Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ------- <br /> , <br /> , <br /> persons involved in prostitution: The prostitutes, the pimps, and the . <br /> customers who are supporting the problem. Subsection 2 regarding loi- <br /> tering in a soliciting manner has been added so that an officer can make <br /> an arrest without having been solicited personally. This change alle- <br /> viates the necessity of extensive use of police decoys. <br /> Mr. Haws asked for clarification between the old and new ordinance. <br /> Assistant Manager replied the major difference was Subsection 2. <br /> Therese Engelmann, Vice President of the Women's Commission, said she <br /> saw there could be three classes of women affected: 1) The prostitute <br /> with a concern that the prostitute not be singled out as opposed to the <br /> customer or promoter; 2) Women hitchhikers, who may be in danger of being <br /> picked up on a loitering charge; and 3) Very nearsighted women, who might <br /> mistakenly wave at unknown persons. <br /> Pierce Brooks, Police Chief, said those were valid concerns. He felt <br /> the Eugene police could distinguish between hitchhikers and prostitutes. <br /> Safeguards would be set up to protect the hitchhiker which would preclude <br /> the officer from picking up such a person until the officer could make a <br /> determination. He felt there would be no problem with hitchhiking. <br /> Mr. Haws asked for clarification of the first sentence of Section 2 and <br /> how it related to the rest of the paragraph. Chief Brooks said one of the <br /> good things about this ordinance was that there is no particular target, <br /> that it would not be selective enforcement or just against women. He said <br /> the target has shifted to the customer, but the officers will arrest any - <br /> one of the three involved under the new ordinance. He noted the pimp was <br /> the most difficult to prosecute. He continued, this ordinance is written <br /> so that anyone can do anyone of the things listed and the Police Depart- <br /> ment can react properly. If a male customer is loitering, he can be <br /> picked up by an officer. <br /> Mr. Haws wondered if the ordinance had been taken from some other ordi- <br /> nance. Mr. Long replied Section 2 was a substitute equivalent to one in <br /> the Portland ordinance. It had been heard by the Court of Appeals and <br /> challenged on the basis of sex discrimination and vague content, but found <br /> to be constitutional in all respects. <br /> Mr. Haws then wondered if Section 2 could be deleted. Mr. Long replied <br /> the section was necessary to insure the ordinance was not over-broad. One <br /> issue involved in loitering is that it encompasses too much behaviour <br /> that is difficult to define. He felt without that section the ordinance <br /> may be invalid. In response to another question by Mr. Haws, Mr. Long <br /> replied the police officers have a great deal of discretion with or <br /> without this ordinance and there was not much that could be done to <br /> alleviate all concerns. He said the ordinance passes constitutional <br /> muster but could be abused like any other law. <br /> 9(?8f77--4 e <br /> 'l4b <br />