Prostitution

Seattle has long held contradictory legal and social policies regulating sex work. Until the 1900s, the white populations of Seattle and most West Coast cities were around 90% male, meaning the sex trade was often a necessary means of economic survival for women of all ethnicities. In 1884 Seattle passed its first ordinance restricting sex work which banned "soliciting prostitution upon any of the public streets" or the mere presence of "dissolute Indian women" after dark, a regulation that steered customers to primarily white- and Asian-staffed brothels and box houses and explicitly criminalized the presence of Indigenous women. These regulated spaces provided significant payoffs to individual officers and the police department as a whole.

The City faced repeated charges for police corruption and bribery in the enforcement of sex work policies. In 1970, Officer Eugene Corr alerted a King County grand jury to systematic police payoffs and apparent toleration of "vice and illegal gambling" which he aided in investigating during the late 1960s. These revelations led to the ousting of Police Chief Frank Ramon, and in an act of retaliation, new chief George Tielsch demoted Corr. Corr resigned, and the Seattle Police Department charged him with embezzlement, a $76 charge the grand jury dismissed as "frivolous and malicious."

Throughout Seattle's history, enforcement of sex work policies has targeted almost exclusively women (primarily nonwhite women) instead of male clients or pimps. In 1974, there was a brief period of pushback when the Association of Seattle Prostitutes (ASP), a chapter of the national sex workers union COYOTE, formed to engage in social outreach, legal advocacy, and public demonstrations against discriminatory laws, and to promote decriminalization. This was a short-lived episode, however; the union dissolved by the end of the decade as federal “tough on crime” policies emerged, and did not make significant legal progress in Seattle.

September 1972 Committee Meeting

On September 18, 1972, the Seattle City Council Committee of the Whole reviewed two related proposals by Councilmember Bruce Chapman.  The Council briefly discussed Comptroller File 273794, a declaration by Mayor Wes Uhlman of his intent to veto the enactment of criminal codes that did not support the use of deadly force by citizens to protect their home. The Council then discussed Comptroller File 273741 and Resolution 23789, introduced by Chapman to amend the current criminal code to urge more evenhanded enforcement of prostitution laws, including filing charges for customers along with women selling services. The resolution received broad support from the Council, passing by a vote of six to two. The Seattle Police Department (SPD) spoke in support of nominal regulation but expressed doubt about the feasibility of identifying these mostly white, middle-class customers.

Discussion included weak proposals to decriminalize the sex trade, and concrete initiatives to increase the role of female officers in the department. Committee chair Liem Eng Tuai disagreed with Chapman’s revisions and disliked the idea of policewomen working in prostitution stings. While SPD had employed policewomen in its ranks since 1912, these women served as social workers, not traditional beat cops. Most prostitution-related arrests were made by male beat cops impersonating customers, or pursued after complaints were filed by male customers. In 1976, SPD hired Seattle's first female officers, "The First Nine," to be trained as equals to male officers.

Testimony

Councilmember Bruce Chapman (listen to audio)
Here also is some confusion. It seems to me if we're going to have a law which outlaws prostitution, it’s very important that law be evenhandedly enforced and we do not have the kind of double standards which I think permits when thinking of a large part of the population today and which I think hinders the law. I think that this double standard is crippling to our - it prevents us from facing the real issues of the prostitution problem.

I got a letter just now from a public defender, which they were not able to get circulated. I've read something already, but if I could, I'd like to read this letter.

"In response to the proposal by Councilman Chapman that is directed to you to deal with prostitution, the enforcement of the laws containing prostitution, I'll offer a few thoughts. At the outset, it should be clear that I am a representative of the citizens committee and on the proposed code voted with the majority to strike the offer and agreement section from the code, We took the position that loitering presented a nuisance that should be prohibited by law but that this should only be a class D offence. I’d like to make further comments about that. In regard to Mr. Chapman’s resolution, we are in whole-hearted agreement with it as far as it goes, in that there will be no support for decriminalizing in-house prostitution. The problem with the proposed resolution is that it provides no guidance for the police department in the strategy area, which is almost certain to be unpopular with some folks in the quarter.

"The resolution appropriately notes the that the, or notes the inequality of current law enforcement, but there's no more than directions to the police department to take steps to reconcile. But of all the arrests for prostitution, the arrests of customers are minuscule. On the other hand, it is apparent in any business, customers far outnumber the person providing the services. The reason for the unbalance should be clear - first, the prostitute who works the streets is most visible, and therefore most easily arrested. The customer, who is generally a white middle-class businessman, is not likely to be arrested or pressured to testify against the prosecution.

"The real difficulty, however, creating the imbalance in the police department policy is the police department's policy of using only male agents to uncover the criminal act. This kind of questioning strikes only at the background of the person offering the services, who are generally of a lower economic background. The prosecution or threat of prosecution is not a significant deterrent. If female police were used to attack the problems from the consumer angle, there would be a much greater likelihood of success as the middle-class customer is much more likely to be deterred by the threat of arrest and prosecution.

"Previous attempts by the police department to use female agents have been met with cries of outrage from the community, and no one backed up the police department in introducing female agents. In the Chapman resolution, the Council should ask the specific direction of the police department and use female agents as one approach.

"If one approach is attempting to suggest to the Council to correct the ratio of customers and prostitutes, there are certain relationships to prosecution of three to one. This is a problem. The Council should direct that the police do not give immunity to the customer for testimony against the prostitute, as those result, inevitably, in inequality. In this way, if the police department received specific guidance from the Council, the Council would not be subject to the pressures of outraged citizens when law enforcement becomes further expanded in this area.

"Let's us be clear - we are not comfortable urging prosecution of customers, and we feel the entire area of prostitution should be decriminalized, etc. We must confess to a feeling that if equal enforcement were achieved in this area the public outcry would be such that prostitution eventually would become decriminalized."

Well, I think that this, I think this points out in some of the smirks around here while I was reading it, shows I think that we do have a double standard as regards, we don't, we don't want women getting involved. We don't want women police agents getting involved in this - that would somehow be contrary to our moral code - but it’s perfectly all right for men to get into it and get into the kind of enterprise. I think that we should stick by these principles and expose this double standard.

And this resolution of mine is not to give specific directions, though maybe it should. It doesn't. I’d be interested in if anyone else thought it should. I think it makes it quite clear what our intent is, and I think the police department will know what that intent is. The police department sent a letter around to Ms. Williams commenting on my proposal, and what essentially it did was say there is no difference in the enforcement for men and women. I suggest that my resolution is very proper in saying that much more ardent efforts should be made to provide evenhanded enforcement.

Councilmember Liem Eng Tuai (listen to audio)
I'm going to vote against it. Not because I don't think this evenhanded approach for both parts, the prostitute and the people involved. However, I’m not going to sit here and tell the police department has to go get a quota of men, I assume they're men, patrons of prostitutes. I don't think that's our business. I think the police department has done an excellent job in this area, and I think from a limited injury standpoint it’s almost impossible to prosecute a man, a patron of a prostitute. Who’s going to testify against him? Is the, are we going to use our girls?

I have to admit that I don’t believe in women’s lib, and I don’t believe in the equality of women because I think they’re far superior than men, to men. If I needed to bring my wife down to my level, I don't, I, I would hate to do that, but I think that they have more now than they ever will have in terms of so-called equality. And I can't, I'll have to admit my feelings toward, a moral indignation against using girls on the police department.

They go out there and try to get these men that have to go to prostitutes in order to get satisfaction for their biological demands. And I, I certainly will not tell the police department that they're gonna have to use these women - and you must remember, we don't have many policewomen. Oh, perhaps someday we’ll have 51% of them, of our police officers will be women.

And until that day, we only have maybe a half dozen or a dozen at the most. And, you know, you just don't go out and send these girls out to solicit, and hope that you have a couple of plainclothes men around protecting these women should they could get into problems. And exactly what evidence we need to convict a man who goes upand propositions a girl, I think that's something we gotta listen to. And this business of, well, we've got to be evenhanded. Oh, no. I think it's a bunch of rhetoric myself and I'm going to vote against this. I just don't think it's going to work out.

And you must remember, as I said at the last conversation with the committee - Mr. Smith when that matter was brought up - there was already provision in the code that provided for the male or purchasing person to be prosecuted. The question, how do you do it? And for us to pass a resolution telling the police department to do it, something which is next to impossible, is to me just a bunch of rhetoric.

Council discussion with H. Joseph Coleman, police chief's legal counsel, and Police Captain Shork (listen to audio)
Councilmember George Cooley: I have two questions I'd like to ask. First, what evidence is needed to convict the patron of a prostitute? Number two is this really necessary?

Joseph Coleman: Captain Shork will answer your first question. Let me respond to the second question, if I may. Chief Tielsch is reviewing this. His position was that a resolution was not necessary because the current law prohibits prostitution regarding the offender. However, he said that he was willing to support a resolution modified somewhat from Councilman Chapman’s resolution in order to remove any ambiguity, and we have distributed that to council members.

And if you would just take a moment, I would like to indicate to you what that says in a very brief statement in support of it. We indicated, or Chief Tielsch indicated that he would not object to a resolution if the Council felt such was necessary. He states, "A resolution calling for equal application of the prostitution laws to go to customers and prostitutes: whereas prostitution is prohibited by the law of the city; and whereas procuring, soliciting, or patronizing a prostitute are also prohibited by these laws; and whereas prostitution offenses generally involve illegal behavior by both men and women, customers and prostitutes; and whereas the criminal laws of the city must be equally applied in order to achieve justice; now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council and City of Seattle that the policy of this city requires equal application of the prostitution laws to both customers and prostitutes.

We went on to say, "As we have endeavored to explain to the Council, we have never pursued a non-enforcement policy with respect to male customers. In all cases where there is sufficient proof to satisfy evidentiary standards, we will request prosecution regardless of the offender's sex. We will support a resolution, however, as proposed above, in order to remove any ambiguity concerning the quality of our enforcement policy. We must caution you, however, that arrest statistics alone are not indicative of the thoroughness of enforcement efforts.

The difficulty in acquiring necessary evidence to convict male customers is a very real consideration which will decisively have an effect upon the number of arrests in this area. Very truly yours, George P. Tielsch by H. Joseph Coleman." That will be the position of the Police Department.

[interruptions]

Councilmember George Cooley: Can I have the first question answered?

Captain Shork: In answer to your question, I think, in the area of operating in the green, it's possible to overhear - and this is maybe along the lines of some police spying activities - there's a possibility to make some arrests there with enough evidence on the charge. But basically where you have sexual acts take place in private, and where the money changes hands - and usually it comes to our attention because the male in the case has the possibly of being victimized in one way or another and he complains and an arrest is made based on that, on his testimony - you are always going to get into a situation where the male is asked to testify against the female. You're certainly not going to get the prostitute complain and testify that the man gave her $20 for an act of prostitution. And you, you know, you don't

[muffled speaking]

Councilmember George Cooley: Why do you suppose that is?

Captain Shork: Well, not being a prostitute, I don't know.

Councilmember George Cooley: That’s not it.

Councilmember Jeanette Williams: Let’s have a little order here.

Captain Shork: I’d like to respond, also, as far as loitering is concerned. We’ve also indicated that there are difficulties there also because the professional prostitute is more easily identified. And if you are engaged in surveilling a portion of town - for example, we have the problem on Pike Street - it was quite clear as to who the professional prostitutes are. But among potential customers, there were many people that in no way appeared to be any different, were not acting in any different matter, and therefore, it would be impossible for surveillance teams to actually reach any conclusions based on that observation alone. This is the kind of thing that is necessary whenever you put your case in a posture for prosecution.

Councilmember Sam Smith: But sir, any time a man comes in and tells you that a prostitute took his money, he then has indicated to soliciting. And as long as you permit him to come in and do this and get a good trial for prostitution, you are letting him off the hook. Now, I can state that in order to be evenhanded now, if you try one you have to try the other. The same kind of evidence it takes, Mr. Coleman. The offering of the service and the agreement to pay the fee will apply to the male as well as the female. If you can prove that the female did this, than you can also certainly prove that the male was connected to that in some way. It's just a matter of us deciding we want to put emphasis on this. And I think this resolution will provide a direction.

Captain Shork: And the police department is agreeable in with the resolution such as the one that I read. One place with emphasis, I would say, is that wherever proof is sufficient, the offender will be prosecuted.

Councilmember Tim Hill (listen to audio)
I think when we're talking about numbers, when you say 36, is that 36 arrests, I think? Now, I sat week after week every Thursday afternoon in the municipal court over here. I go up there, I see in the jail area about five, six girls, almost all members of minority groups, and the only time I've ever seen customers are the cases where you have a nice white, middle class businessman come in and testify how this girl took his money and didn't perform the act.

I have seen in a couple of cases where they actually have prosecuted the customers, but it's misleading, I think, to say 36 arrests is an increase. How many of those were pimps, how many of those were males who were involved in procuring? Second question, asked by Mr. Cooley - what evidence is needed?

Offering and agreeing, instances where a police officer saying a girl came up to him and said, are you dating? And, he said yeah. She said, well, how much money do you have? And he said, how much? And she said, what do you want to get? That's it. It takes about two minutes to try a prostitution case, I see no reason why female agents are incapable of doing exactly the same thing.

I've never seen any reason why they couldn't. And perhaps there are reasons why they can't. The proposal that we have regarding Mr. Chapman’s resolution is simply that they provide more equal and more women to the degree that they are getting to the customers too. And the other part of this is that we feel, it has been said over and over in prostitution hearings, you're not going to keep the prostitute off the street, you just want to keep the numbers down. I think that the police department is doing a good job of that, assuming that is something can be done, but you're not going to keep them off the street.

We feel that if the source of the demand is directed, if the police department is directed toward that, and if there is enough publicity that a few businessmen are getting arrested down on Pike and 14th by a few policewomen, then I think we might just very well have a reduction in the trade. This could be a greater deterrent than the other method.

Finally, I'd like to comment that, they're asking to me that we have a situation where the police, chief of police is saying that he's willing to agree to a resolution directing him, or recommending that he do certain things, as long as that resolution is written in terms which he agrees with. That bothers me a little bit. It seems the Council ought to exercise its own judgment in this particular situation.

Captain Shork: I think that's a misreading of the chief's position. He was simply stating that the resolution proposed by Mr. Chapman implies certain things which he does not agree with. And his resolution clarifies that and goes on record that it is the policy of the police department to have equal enforcement of the law in this area. Now with respect to operational methodology, the operational methodology employed by the department must be left to the discretion of the Chief of Police.

Note: Due to the poor quality of this recording, there may be inaccuracies in the transcription. Please contact the archives with any suggested corrections.

The entire meeting can be heard in Digital Collections. (Event 1381, Seattle City Council Audio Recordings, Record Series 4601-03)

Resources

• Prostitution, 1972-1973. Box: 130, Folder: 4, Wesley C. Uhlman Subject Files (Record Series 5787-02)
• A Statistical Report Regarding City Expenses Relating to Prostitution, 1974. Box 28, Folder 5, Reports and Studies (Record Series 1802-D9)
• Prostitution, Prostitutes and Seattle Society, 1972. Box 25, Folder 1, Reports and Studies (Record Series 1802-D9)
• Prostitution, Public Opinion on Legalization, 1979. Box 2, Folder 12, Law and Justice Planning Manager's Records (Record Series 5010-01)
• Correspondence between Police Chief Tielsch and Civil Service Commissioner Thomas Hanley regarding the inclusion of female officers, 1971. Box 13, Folder 28, Civil Service Commission Appeals (Record Series 6010-10)
• Comptroller File 273741: Proposal of Councilman Bruce Chapman for legislation dealing with prostitution and related crimes; and passage of a resolution urging a more evenhanded enforcement of laws re said activities.
• Resolution 23789: urging a more even-handed enforcement of the laws dealing with prostitution.
• Comptroller File 271934: Proposed Revised Seattle Criminal Code, Submitted by the Seattle-King County Bar Association.
• Police Bribe Ring Charges Studied by Jury in Seattle - New York Times, August 8, 1971