A California appellate court has issued an interesting decision on pimping and its relationship to the right of association.
The case of People v. Grant involves Sean Ali Grant, who in 2007 began an "intimate relationship" with a woman. The two later began sharing an apartment, which the woman apparently also used when she worked as a prostitute.
In March 2009, police came to the apartment in response to a call from the girlfriend - who was trying to move out but was concerned because Grant was angry. Grant fled the apartment but was run down and arrested by the police. He was eventually convicted of a variety of violations, one of which was pimping under Penal Code 266(h)(a).
According to the girlfriend's statements to police, Grant had advertised her services, scheduled appointments for her, and hid in their apartment closet while she performed her services. Grant would then pick up the money when the customers left, keeping some for himself and giving some to the girlfriend.
Grant challenged the pimping conviction on the grounds that it violated his constitutional right to freedom of association. He argued that sharing an apartment with a prostitute is not an illegal act.
The court didn't buy his argument. It said it was apparent that Grant derived "support and maintenance" from his girlfriend's earnings as a prostitute, meaning that he earned money from arranging her activities. This doesn't mean, however, that any person who accepts money from a prostitute is guilty of pimping. For example, a psychologist might provide treatment to a prostitute and be paid with money earned from prostitution, but the psychologist would not be guilty of pimping under 266(h)(a) because he "derives his support from his own performance of services." Grant could not make this sort of defense, though.
