California, known for its vast coastline, agricultural production, silicon valley, and the glittering promise of Hollywood, holds a darker distinction: it’s a hub for the vicious and vile trade of human beings. The scourge of human trafficking leaves a stain on the Golden State’s reputation, with an alarming 1,656 cases reported in 2018 alone. These aren’t just numbers; they represent individual lives ensnared in a $150 billion global criminal enterprise that thrives on exploitation and misery. Tragic stories from survivors abound, like that of a young girl lured with promises of a modeling career, only to find herself trapped in a nightmarish world of sexual exploitation. Or the migrant worker, who, dreaming of a better life, ended up in forced labor, toiling inhumane hours for no pay. The depth of depravity one sees and hears when researching this topic recalculates one’s concept of hell.
The State of California has attempted to combat this scourge through Penal Code § 236.1, which offers a comprehensive legal framework to address human trafficking, delineating felony penalties ranging from five years to life imprisonment. Despite these measures, the battle is far from over. California Senate Bill 1414 (SB 1414) aims to fortify these efforts.
Existing law in California provides that a person who solicits, agrees to engage in, or who engages in, any act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Under existing law, any individual who buys a minor for prostitution is only guilty of a misdemeanor. (See Pen. Code § 647(b)(3).) Even if the individual commits this crime with knowledge that the person who was solicited was a minor at the time of the offense, the violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. (See Pen. Code § 647(l).)
However, this does not mean that someone who purchases and has sex with a minor will only be guilty of a misdemeanor. Under California Penal Code § 261.5, anyone who has sexual intercourse with a person under eighteen is guilty of statutory rape. This may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of the case. An 18-year-old having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend will be treated differently than a 30-year-old buying sexual services from a 17-year-old. Prosecutors will also commonly charge, where applicable, related crimes (e.g., Lewd Acts on a Child, Pen. Code § 288; Oral Copulation on a Minor, Pen. Code §§ 288a(a) and (b)(1); Rape/”Date Rape”, Pen. Code § 261(a); Sexual Battery, Pen. Code § 243.4(a); Lewd Conduct in Public, Pen. Code § 647(a); and Indecent Exposure, Pen. Code § 314.) Additionally, in 2023, the California State Legislature adopted a bill that defined the trafficking of a minor, in violation of subdivision (c) of Section 236.1, and any conspiracy to commit such an offense, shall be classified as a “serious felony” for purposes of the three strikes law. All of these can be charged as a felony. It is also worth noting that prosecutors may charge the attempt to commit any of these felonies as a felony under Penal Code § 664.
Section 647(b) is focused on the first step of the process: solicitation or engagement in any act of prostitution. This is broader than the act of intercourse or trafficking of a minor. Because of the breadth of its reach, the penalties associated with it are minimal in comparison with the commission of one of the above felonies. Penal Code section 647(b) expressly applies prior to sexual intercourse or lewd acts with a minor for pay in, criminalizing solicitation of prostitution with intent to engage in prostitution or the acceptance of solicitation with some act done in furtherance of the commission of the act of prostitution as a misdemeanor.
SB 1414 was authored by California Senators Grove, Caballero, and Rubio arising out of the belief that even the mere act of purchasing a minor for prostitution should be dealt with far more severely. First, SB 1414 proposes strict liability punishments for those who solicit minors for prostitution, stripping any defense that the offender was unaware of the victim’s age. Second, the bill’s passage would result in offenders facing two to four years in state prison, alongside a fine of up to $25,000. Third, it mandates that individuals convicted of such an offense after January 1, 2025, register as sex offenders for a decade.
Supporters of SB 1414 argue that tougher penalties act as a deterrent, protect minors, and signal California’s unwavering stance against human trafficking. They argue that this bill could prevent countless youths from enduring the harrowing ordeal of sexual exploitation. While last year’s amendment went after human traffickers in SB 14, this year’s bill is aimed at the buyers. This is a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), Anna Caballero (D-Merced) and Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park).
The bill must be approved by the Senate Public Safety Committee, constituted by:
Senator Aisha Wahab (Chair) (D-Hayward)
Senator Kelly Seyarto, (Vice Chair) (R-Murrieta)
Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena)
Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley)
Senator Scott D. Wiener (D-San Francisco)
SB 1414 was supported by Senators Seyarto and Bradford, and opposed by the remaining democrats representing some of the most liberal enclaves and unsafe communities within the state. The leftist coalition on the committee, led by Wahab, argued that the solicitation of 16 and 17-year-olds should not be a felony offense because that could have devastating consequences for teens and young adults who make the choice to solicit sex from a 16 or 17-year-old. Notably, Wahab did not comment as extensively on the potential devastating consequences for minors who are victims of that choice, nor did they recommend an amendment that would create a carve-out for teens and young adults. Instead, they simply maintained the offense as a misdemeanor – even if the offender is a 50 year old and the minor is 12.
Natasha Minsker with Smart Justice California (an activist organization funded primarily by four wealthy donors — Patty Quillin, Quinn Delaney, Elizabeth Simons and Kaitlyn Krieger — focusing on radical decriminalization in California, e.g., spending $3.7 million alone to elect George Gascón in Los Angeles) complained that the bill would unfairly target the LGBTQ community. However, Minsker did not explain why she believes the LGBTQ community would be a group disproportionately engaged in the solicitation of minors for sex. The California Public Defenders Office argued that the age of consent in the majority of states is 16, and therefore it should not be a felony to solicit sex from someone 16 or older.
In an attempt to salvage her bill, Grove agreed to remove the strict liability from the bill and the requirement for violators to register as sex offenders if this is their first offense, to find some compromise. However, Wahab, Skinner and Wiener voted to force an exemption from soliciting 16 and 17-year-olds, and passed a gutted SB 1414, decreasing the fine from $25,000 to $10,000 if the solicited minor was under the age of 16 and setting the jail time at a maximum of one year, preserving the crime’s misdemeanor status.
The President pro Tempore of the California Senate appoints the committee members. Senator Mike McGuire was sworn in on February 5, 2024. He chose to give a controlling majority of the California Senate Public Safety Committee to representatives from the least safe communities in the State. For context, the Crime Index for these communities are:
- Hayward: 8/100
- San Francisco: 1/100
- Berkeley: 1/100
California’s leadership occasionally appears to be captured by individuals with exceptionally poor discretion.
The Ward Chambers 
Leave a comment