Legal Whiplash: What Criminal Defense Attorneys Need to Know Now

California prostitution law is changing faster than most criminal defense attorneys realize.

On paper, the core statute — Penal Code §647(b) — looks familiar. It still criminalizes soliciting, agreeing to engage in, or engaging in prostitution, typically as a misdemeanor offense.

But the legal environment surrounding prostitution enforcement has shifted dramatically over the past several years. Loitering laws have been repealed and replaced, penalties have expanded in some areas, enforcement strategies have evolved, and trafficking rhetoric increasingly shapes how cases are investigated and prosecuted.

The result is a legal landscape that appears stable in statute books but is volatile in practice.

For defense attorneys representing clients accused of buying or selling sex, understanding this volatility is essential to effective representation.

And increasingly, lived-experience-informed insight is not a luxury — it is a necessity.

The Statute Stayed the Same — The System Did Not

Penal Code §647(b) continues to define prostitution offenses as:

— Soliciting prostitution
— Agreeing to prostitution
— Engaging in prostitution

Most cases remain misdemeanors with exposure of up to six months in county jail.

But focusing only on §647(b) misses the larger story.

Over the past few legislative cycles, California has fundamentally changed how prostitution enforcement begins, how cases are framed, and who becomes the primary target of investigation.

For defense attorneys, these shifts affect everything from probable cause challenges to plea negotiations.

SB 357 Changed How Prostitution Cases Begin

One of the most significant changes came with the repeal of Penal Code §653.22 through SB 357, eliminating the crime of loitering with intent to engage in prostitution.

For decades, loitering laws allowed arrests based largely on officer interpretation of behavior — including location, clothing, and perceived intent. These laws were widely criticized for enabling discriminatory enforcement, particularly against women, transgender individuals, and people experiencing homelessness.

The repeal was intended to reduce arrests based on appearance rather than conduct.

For defense attorneys, this change reshaped probable cause arguments.

Street presence alone is no longer sufficient to support prostitution enforcement. Officers must now rely more heavily on observed conduct, communication evidence, or undercover operations.

But enforcement did not disappear.

It evolved.

2026: Loitering Enforcement Returns — With a New Target

Beginning in 2026, California implemented Penal Code §653.25, creating a new offense for loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex.

In practical terms, loitering enforcement has returned — but now applies only to buyers.

This reflects the state’s increasing adoption of “end demand” enforcement strategies focused on customers rather than sellers.

Buyer investigations increasingly involve:

— Directed patrol operations
— Reverse stings
— Online decoy communications
— Surveillance-based investigations
— Officer interpretation of intent

These cases often hinge on subjective determinations about behavior and intent — issues that should be carefully examined in defense strategy.

The asymmetry between buyer and seller enforcement also creates new legal and ethical complexities that defense attorneys must navigate.

Trafficking Narratives Are Reshaping Prosecution

Prostitution enforcement in California is increasingly framed as anti-trafficking work.

Multi-agency task forces routinely announce trafficking “rescues” alongside prostitution arrests. Legislative debates frequently blur the distinction between trafficking and consensual commercial sex.

But legally, trafficking remains defined by force, fraud, or coercion.

When prostitution and trafficking are treated as interchangeable, legal clarity suffers.

For defense attorneys, this shift has practical consequences.

Trafficking narratives can influence:

— Charging decisions
— Bail determinations
— Diversion eligibility
— Judicial attitudes
— Jury perception

Clients charged with misdemeanor solicitation may find themselves treated as participants in a trafficking ecosystem without evidence of trafficking conduct.

Defense strategies must account for this narrative environment.

Penalties Involving Minors Have Expanded

Recent legislative changes have increased penalties for solicitation involving minors, including enhanced sentencing exposure and expanded sex offender registration consequences in certain cases.

These changes are particularly relevant in cases involving online communications or undercover operations where age representation becomes a central issue.

Defense attorneys must understand the evolving statutory framework and how prosecutors are applying it.

Enforcement Strategy Is Now Central to Defense

In prostitution cases, enforcement strategy increasingly functions as the real law.

Across California, investigations now frequently involve coordinated efforts between:

— Vice units
— Human trafficking task forces
— Digital investigation teams
— Prosecutors’ offices
— Social service providers

Clients may be routed simultaneously through:

— Criminal prosecution
— Diversion programs
— Service-provider referrals
— Court supervision

The boundaries between criminal enforcement and social intervention have become increasingly blurred.

Understanding how these systems interact can be critical to defense outcomes.

The Law Is Still Moving

California prostitution law remains politically contested and legislatively active.

Recent legislative sessions have included proposals to expand buyer penalties, modify loitering enforcement, and increase trafficking-related enhancements.

The direction of policy has shifted repeatedly within just a few years.

Defense attorneys practicing in this area should assume continued change rather than stability.

Why Lived Experience Matters

Rapid policy change has created a gap between legislative theory and real-world experience.

People with lived experience in the sex trade often understand enforcement patterns, police tactics, economic realities, and survival behaviors in ways that statutes and case law do not capture.

This insight can be essential for identifying:

— Mischaracterized evidence
— Inaccurate assumptions about coercion
— Misinterpretation of survival behavior
— Client fears of service systems
— Hidden vulnerabilities

Defense that incorporates lived-experience-informed understanding is better equipped to distinguish exploitation from agency and to challenge inaccurate narratives.

In a system increasingly shaped by trafficking rhetoric, these distinctions matter.

Justice Requires Precision

Clear legal distinctions protect everyone.

Trafficking involves force, fraud, or coercion.
Prostitution involves commercial sexual exchange.
The two sometimes overlap — but they are not the same.

When those distinctions collapse, vulnerable people face unnecessary criminalization while actual exploitation becomes harder to identify.

Effective defense helps preserve these distinctions.

And preserving those distinctions is essential to justice.

The Bottom Line

California prostitution law is no longer a static area of practice.

Loitering laws have been repealed and replaced.
Buyer enforcement is expanding.
Penalties are evolving.
Trafficking narratives influence prosecutions.
Further legislative changes are likely.

For criminal defense attorneys, staying current is more than professional diligence.

It is an ethical obligation.

Because when the law is volatile, the people caught in it are often the least protected.

And justice depends on representation grounded not only in statutes — but in reality.