In this case, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Jo Ellen Amman, as well as 33 others, who were charged with violating an Oakland ordinance (Municipal Code section 3-17.02) designed to regulate "loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution." The People of the State of California's argument rests heavily on regressive statements such as: "The prostitute manifests intent in a variety of silent, provocative ways -- by grooming, by coif, by walk, by glance, by gesture, by frequenting certain places, even just by standing." An important distinction in this case is the fact that the ordinance does not regulate sexual activity per se, just the acts that lead up to it, and its "impact" on a neighborhood.

The ACLU argues that this ordinance is "impermissably vague and overbroad." They write: "What the ordinance really appears to address is evil intentions," also noting that "...evil intentions per se cannot be criminalized." It points out that many of the signals used by sex workers and also used by pampleteers and leafletters garnering support for a political cause. They also argue that the ordinance violates a sex worker's rights against self-incrimination.

The outcome of the case isn't evident from the materials provided.