D.C. Police Confirm Condom Policy that Endangers Public Health

by Alex DiBranco · 2010-01-12 17:41:00 UTC

Washington, D.C.: home to the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country. So you'd think they'd do everything possible to prevent the spread of the epidemic, such as promoting safe sex techniques. Why, then, do police do exactly the opposite by using condoms as evidence that prostitution is occurring?

DCist contacted the Metropolitan Police Department for comment on its policy after they reported on an article I wrote last week about the use of condoms as evidence in "Prostitution Free Zones." According to DCist, MPD spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump confirms that condoms can be used as a factor leading "an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution," but stresses that possession of rubbers alone isn't sufficient cause for an order to disperse or arrest.

This mirrors the San Francisco police's position: they have defended a similar practice by saying that "a pocket full of condoms alone is not a basis for arrest." This defense of the policy appears to be motivated by the desire to dodge privacy concerns and outrage from the many women who like to prepare for a night out (seriously, that's a lot of women they'd be calling sex workers). However, it doesn't address the major problem with this practice: the danger to the health of sex workers and the public.

Considering condoms as even one factor for arrest deters sex workers from using protection. "The risk of catching something is better than being arrested," according to Patricia West, a sex worker and outreach volunteer for San Francisco's St. James Infirmary, which provides health care for members of the world's oldest profession.

While Crumps states that possession of condoms alone would be insufficient for a disperse order or an arrest, what exactly would be sufficient cause? She tells DCist that a police officer could order someone to leave a PFZ if that person were "congregating with at least one other person ... late at night with no apparent destination, and in possession of multiple condoms." On its website, the MPD says that not dispersing on the order of an officer "will result in arrest without a second warning." In addition, leaving, but then getting discovered again later congregating within the PFZ, will also lead to arrest without warning.

Given these regulations for "sufficient cause," I can definitely understand why sex workers would be afraid to carry condoms. To prevent the spread of STDs, this practice has to go.

We must prioritize the health of sex workers and the public. Especially in D.C. -- once again, highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country.

Photo credit: Mer

Alex DiBranco is a Change.org Editor who has worked for the Nation, Political Research Associates, and the Center for American Progress. She is now based in New York City.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Are We Setting Women Up to Be Raped?
NEXT STORY:
LEGO Agrees to Meeting After 50,000 Denounce Selling Out Girls

COMMENTS (7)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.