An End to New York's War on Condoms?

Under current New York policy, cops can confiscate condoms as "evidence" of prostitution—and it happens regularly. "There may be no actual evidence, and the condom is their only way to trying to prove it," male escort turned advocate Hawk Kinkaid told the Associated Press. But a bill that would prohibit the existence of multiple condoms from being used as evidence in prostitution cases may finally have a chance in the New York legislature, according to the Associated Press.
Previous legislation of this sort in New York has failed. ("Sex workers are not a politically appealing constituency to most lawmakers," as Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who supports the legislation, told AP.) But it passed the Assembly in June 2013. And a spokesman for Republican leaders in the recently reconvened Senate said the bill is under consideration.
Independently, some New York prosecutors have already put end to using condoms as sex work evidence. Brooklyn and Nassau County prosecutors said in 2013 that they would no longer use condoms as evidence in prostitution cases. In a statement Friday, the New York Police Department said it was taking a look at its condom confiscation policy.
In a 2012 report from the Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center (UJC) and The PROS Network, half of sex workers surveyed said they sometimes didn't carry condoms for fear of law enforcement repercussions or had unprotected sex after police had confiscated condoms. "It's not a myth," Sienna Baskin, co-director of the Sex Workers Project at the UJC, told The Village Voice last year. "The practice of using condoms as evidence is very prevalent in New York."
But this isn't a police practice limited to New York. Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh are just a few cities where condoms can still be used as evidence. San Francisco only recently ended the practice. Carrying condoms is still criminalized in all of Louisiana and North Carolina.
These practices put us in line with anti-prostitution efforts in places like Kenya, Namibia, Russia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe—and out of line with established American privacy rights. In an article published in the Fordham Law Review last year, Meghan Newcomer noted that Griswold v. Connecticut established a fundamental privacy right in the use and access of contraception. "By taking condoms from suspected sex workers, police officers and departments are actually violating sex workers' constitutional right to privacy," Newcomer wrote.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is the police taking condoms from anyone not literally armed robbery?
Like any crime, it's not against the law when cops do it.
There are no crimes against individuals. Only crimes against the state. Since the police are acting as agents of the state, it is literally impossible for them to commit crimes. How can they commit crimes against the state when they are the state?
Obviously it's not the cop's fault. It's BUSHPIG CHRISTFAG's fault, cause, you know, BUSH.
After spending 30 years lecturing the public on safe sex:
"I just can't understand why there's so many unplanned pregnancies and STIs in this enlightened day and age..."
/government bureaucrat
I wonder if anyone has been pressuring the NY legislators.
"Too bad about poor Elliot Spitzer. His consorting with escorts became public and ruined his political career. Makes ya think, doesn't it, honey? Oh by the way, are you going to vote for that condom bill? Do it for me, sweetheart."
That's just silly. They aren't preventing suspected sex workers from getting abortions, so it obviously doesn't have anything to do with a right privacy.
if anything they are aiding them in getting abortions.
How this was ever an issue in the first place indicates that human beings are largely merciless scum.
Largely? No, human beings are largely decent. Cops and politicians are largely merciless scum.
The government's War on Parody is alive and well it seems.
Hawk Kinkaid should be the name of every male escort ever.
With the occasional Carlos Danger thrown in for variety.
That name is ruined forever.
Indeed, I thought we had already ruled for damnatio memoriae.
Should they also have gingery cropped mohawks and suspenders?
OT: Man bites dog - European government arrests a Muslim man for hate speech. He translated a book that "allegedly spreads racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and violence against 'inferior' races."
Well, no one can accuse the Czech Republic in being one-sided in enforcing their draconian restrictions on speech.
Fuck, as if I wasn't already depressed enough today.
Why do you hate reasonable common sense condom control, Elizabeth?
You can have a 10 inch condom, as long as you only put 7 inches in.
Just the tip?
Saw the title of the article, and immediately thought "ENB". Then I saw the byline. Then I chuckled.
Seems like a good case for a public interest exception to the rules of evidence, but certainly condoms are relevant. So it would take the rule to change it. People have a strange view of what evidence is.