It's a poorly worded intro line for the article (which became the title of this thread) that doesn't seem to really relate directly to the substance. The term "confiscate" makes it sound like the police are physically taking condoms away from sex workers. While this may happen on occasion, the real thrust of the article is the police practice of using a suspected prostitute's possession of condoms and especially "too many" condoms to support an arrest for prostitution. This has the effect of deterring sex workers from keeping condoms on their person. I wouldn't say that's "confiscation."

Most major cities have strolls or areas of known prostitution activity. A cop sees a woman alone on a corner at 3am in one of these areas. He stops her and she says she's just out for a walk. He runs a check on her and finds she has prior convictions for solicitation. However, it's not illegal to be on a corner at 3am. So the cop asks how many condoms she has, and it turns out she has 50. He arrests her on suspicion of solicitation based on the excessive number plus the other circumstances.

Is that a dumb policy? Yeah, but the problem is the illegality of prostitution in general. The odds of the cop actually catching a couple in the act are very slim, so they use this condom-count as probable cause.

Another way to go about it is to focus on the areas. Portland in the 1990s marked out certain zones. If you were in one of them at night and didn't live there, they would give you a warning and take your name down. Second time, they'd arrest you on suspicion. It didn't work because the sex trade just shifted geographically to a new area outside the zones.

The problem isn't the illegality of prostitution, it's the lack of enforcement. Stopping street prostitution is really easy. Birmingham used to have a huge problem that's now all but gone, and if they can do it anyone can. The sex trade finds it far harder to shift than many people to imagine. In Plymouth it's in exactly the same place as it was 100s of years ago. This is because users of street prostitutes are reluctant to form social networks and keep each other informed of the latest hooker news. When an area of prostitution moves a large proportion of them will be unable to find the area again without a major effort. Force the areas to keep changing and the trade will rapidly die off and be replaced by a far safer brothel alternative.

Then Portland won. The forced the trade to move from the "zones". Isn't that the point of these laws anyway. Not in my back yard.

@Czech: No, Portland lost because the sex trade continued, just a few blocks away and still within city limits. Eventually a new mayor was elected and they did away with that zone system.

@Octavious: I'd say the advent of the internet has made it easier to find strolls than previously. There are open discussion forums (also monitored by police) on locations, workers, police activity, etc. That's within the US, I don't have a good sense of UK. My sense is that there is less street action in the UK, in favor of private flats.

I have no idea what things were like before the internet, but there open discussion forums for uk street prostitution are practically non existent. There is an infamous prostitution site (which became well known only when Labour tried to shut it down) that is openly hostile to the concept of street workers.

It is a really simple formula. Crack down on street prostitution where is operates, allow a viable and better alternative is the form of private flats and brothels, and street prostitution grinds to a halt. Prostitution is a business. Create an environment where street workers can no longer compete with other forms of the trade and they will, and do, fail.

Haha, my initial reaction was "what, lemme check some sites I suspect have such discussions so I can refute that". Then a few URLs later I realized "oops, I'm on a work computer". Somebody may be coming by to have a little chat with me.

I agree that if indoor private arrangements (or drive-in stalls like they have in Germany) are legal or permitted, street prostitution should disappear. My understanding is that in the UK private flats/brothels are technically illegal but tolerated. In the US, they're illegal and get busted. That drives some women to the streets, then neighbors complain, and the cops have to figure out what to do at street-level, which leads to things like this condom-count policy.

When I lived in Vienna there were legal brothels all over. Probably the saddest thing in the world. They make strip clubs look like Whole Foods.

Ha! I just realized that post may make it seem like I ever went in one. No, but the signs and posters on the outside were pretty explicit, as you can imagine.

@Oct - But street walkers are cheeper than brothels or ascort services because they don't have the overhead. The key is legalizing and regulating prostitution so that only the streetwalker is illegal and then make the penalties for soliciting and hooking on the street much stiffer. When you have clean and safe and legal environments like just outside Las Vegas, then you reduce the clientel of the street walkers to those willing to take the risk in leiu of the legal alternatives.

Pretty bad policy. And if they are using the condoms as evidence they would be confiscating them.

Well said draug.

In China, 25% of the women are street-walkers, 25% are trick-cyclists, 25% are mistresses and the the remaining 25% are undecided.

Somebody may be coming by to have a little chat with me, too, THM.

I think you may have muted me so you might not get that message.

@Timur: 25% of the women are street-walkers, 25% are trick-cyclists, 25% are mistresses, and the remaining 75% can't multitask.

@ TheHangedMan: "My understanding is that in the UK private flats/brothels are technically illegal but tolerated."

Actually - just for information, brothels are generally illegal in the UK but a single prostitute working from her own flat/house is perfectly legal.