7 June 19 - 25, 2025 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents ▼ SEX WORK WAVE ’EM LIKE YOU JUST DON’T CARE DALLAS LAWYERS REACT TO STRUCK DOWN PROSTITUTION ORDINANCE. BY ALYSSA FIELDS A controversial city prostitution ordi- nance has been struck down after years of ongoing legal battles over the law’s constitutionality. In the latest, a municipal judge has ordered Dallas Police Department officers not to enforce the re- vised ordinance, which has been criticized for its vagueness that allows officers to cite individuals for regular activities like waving at a car. “The Ordinance, by potentially applying to such conduct as talking and waving to other people, clearly implicates protected freedoms,” Judge Jay Robinson said in a May 21 ruling. A spokesperson for DPD con- firmed officers would not be enforcing the ordinance to the Dallas Morning News. Speculation regarding the law’s fairness came to a head in 2022, when Iqbal Jivani was cited with a Class C misdemeanor in Northwest Dallas for “manifesting the pur- pose of engaging in prostitution” after offi- cers witnessed him handing money to women in a well-known prostitution corri- dor on Shady Trail. Jivani said he was hand- ing out money so the women could buy food. Jivani’s lawyer, Gary Krupkin, success- fully challenged the law, arguing it violated Jivani’s constitutional rights. In 2022, Judge Robinson agreed that the law’s implicative nature was unconstitutional. The state chal- lenged the decision, but a higher court up- held it, and DPD stopped enforcing the ordinance for the first time. Dallas City Council elected to revise the ordinance after Jivani’s case, and in 2023, added new stipulations, including geograph- ical qualifications for well-known prostitu- tion areas and higher risk for known prostitutes. The ordinance continued to al- low for the citation of actions like waving your arms or beckoning cars. “I think less of the new ordinance than I did of the old ordinance,” Krupkin said to the Observer in October 2023. “No matter how you try to slice this side of beef, they’re cutting across the grain. The way they’re trying to get this ordinance through just continues to vio- late the First Amendment. It’s that simple.” Now, two years later, Robinson has stepped back in to strike down the controver- sial ordinance for the same reason – it’s too vague and encompasses too many mundane activities as indicative of soliciting sex work. “Hailing a cab or waving to a friend or passer-by or chatting with a friend or even a stranger on a public street are time-honored pastimes in our State and in our Country, and are clearly protected under both federal law and the Texas Constitution,” Robinson wrote in his ruling. Certain corners of Dallas are infamous for their streets of ill repute, which have been largely uncontrolled for decades, despite the city’s attempts to crack down on illegal sex work and trafficking. “In trying to solve [the] problem, [the city] created another problem,” said David Coale, an appellate lawyer working in the city. “When you get past all the fancy stuff at the top of the statute, you can’t wave your arms in public, and that’s a no-go. That’s a regulation of expressive conduct. Period, end of sentence.” Coale says that while waving your arms in the air isn’t the protected jargon we tend to associate with the firm protections pro- vided by the freedom of speech, it’s still a fundamental right. “It’s not core First Amendment protection, but it’s protected, and so you have to have some level of certainty,” he said. “When you have a law that affects expressive conduct, which is what this is talking about, you’re enti- tled to know what the heck you can do.” To put it plainly, the law is too broad, and in attempting to curtail one already illegal activity, the city has made too many mun- dane activities a citable offense, says Coale. “We already have laws that say you can’t go hire prostitutes,” he said. “We have laws that regulate prostitution... So what addi- tional thing is being criminalized by this that isn’t already criminalized? It appears to be intentionally making certain gestures in public, and they’ve called that manifesting the purpose of intent. But that’s just a bunch of gobbledygook.” Another issue with the ordinance, as written, said Chad Ruback, another appel- late lawyer working in Dallas, is that the law gives far too much power to the police. “I agree with the judge, that it seems that this ordinance as written, would allow the police so much discretion to harass and arrest individuals based on the color of their skin, based on how they were dressed, based on past interactions that the police officer might have with the individual, [or] maybe personal dislike for a specific individual,” said Ruback. The two lawyers both point out that en- forcing the law would rely on the implica- tion of a crime, and not the actual presence of a crime, and creates far too low a burden of proof. “I understand what the Dallas City Coun- cil is attempting to do,” said Ruback. “I think they have a noble purpose. I think they mean well. I don’t think there’s bad inten- tions here on the part of the Dallas City Council, but I still think we’ve got a serious constitutional violation.” Besides, even if you are a “known prosti- tute,” as defined by the city, waving your hands in the air and flagging down cars is still protected by the freedom of speech. “If you’re a known prostitute, you’re enti- tled to wave your arms,” said Coale. “There’s nothing wrong with that inherently.” Coale understands the city’s intention to cut down prostitution but says revising the existing ordinance was a poor attempt at solving the problem. If anything, he says, the city would make better progress tacking onto the existing nuisance statute. “No one questions the city’s authority to regulate nuisances,” he said. “If you ap- proached it that way, you might have a bet- ter shot at it. The problem here is that this is not a nuisance law; it’s not a prostitution law. It’s kind of this weird hybrid of them. As a result, it’s vague just because it has to be. The underlying subject matter is kind of vague. Go have a prostitution law or go have a nuisance law, but being in the middle is awkward.”
