Seattle Councilmembers propose reinstating prostitution loitering ordinance that was repealed as racist and ineffective

Four years after street protests for Black Lives ended Seattle’s prostitution loitering law, the Seattle City Council is considering its return, and then some.

Prostitution loitering and its cousin, drug traffic loitering ordinances were repealed in June 2020 as racist and ineffective at the height of Black Lives Matter uprising, with the support of City Attorney Pete Homles, Mayor Jenny Durkan, and the entire City Council. The idea for the repeal came from the City’s Reentry Workgroup, which then-Councilmember and current Mayor Bruce Harrell created in 2016, whose 2018 report made the recommendation. The Reentry Workgroup report stated:

Criminalizing behaviors under the Prostitution Loitering ordinance targets individuals in the commercial sex industry, a group already at high risk for trafficking, abuse, and other exploitation. Bringing them into the criminal legal system will only exacerbate any underlying unmet needs and exposes them to further physical and sexual harm caused by incarceration. In other cities with similar ordinances, data has shown that these ordinances disproportionately impact “cisgender and transgender women of color and that many women who are participating in legal, routine activities are arrested for this offense and must then be put in the position to testify against police and have their word be weighed against a law enforcement officer.”

After the takeover of the City Council by the “public safety” slate of candidates in the preceding elections, Councilmember Cathy Moore announced at a public meeting in April 2024 that she was proposing bringing back prostitution loitering law. We have met with Councilmember Moore and all other City Councilmembers or their staff to express our concerns, but the bill (CB 120836) is now officially introduced.

Councilmember Moore’s bill restores the misdemeanor crime of prostitution loitering that applies to both suspected buyers and sellers of sex. Harrell’s Reentry Workgroup found that the law in practice targets women of color and trans women based on their appearances, and thus is discriminatory. In fact, in the 1989 lawsuit in which Washington State Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Seattle’s prostitution loitering ordinance (Seattle v. Slack), the court ruled that the City of Seattle was justified to presume the plaintiff was a prostitute in part because they were a legal male wearing women’s clothes. While societal attitude toward trans and gender-variant people (we don’t know how this person identified) may have shifted since that time, this example demonstrates how this law can harm people based on bias and stereotypes whether or not she or he is engaging in the sex trade.

Councilmember Moore’s proposal also includes the establishment of a new crime of “promotion of prostitution loitering,” which applies to anyone who gives a ride for someone or otherwise assists people to commit “prostitution loitering.” This includes not just traffickers and “pimps” who coerce or exploit others for financial gain, but also people working together to keep each other safe as well as friends, family members, and others who are supporting people in the sex trade, leading to further isolation and unsafe circumstances.

In addition, the bill codifies “Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution” (SOAP) orders, which excludes anyone charged or convicted of crimes that have “nexus” to prostitution or prostitution loitering from specific areas of “high prostitution activity.” This means that people can be excluded from major areas of the City before they are convicted of any crimes, and even if one had her prostitution charge dismissed as long as they are charged with another crime.

Exclusion zones displace people who engage in the sex trade away from areas they are familiar with, making them more vulnerable to violence and exploitation. Further, it makes it much more difficult for outreach workers and drop-in spaces to provide support, and for people who are excluded to conduct their daily routine, including going to (legal) work, attending schools, participating in religious worship, providing care to family and friends, and any other things people normally do, even before they are convicted of any crimes.

While prostitution and prostitution loitering are simple misdemeanors, “promotion of prostitution loitering” and violations of SOAP orders are gross misdemeanors, which means that prostitution or prostitution loitering arrests can lead to even greater criminalization, even when the original charge of prostitution or prostitution loitering is dismissed or diverted.

Councilmember Moore claims that these laws are necessary to address gun violence threatening safety in her district. Some law enforcement sources claim that gun violence is the result of the concentration of sex trade in certain areas leading to “turf wars” between competing gangs seeking to profit from human trafficking. At the press conference announcing the bill, Councilmember Robert Kettle stated “We have to find new ways […] to attack the problem, to address the problem, and give the police the tools and the ability to access the men that are involved. And sadly, the women are that kind of access point.”

But there is no evidentiary basis for the theory that gun violence is connected to the sex trade, or there is a “turf war” over who controls the sex trade in the area. And regardless, it is unconscionable to scapegoat people who engage in the sex trade, people who are most exposed to violence, for violent crimes they are not responsible for.

The bill will be voted on by the Public Safety committee at 9:30am on Tuesday, September 10th and brought up to the full Council at 2pm on Tuesday, September 17th. Sign up for our email list by sending a message on our contact form to stay informed.