A. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly engage in prostitution.
B. This section does not prohibit cities or towns from enacting and enforcing ordinances to suppress and prohibit prostitution that provide a punishment for misdemeanor violations that is at least as stringent as provided in this section.
C. For the purposes of sentencing under this section, a previous violation of any city or town ordinance that prohibits prostitution and that has the same or substantially similar elements as this section shall be deemed to be a previous violation of this section.
D. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant committed the acts constituting prostitution as a direct result of being a victim of sex trafficking.
E. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, except that:
1. A person who is convicted of a first violation of this section shall be sentenced to serve not less than fifteen consecutive days in jail and is not eligible for probation or suspension of execution of sentence until the entire sentence is served.
2. A person who is convicted of a second violation of this section shall be sentenced to serve not less than thirty consecutive days in jail and is not eligible for probation or suspension of execution of sentence until the entire sentence is served.
3. A person who is convicted of a third violation of this section shall be sentenced to serve not less than sixty consecutive days in jail, is not eligible for probation or suspension of execution of sentence until the entire sentence is served and shall complete an appropriate court ordered education or treatment program.
4. A person who has previously been convicted of three or more violations of this section and who commits a subsequent violation of this section is guilty of a class 5 felony, shall be sentenced to serve not less than one hundred eighty consecutive days in jail and is not eligible for probation or suspension of execution of sentence until the entire sentence is served. This paragraph does not prohibit a person from being sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in the state department of corrections.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1985–1993 · leading case:
State v. Loughran, 693 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Loughran, 693 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 23× “(4) Does Phoenix City Code Ordinance § 23-52(a) exceed the allowable scope of A.R.S. § 13-3214. I. SPECIAL OR LOCAL LEGISLATION Appellant contends on appeal that Ordinance § 23-52(a) is special or local legislation prohibited by Article 4, Part 2, § 19 of the Arizona…”
State v. Christi, 718 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 20× “The issue raised in this appeal is whether A.R.S. § 13-3214(B), which allows municipalities to regulate prostitution, is constitutionally infirm as either a “local or special law” or a denial of equal protection.”
State v. Crisp, 855 P.2d 795 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “section 13-3214 makes clear that the legislature did not intend to preempt the field of regulation of prostitution.”
State v. Taylor, 808 P.2d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-3214(A) (1989) provides, “A person who knowingly engages in prostitution is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”
State v. Rowan, 848 P.2d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “…Chap. 142, § 96). . In fact, it was not until 1981 that the state code outlawed the act of prostitution itself. See A.R.S. § 13-3214.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3214(A) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 808 P.2d 314 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 13-3214(A) (1989) provides, “A person who knowingly engages in prostitution is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3214(B) — 3 cases
State v. Loughran, 693 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“(4) Does Phoenix City Code Ordinance § 23-52(a) exceed the allowable scope of A.R.S. § 13-3214. I. SPECIAL OR LOCAL LEGISLATION Appellant contends on appeal that Ordinance § 23-52(a) is special or local legislation prohibited by Article 4, Part 2, § 19 of the Arizona…”
State v. Christi, 718 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The issue raised in this appeal is whether A.R.S. § 13-3214(B), which allows municipalities to regulate prostitution, is constitutionally infirm as either a “local or special law” or a denial of equal protection.”
State v. Crisp, 855 P.2d 795 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“section 13-3214 makes clear that the legislature did not intend to preempt the field of regulation of prostitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.