The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona argued in court on Friday morning that a Phoenix law prohibiting the “manifestation of an intent to commit or solicit an act of prostitution” violates both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions. The ACLU of Arizona appeared in Phoenix Municipal Court as amicus curiae for Monica Jones, an ASU student and activist who has been charged with manifesting prostitution.
Jones was found guilty.
The ACLU argued that the charge against Jones should have been dropped because “the manifesting prostitution law—Phoenix Municipal Code Section 23-52(A)(3)—is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The law criminalizes waving at cars, talking to passersby and asking if someone is a police officer.”
The law enumerates a number of actions that can constitute an “intent” to break the law:
Is in a public place, a place open to public view or in a motor vehicle on a public roadway and manifests an intent to commit or solicit an act of prostitution. Among the circumstances that may be considered in determining whether such an intent is manifested are: that the person repeatedly beckons to, stops or attempts to stop or engage passersby in conversation or repeatedly, stops or attempts to stop, motor vehicle operators by hailing, waiving of arms or any other bodily gesture; that the person inquires whether a potential patron, procurer or prostitute is a police officer or searches for articles that would identify a police officer; or that the person requests the touching or exposure of genitals or female breast.
The law allows police to profile individuals and threaten them with arrest simply because of their appearance, claims the ACLU. In a statement they released last week, the ACLU stated that Since her arrest in May of 2013, Jones has been harassed by police four additional times, a clear signal she is being profiled as a sex worker because of her appearance.
According to the ACLU, the law also infringes on protected free speech rights and prohibits conduct that expresses gender identity. Police assumed that Jones, a transgender woman, must have been selling sex because she was wearing a “tight fitting black dress.”
“Here, there is no serious doubt that Ms. Jones would never have been stopped by the police but for her transgender identity, perceived gender non-conformity and dress,” says the legal filing arguing for Jones’ acquittal.
“I believe I was profiled as a sex worker because I am a transgender woman of color,” Monica said.