ms Arnold talked about all the reasons she would support the ordinance. Never mind it’s unconstitutional.

Basically... my car can breakdown in a particular area & cops can falsely accuse me of prostitution intentions without probable cause or I can wave at someone whilst walking to the store & cops can twist it so, I can be charged Originally Posted by Busty

I think it'd be pretty easy to prove your car is broken down and they won't even fuck with you...... Now if you're using that as an excuse and you car starts up without a fucking problem then that's your own damn fault lmao

I think it'd be pretty easy to prove your car is broken down and they won't even fuck with you...... Now if you're using that as an excuse and you car starts up without a fucking problem then that's your own damn fault lmao Originally Posted by NuruGuru

A vehicle can start and still be broken down, cops are known not to follow the constitution that they took an oath to, I don't trust LE

This is getting crazy...if they would simply make it legal and tax it they could pay for all kinds of services. Plus make it safer for everyone with testing and such.
They should also loose the age 21 requirement for strip clubs then these ladies could make money with out sex like they use to.

They aren’t going to do any of that. Not in our lifetimes. Best to accept it and try to avoid getting lumped in with the people they claim they want to prosecute.

... Plus make it safer for everyone with testing and such.
They should also loose the age 21 requirement for strip clubs then these ladies could make money with out sex like they use to. Originally Posted by Gdavid5

ROFLMAO. You really think the 18–20 year olds were not providing sex in and out of the clubs? They were the most popular provers in the clubs. Or being prayed on by pimps and drug dealers in the clubs? OMG, you really need to open your eyes.

ROFLMAO. You really think the 18–20 year olds were not providing sex in and out of the clubs? They were the most popular provers in the clubs. Or being prayed on by pimps and drug dealers in the clubs? OMG, you really need to open your eyes. Originally Posted by oldbutstillgoing

Also, some of those clubs weren’t the best at obtaining valid ID of their employees, as evidenced by periodic news reports of clubs being cited for hiring women who might have looked 18+ but weren’t.

Anybody scared of the new law? I'm not and I'm out picking up street whores

It really didn’t make it any more dangerous for tricks. Assuming they are enforcing it, the ordinance is more aimed at the SWs. Of course, the law’s proponents try to paint a different picture.