Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Officer Gentile telephoned a woman looking for sexual services for himself and a friend. Gentile claimed he was a businessman from Philadelphia. Ross, who answered the phone questioned Gentile about the identity of Joe and his familiarity with Philadelphia. She then asked Gentile what 'exactly' he wanted. Gentile said there were seven people in his party seeking sexual services. Ross instructed Gentile to come to her residence so that she could check his identification, and told him that if she 'approved,' it would cost $25 per man plus $25 for cab fare for the 'lady.' After their meet, Ross directed Gentile to a motel in Pittsburgh. Ross told Gentile that he would have to pay the $200 before any sexual services would be rendered. Gentile went to the designated room and was greeted by D, who was naked. She asked Gentile if 'Debbie' had told him that the $200 would have to be paid 'up front.' Gentile told D that payment would have to be at his hotel room because he would have to get the money from the other members of the party. D went with Gentile to Gentile's hotel. In the room, D met Officer Fielder, who was in bed dressed only in his underwear. After discussing the specific services to be rendered, and after payment of the $200.00, D began to undress. D was arrested and advised of her rights. D admitted that she and Ross divided the money evenly. D was convicted and appealed. D argues that the prostitution statute is unconstitutional for numerous reasons: it violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution because the terms 'sexual activity as a business,' 'loiters,' and 'inmate of a house of prostitution' are vague and capable of an overbroad interpretation; it violates the first amendment in that it is susceptible to improper application by law enforcement officials and so results in a 'chilling' of the first amendment rights of freedom of speech, association, and peaceable assembly; it violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the equal rights amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it provides for disproportionate punishments based on gender classification between the female prostitute and the male patron and promoter of prostitution; it violates the right to privacy guaranteed by the first, ninth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 9, of the Pennsylvania Constitution; it violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution in that it regulates by inappropriate means an area of conduct in which the state has no legitimate interest; and finally, it violates the first and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 1, section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that it 'tends toward an establishment of religion' and 'interferes with an individual's right of conscience.'
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co