Urging Legislators to Protect Human Rights in CA
June 3, 2025
June 3, 2025
Senator Jesse Arreguín
Chair, Senate Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 545
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Opposition to AB-379 (Schultz & Nguyen) Criminalizing “loitering”
Dear Chair Arreguín:
On behalf of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, I write to express my strong opposition to AB 379 (Schultz & Nguyen). By criminalizing loitering with intent to purchase sex, AB 379 would put sex workers, including those who are trafficked, at greater risk of harm, create opportunities for biased enforcement against communities of color and gay men, increase the risk of arrest for queer teenagers in consensual relationships, and ignore best practices for funding services for trafficking survivors. While we support meaningful efforts to combat human trafficking and provide resources to survivors, this bill relies on ineffective, harmful, and historically discriminatory approaches that undermine the rights and safety of the very individuals it claims to protect.
Criminalizing the Purchase of Sex Endangers People Who Sell Sex
AB-379 perpetuates the flawed “end demand” approach, which has consistently resulted in the criminalization of vulnerable people, including trafficking survivors, rather than addressing the systemic conditions that lead to exploitation. The bill acknowledges the harms of criminalizing survivors while advancing the same failed law enforcement-centered tactics that have historically led to their arrests.
When buyers are criminalized, persons who sell sex have less time to screen clients for risks or negotiate safety. Amnesty International reported on sex workers “feeling pressured to visit customers’ homes so that buyers can avoid the police – meaning sex workers have less control and may have to compromise their safety.” The University of Southern California’s International Human Rights Clinic found that public health approaches to trafficking in commercial sex are far more effective than law enforcement operations. The recent police killing of a transgender trafficking victim who called law enforcement for help shows the perils in relying on a criminal justice response to trafficking.
California’s Shameful History of Anti-Loitering Laws & Selective Use of Solicitation Laws
Anti-loitering and solicitation statutes, like the one at issue in AB 379, have been used disproportionately against people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those experiencing poverty, under the pretext of public safety. California’s initial loitering law, enacted by the first California Legislature in 1850, was written to arrest and indenture Indigenous people. Vague and discriminatory laws like AB 379 that broadly criminalize a wide range of otherwise lawful behaviors have led to arbitrary and biased policing, where individuals—particularly Black and Brown women, transgender people, and those perceived to be engaging in sex work—are stopped, harassed, and arrested based on profiling rather than evidence of any criminal activity.
Solicitation laws have also been used for decades to police gay men’s sexual activity. Even after Lawrence v. Texas (the U.S. Supreme Court case finding unconstitutional a Texas law that banned homosexual adults from engaging in consensual sexual acts), police departments in California continue to regularly target and arrest gay men on charges of solicitation and other offenses such as lewdness. LGBTQ people in many communities are also simply more frequently stopped by police than non-LGBTQ people. Disproportionate enforcement is often fueled by purposeful or implicit bias on the part of law enforcement. AB 379 will only exacerbate this issue.
Similarly, data collected by the ACLU in California shows that police and prosecutors are far more likely to arrest or prosecute Black and Hispanic men for purchasing sex.
By relying on vague definitions of “intent,” AB-379 opens the door for biased policing that will ultimately harm survivors rather than support them. These types of laws have been widely criticized for enabling racial profiling, increasing incarceration rates, and diverting resources away from community-based solutions. Endorsing ineffective and harmful legal tools under the guise of trafficking prevention is a step backward in California’s fight for justice and human rights.
Unjust and Unreliable Funding Streams For Vitally Needed Services
AB-379 seeks to create new funding streams for services for survivors of trafficking in commercial sex, but it does so without adequate planning or engagement with current funding mechanisms within California. We support funding for services for sex workers and trafficking survivors – housing, jobs, training, record clearances – but it should be funded in a serious and sustained way, from state or local general funds. Fines are unreliable, as they have to be extracted from low-income defendants. From year to year, public dollars would be spent on debt collection, and each year, programs would be unable to plan their budgets. Furthermore, criminal debt is a burden on the convicted person’s family, robbing them of money for housing, food, and other necessities.
Arrest-driven funding structures are fiscally ineffective and unstable sources for critical services. True survivor support requires long-term investments in housing, economic opportunities, and voluntary, trauma-informed services, not an increase in policing and court involvement.
Ignoring Best Practices for Funding Organizations That Serve Survivors
California already has a process for funding organizations that provide services to survivors of trafficking through the Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES has developed guidelines to ensure that funding goes to organizations that provide effective, evidence-based services. AB 379 would create a new “Survivor Support Fund” under the California Victim Compensation Board, which would create redundancy and ignore OES funding criteria. The new fund would also only support services for survivors of trafficking in commercial sex, even though the majority of trafficking occurs in other industries. Any new funds for survivors of trafficking generated by AB 379 should go through the Cal OES Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program (HTVAP) Grant Program.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose AB-379.