AB 2749 amends Penal Code section 653.25 to make a person guilty of loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex only if the person "takes a direct but ineffectual act" that goes beyond mere planning or preparation and that indicates a "definite and unambiguous intent" to buy commercial sex. The bill keeps the statute's illustrative conduct (for example, circling an area, beckoning, or attempting to contact pedestrians or motorists) and clarifies that a completed communication is not required.
The measure preserves the offense as a misdemeanor and keeps a $1,000 fine tied to convictions, with fine revenue deposited in the Survivor Support Fund. For prosecutors, police, defense counsel, and service providers, the bill changes the evidentiary bar for charging and proof: it privileges observable, concrete acts over ambiguous or contextual behavior, with implications for enforcement patterns, training, and the operation of anti-trafficking efforts at the local level.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises Penal Code §653.25 so conviction requires a direct but ineffectual act beyond planning or preparation that shows a definite and unambiguous intent to purchase commercial sex. The statute retains examples of conduct that may indicate intent and specifies that a completed communication is not necessary.
Who It Affects
This change directly affects local police and prosecutors who charge loitering to purchase sex, defense attorneys defending such charges, people arrested in public places for suspected solicitation (including people who are unhoused), and programs that receive Survivor Support Fund money.
Why It Matters
By setting a higher, act-based threshold, the bill narrows prosecutorial discretion and may reduce convictions based on equivocal conduct. That shift alters enforcement tactics, evidentiary needs (video, eyewitness accounts of a direct act), and the pipeline of fine revenue that funds survivor services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current California law, loitering in a public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex is a misdemeanor when a person's actions and the circumstances openly show that intent. AB 2749 rewrites the statute to require more than suspicious behavior or preparatory steps: a person must perform a "direct but ineffectual act" toward buying commercial sex that goes beyond mere planning.
The bill keeps the statute's examples of indicia—such as circling a known area, repeatedly beckoning, contacting or attempting to contact pedestrians, and making unauthorized stops—but adds the new threshold language to focus prosecutions on observable acts rather than inference from context alone.
The bill also clarifies that the act need not be a completed communication—so prosecutors do not have to show that a verbal or written solicitation occurred—but they must prove conduct that unmistakably indicates an intent to purchase sex. Concretely, this pushes evidence collection toward capturing the act itself: dashcam or bodycam video showing a person step out and beckon, recorded attempts to physically stop a pedestrian, or other direct actions that an officer can point to in charging papers and at trial.AB 2749 leaves the offense as a misdemeanor and retains a $1,000 fine for convictions, with those fines deposited into the Survivor Support Fund.
Practically, that means the state preserves a punitive and revenue component while constraining the kinds of behavior that can be prosecuted under this statute. The combination reduces reliance on circumstantial patterns and forces prosecutors to show something that resembles an attempt, even if the law stops short of broadly adopting the criminal attempt standard.For enforcement agencies and prosecutors, implementation will require revising charging guidelines and officer training to emphasize documentation of the required direct act and distinguishing preparation from action.
Defense attorneys can press that the observed behavior did not cross the line into the statute’s new requirement, increasing the likelihood of dismissal or acquittal where conduct is ambiguous. Community organizations and service providers should expect shifts in which incidents lead to criminal charges and how survivor services are funded through fine collections.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2749 amends Penal Code §653.25 so conviction requires the defendant to have taken a "direct but ineffectual act" toward purchasing commercial sex that goes beyond planning or preparation.
The statute keeps illustrative conduct—examples include circling an area in a vehicle, repeatedly beckoning, attempting to contact pedestrians or motorists, and making unauthorized stops—while adding the new act threshold.
The bill specifies the required act does not need to be a completed communication, meaning prosecutors need not prove a soliciting statement was exchanged.
The offense remains a misdemeanor, and subdivision (b) establishes a $1,000 fine for violations; fines are to be deposited in the Survivor Support Fund.
Because the law raises the evidentiary threshold from circumstantial behavior to a demonstrable act, prosecutions will rely more on contemporaneous audiovisual or eyewitness evidence showing the act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Substantive offense reworded to require a direct act
This subsection now makes loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex punishable only where the defendant "takes a direct but ineffectual act" toward committing the offense and that act indicates "definite and unambiguous intent." That language elevates the statute from an inference-based standard—where a court could rely on patterns of behavior and context—to an act-based standard. Practically, prosecutors must show a discrete, observable act that moves beyond preparation; the text stops short of labeling the conduct an "attempt," but it borrows the attempt-like idea of an act toward completion.
Retention of examples showing indicia of intent
The bill preserves the existing list of behaviors courts may consider indicative of intent—circling known areas, repeatedly beckoning, contacting or attempting to contact people, and unauthorized stops—so the statute still points to common patterns of solicitation. Those examples guide enforcement and evidence collection but must now be tied to a qualifying direct act; isolated or contextual examples without an act that crosses the new threshold will be weaker bases for charges.
Clarifies a completed communication is not required
The addition that the act "does not require a completed communication" preserves the ability to charge based on an attempted approach or gesture, not necessarily on words exchanged or a negotiated transaction. Evidence showing an attempt—such as stepping out of a vehicle to stop someone—can satisfy this clause, but prosecutors still must demonstrate that the act itself was direct and unequivocal.
Penalty and fund allocation
Subdivision (b) keeps the offense as a misdemeanor and imposes a $1,000 fine in addition to other punishment. The bill specifies that fines collected under this subdivision shall be deposited in the Survivor Support Fund, tying enforcement outcomes to a fund that supports survivors of sexual exploitation and trafficking.
No statutory defenses added; burden shifts to proving the act
AB 2749 does not create explicit new defenses or carveouts; instead, it reshapes what prosecutors must prove. That practical change shifts the evidentiary burden onto proving the qualifying act, which could increase pretrial dismissals where the state lacks video or reliable eyewitness testimony. It also means that existing statutes for solicitation, pimping, and trafficking remain available; prosecutors may choose other charging routes where the new standard cannot be met.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People arrested for suspected solicitation: The new act-based threshold raises the evidentiary bar prosecutors must meet, decreasing the chance of conviction based on ambiguous or circumstantial behavior.
- Civil liberties and defense attorneys: The statute narrows discretionary enforcement by focusing on demonstrable acts, giving defense counsel clearer lines to challenge charges and argue insufficient evidence.
- Unhoused individuals and street-based sex workers: Because the bill limits prosecutions founded on contextual indicators alone, people who are visible in public spaces may face fewer charges tied solely to being in known solicitation areas.
- Survivor Support Fund recipients: Convictions that do occur will continue to direct fines to the Survivor Support Fund, preserving a revenue stream for survivor services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies: Police will need to update patrol and prosecution guidance, increase documentation standards (camera use, witness statements), and possibly change tactics used to disrupt solicitation without clear acts.
- District attorneys: Prosecutors will face a higher burden to prove a qualifying act and may have to decline or dismiss cases that otherwise would have relied on pattern-based evidence.
- Anti-trafficking task forces and municipal nuisance enforcement programs: These entities lose a lower-threshold tool for removing visible solicitation, which may force them to rely on other statutes or civil remedies that have different standards and burdens.
- Municipalities reliant on small fines for program funding: If the new standard reduces convictions, municipalities and local programs could see diminished fine revenue that previously supported local responses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against one another: protecting people from criminal charges based on ambiguous public behavior and reducing arbitrary stops, versus giving police and prosecutors an effective tool to disrupt solicitation and trafficking. Tightening the statutory standard protects civil liberties and reduces wrongful prosecutions, but it may also constrain interventions aimed at preventing exploitation and sustaining a funding source for survivor services—there is no solution that fully satisfies both goals without additional policy trade-offs.
The bill's operative change—requiring a "direct but ineffectual act" beyond planning or preparation—matters less for its phrasing and more for how courts interpret "direct," "ineffectual," and "beyond preparation." Those terms are fact-intensive and will generate litigation over their meaning: is stepping out of a car to beckon "direct" enough? Does circling an area qualify when done repeatedly?
The statute intentionally avoids adopting the criminal-attempt framework wholesale, which may produce inconsistent jury instructions and appellate law as courts flesh out the standard.
A second tension concerns enforcement and funding. The law preserves the $1,000 fine for convictions and directs money to the Survivor Support Fund, but if the higher evidentiary bar substantially reduces convictions, the intended funding stream could shrink.
At the same time, law enforcement may respond by pursuing alternative charges (e.g., loitering of other kinds, traffic offenses, or disorderly conduct) or by escalating proactive interventions that do not meet the new statute’s standard, raising the risk of displacement rather than elimination of enforcement against street-based sex work. Finally, practical implementation requires investment—retraining officers, adjusting charging guidelines, and ensuring consistent evidence capture—without allocating new resources in the statutory text, leaving execution to local agencies' budgets and priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.