In a misguided attempt to combat human trafficking, some California lawmakers are pushing to reinstate loitering laws that were rightfully repealed just a year ago. While supporters of these anti-loitering laws claim these laws are necessary tools for law enforcement, the reality is that criminalizing loitering disproportionately targets and harms marginalized communities, particularly people of color and those experiencing homelessness. Loitering laws are not only ineffective in addressing the root causes of crime and human trafficking (which is the justification for these laws), but this kind of legislation only works to perpetuate systemic oppression and injustice without enacting any real or materially tangible change.
My home state of California has a troubled history with loitering laws, which have long been used as a tool for harassment and discrimination. As Maxine Doogan, president of the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project, stated, “When the law was still on the books, ‘police could and did use it to harass and arrest anyone they wanted to who was walking down the street.’” Recognizing the harm caused by these laws, California took a progressive step forward in 2021 with the passage of Senate Bill 357, which repealed the crime of loitering with intent to commit prostitution. This move was celebrated by civil rights advocates who saw it as a crucial step towards protecting vulnerable communities from unjust criminalization and police harassment.
Loitering laws are not only ineffective at deterring crime and human trafficking but can actually make these problems worse. By criminalizing the act of simply standing or wandering in public spaces, these laws only push vulnerable individuals further into the shadows, making it harder for them to access support and resources. As Doogan points out, “The proponents of AB 2034 falsely claim that the repeal of [the loitering law] facilitated forced labor in the sex trade. There is absolutely no evidence of that.” In fact, by driving trafficking victims underground, loitering laws can make it more difficult for law enforcement to identify and assist those in need. Furthermore, as Jen Flory, a health policy advocate with Western Center on Law & Poverty, wrote in a guest commentary for the California-based publication “CalMatters,” “Criminalizing homelessness won’t make the issue go away. It would be expensive, and in most cases, illegal.” Instead of wasting resources on arresting and detaining individuals for simply existing in public spaces, we should focus on providing housing, mental health support and other services that address the root causes of poverty and exploitation.
Criminalizing loitering is a misguided approach that disproportionately targets and harms marginalized communities. Doogan warns these laws “allow law enforcement to harass LGBTQ, Black and Brown people for walking or standing in public.” This targeting perpetuates systemic oppression and erodes trust between these communities and law enforcement. Moreover, law enforcement does not need loitering laws to investigate human trafficking effectively. As Doogan stated, “Law enforcement do not need reasonable suspicion of prostitution to investigate forced labor in the sex trade.” Existing California legislation already provides immunity from arrest for prostitution if a person is a victim or witness to serious crimes like trafficking.
Arresting people for loitering also exacerbates the disastrous homelessness and mental health issues plaguing California. Flory, in her guest commentary for CalMatters, argues that “forcing people into institutions is imprisonment by another name. Zero-tolerance approaches like this only exacerbate racial and class disparities in our overly aggressive criminal justice system.” Instead of criminalizing those who are most vulnerable, we should focus on addressing the root causes of poverty, homelessness and mental health challenges through supportive services and resources.
While repealing loitering laws was a necessary step towards protecting vulnerable communities, it has also led to some unintended consequences. In certain areas, open sex markets and trafficking have increased since the repeal. San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan for The San Diego Union-Tribune described witnessing a harrowing scene of “an open sex market with young women barely dressed and a line of sex buyers waiting in cars as casually as if they were at a drive through ordering a hamburger.”
Law enforcement officials argue that the lack of loitering laws has left them without the tools necessary to intervene in suspected trafficking cases. Some, such as the California Family Council now claim, “prostitution has surged as individuals dressed in minimal clothing roam the streets during daylight hours in close proximity to businesses, residences, and educational institutions.” However, it is crucial to recognize that these unintended consequences are not an indication that the repeal was wrong, but rather a sign that more comprehensive solutions and spending are needed. Criminalizing loitering is not the answer, as it ultimately does more harm than good. Instead, government officials must focus on addressing the root causes of trafficking, such as poverty and lack of resources, while also providing support and services for victims. Law enforcement can still investigate trafficking without relying on unjust loitering laws that disproportionately criminalize vulnerable communities. Instead of relying on criminalization, California should invest in alternatives that address the root causes of trafficking and support those most vulnerable. As Flory suggests, “We must pressure the state to invest in more permanent supportive housing and deeply affordable housing for people on the precipice of homelessness, and to compel local governments to comply with a mandate to get that done.”
By providing affordable housing and access to supportive services, we can create a more stable foundation for individuals at risk of exploitation. Additionally, prioritizing social workers as the primary points of contact, rather than law enforcement, can help build trust and connect individuals with the resources they need. Through a focus on rehabilitation and support, rather than punishment, we can work towards creating a more just and equitable society.
Reinstating loitering laws in California, or in any state that has had them repealed would be a grave mistake, a mistake that will no doubt do more long-term harm than good to already marginalized communities. These laws have historically been used as tools of oppression, disproportionately targeting people of color, the queer community and those experiencing homelessness. To effectively combat human trafficking, we must address its root causes by investing in affordable housing, supportive services and rehabilitation programs. Only by focusing on the well-being and empowerment of vulnerable individuals, rather than their criminalization, can we hope to build a more just and equitable society for all of our citizens, not just in my home state of California, but across the country.
Andrew McDonald, FCRH’26, is a history and political science double major from Sacramento, Calif.
