1005 N. Marion St.
Tampa, FL 33602
813.250.0500

Challenges to Constitutionality of Prostitution Statutes

This article discusses two seminal cases regarding local ordinances prohibiting prostitution charges. Those two cases are Wyche v. State, 619 So.2d 231 (Fla.1993), and Holliday v. City of Tampa, 619 So.2d 244 (Fla.1993). 

The constitutionality of any prostitution statute must be looked at carefully. Challenges can be brought to the statute on its face or as applied in a particular case.

If you are charged with soliciting for prostitution or offering for a lewd act, then contact a criminal defense attorney at the Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL. We aggressively fight a wide variety of felony and misdemeanor sex crimes.

Overbroad or Vague Prostitution Statutes

In Wyche, the Supreme Court of Florida found that the City of Tampa's ordinance prohibiting loitering for the purpose of prostitution was unconstitutional. The ordinance was considered  “too vague because a violation of the law is determined based on law enforcement officers' discretion” and as overbroad by “implicat [ing] protected freedoms” such as “talking and waving to other people.” 619 So.2d at 234–35.

The City of Tampa prostitution ordinance in Wyche provided that it was unlawful for any person to “[l]oiter, while a pedestrian or in a motor vehicle, in or near any thoroughfare or place open to the public in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting, or procuring another to commit an act of prostitution, sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation for hire, pandering, or other lewd or indecent act.” Id. at 233 n. 2.

The prostitution ordinance also listed “circumstances” which law enforcement may consider when determining whether this “purpose is manifested.” Under the Tampa ordinance in Wyche, law enforcement was permitted to consider:

that such person is a known prostitute, pimp, sodomist, performer of fellatio, performer of cunnilingus, masturbator for hire or panderer and repeatedly beckons to, stops or attempts to stop, or engages passers-by in conversation, or repeatedly stops, or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms or any bodily gesture for the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting or procuring another to commit an act of prostitution, sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation for hire, pandering, or other lewd or indecent act.

Id. at 233 n. 2

In the Wyche decision, the Florida Supreme Court found:

The ordinance limits the rights of those who have been previously convicted of prostitution to engage in noncriminal routine activities. The ordinance suggests that it is incriminating when a “known prostitute” “repeatedly beckons to, stops or attempts to stop, or engages passers-by in conversation, or repeatedly stops, or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms, or any bodily gesture.” Hailing a cab or a friend, chatting on a public street, and simply strolling aimlessly are time-honored pastimes in our society and are clearly protected under Florida as well as federal law. All Florida citizens enjoy the inherent right to window shop, saunter down a sidewalk, and wave to friends and passersby with no fear of arrest.

Id. at 235 (citation and footnote omitted).

Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the city ordinance, which prohibits loitering “in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of” engaging in acts of prostitution, does not require proof of unlawful intent as an element of the offense. Indeed, the ordinance allows arrest and conviction for loitering under circumstances merely indicating the possibility of such intent, such as beckoning to passersby and waving to motorists, which could be occurring without any intent to engage in criminal activity. Thus, the ordinance affects and chills constitutionally protected activity. Id.

In Holliday v. City of Tampa, 619 So.2d 244 (Fla.1993), the court invalidated an ordinance making it “unlawful for any person to loiter in a public place in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of illegally using, possessing, transferring or selling any controlled substance.” Id. at 244 n. 2. This drug loitering ordinance contained another provision which listed circumstances that could be considered when determining if that purpose had been manifested.

The prostitution ordinance in the Holliday decision contained the additional requirement that “the person's affirmative language or conduct must be such as to demonstrate by its express or implied content or appearance a specific intent to induce, entice, solicit or procure another to illegally possess, transfer or buy a controlled substance.” Id. at 245 n. 2. The Florida Supreme Court, in Holliday, found that “[b]ased on the authority of Wyche, we find that the ordinance at issue in this case is unconstitutional” since, among various conclusions, the ordinance was overbroad and vague. Id. at 245.

Fighting Unconstitutional Prostitution Charges in Tampa

If you are interested in fighting an unconstitutional prostitution charge in Florida then contact the attorneys at the Sammis Law Firm. In addition to the entrapment defense, criminal defense attorneys must consider the viability of filing a motion to dismiss the charges because the charges are unconstitutional on its face or as applied.

As recently as May 8, 2013, another city ordinance that criminalized loitering with intent to commit prostitution was struck down as constitutionally vague and over broad, this time in the City of West Palm Beach. See City of West Palm Beach v. Chatman, 112 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Your best defense against prostitution and other crimes motivated by sex is aggressively fighting the charges by filing all viable motions including motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence and motions to dismiss based on insufficient evidence or constitutional challenges. 

The goal in many of these cases is being able to seal or expunge the criminal record. Florida law also provides for important defenses to protect against entrapment in the solicitation of prostitution cases. Call us to discuss your case at 813-250-0500.

This article was last updated on Tuesday, July 11, 2016.

Free Case Evaluation

* All fields are required.
Schedule a Consultation
Schedule a Free Consultation at Our Office

Call us to schedule a time to talk with the attorneys in the office or over the phone.

Office: 813.250.0500 Fax: 813.276.1600

Contact Our Office
Our Tampa Office

Sammis Law Firm 1005 N. Marion St. Tampa, FL 33602 » Get Directions