SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5184
This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. |
As Reported by Senate Committee On:
Law & Justice, February 1, 2017
Title: An act relating to patronizing a prostitute.
Brief Description: Modifying patronizing a prostitute provisions.
Sponsors: Senators Padden, O'Ban, Fain, Pedersen, Darneille, Frockt, Keiser and Chase.
Brief History:
Committee Activity: Law & Justice: 1/17/17, 2/01/17 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE |
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5184 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Padden, Chair; O'Ban, Vice Chair; Pedersen, Ranking Minority Member; Angel, Darneille, Frockt and Wilson.
Staff: Tim Ford (786-7423)
Background: A person commits the crime of patronizing a prostitute if, pursuant to an understanding, the person pays a fee or agrees to pay a fee as compensation for another person engaging in sexual conduct with that person, or if the person solicits prostitution. Sexual conduct means sexual intercourse or sexual contact. Patronizing a prostitute is a misdemeanor. The penalty for a misdemeanor is a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 90 days, or both.
Summary of Bill (First Substitute): The crime of patronizing a prostitute may be committed in more than one location. A person who sends a communication to commit the crime of patronizing a prostitute is considered to have committed the crime in both the place where the communication is sent and received. A person may not be prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime.
EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE (First Substitute):
Clarifies that a person may not be prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Creates Committee/Commission/Task Force that includes Legislative members: No.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony on Original Bill: The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: The bill is a technical fix. There is a burgeoning online industry of trafficked victims for prostitution. The bill addresses a jurisdictional issue of where a prosecution may be filed in criminal cases of patronizing a prostitute. Many of the communications to patronize a prostitute are made online or via phone messages. The law needs clarity that a prosecution may be filed in either the location where a communication is sent or where a communication is received. Other laws such as telephone harassment and theft of rental property allow that choice for prosecution.
CON: The bill should be changed to make sure that a prosecution can only be brought in one jurisdiction. If it may be brought in both jurisdictions, then the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy would be violated.
Persons Testifying: PRO: Doug Levy, City of Kent, Everett, Puyallup, and Fife; Michele Walker, Prosecutor, City of Kent.
CON: Sheri Pewitt, WA Defenders Assoc., WA Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: No one.