## Facts

- Cynthia Hartway and others were charged in municipal court under California Penal Code § 647(b) for soliciting or engaging in prostitution.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming (1) the statutory term “solicit” was facially vague and (2) Oakland police enforced § 647(b) in a manner intentionally discriminating against women.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the municipal court made detailed findings, rejected both challenges, and denied dismissal.
- Defendants sought extraordinary relief in superior court, which issued a peremptory writ of prohibition halting the prosecutions, finding (1) “solicit” unconstitutionally vague and (2) enforcement unconstitutionally discriminatory against women.
- The People petitioned the California Supreme Court for relief to prevent enforcement of the superior court’s writ and allow prosecutions to proceed.
- Evidence showed disparate arrest figures (e.g., far more women than men arrested using decoys) and differences in processing practices; the prosecution offered counterevidence and explanations including safety policies and emphasis on pimp-related enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 647(b) is facially void for vagueness because “solicit” fails to give fair notice of prohibited conduct.
2. Whether the prosecutions were barred by equal protection due to sex-based selective enforcement requiring dismissal.
3. Whether a reviewing court, in extraordinary writ proceedings, may disregard a municipal court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence and reweigh the record.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court granted the People’s petition.
- The court held § 647(b)’s use of “solicit” is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.
- The court held defendants failed to establish intentional, purposeful sex discrimination in enforcement sufficient to bar prosecution.
- The court ruled the superior court erred by substituting its view of the evidence for the municipal court’s supported factual findings.
- The court annulled the superior court’s writ of prohibition, reinstating the municipal court prosecutions.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute is not void for vagueness if it can be given a reasonable, practical construction providing fair notice; “reasonable certainty” is sufficient.
- “Solicit” in § 647(b) has an understood meaning in criminal law (seeking to induce another to commit the prohibited act) and can be construed with adequate definiteness.
- An equal protection claim based on selective enforcement requires proof of intentional, purposeful discrimination; statistical disparity alone is insufficient without discriminatory intent.
- In writ review of a lower court’s factual determinations, reviewing courts must accept findings supported by substantial evidence and may not reweigh credibility or competing inferences.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Penal Code § 647(b) against a facial vagueness challenge, rejected a sex-based selective enforcement claim for lack of proven purposeful discrimination, and reaffirmed that writ review does not permit a superior court to reweigh supported municipal court findings.


People v. Superior Court (Hartway), 19 Cal. 3d 338, 562 P.2d 1315 (Cal. 1977)