Senate approves AB 379 to strengthen penalties for adults who solicit minors, adds loitering offense amid civil‑rights concerns

The California State Senate on July 15 passed Assembly Bill 379, which raises criminal penalties for adults who solicit minors and creates a survivor support fund, while also adding a loitering offense for people who loiter with the intent to purchase commercial sex. The bill passed the Senate by voice/roll-call with 33 ayes and 0 noes after extended floor debate.

AB 379, authored in the Assembly by Assemblymember Schultz and carried in the Senate by Senator Aragon, makes solicitation of a minor by an adult more than three years older a felony in some cases, authorizes a $1,000 fine directed to community-based survivor services, and adds tools for prosecutors including a new vertical prosecution grant program aimed at human‑trafficking cases. The bill also creates criminal and civil penalties for businesses alleged to be facilitating trafficking by failing to post notices or report suspected incidents.

Supporters described the bill as a needed step to hold buyers and businesses accountable, reduce demand for trafficking, and increase resources for survivors. "These kids are not criminals," said Senator Valadares, arguing the measure better protects 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds and channels fines to nonprofits serving survivors.

Opponents and some supporters urged changes to the measure's loitering language, arguing it could revive discretionary policing practices historically used to target Black, brown and LGBTQ+ people. "Loitering laws have a long and troubling history rooted in post‑slavery Black codes and Jim Crow era policies that were designed to surveil, control, and criminalize Black people just for existing," said Senator Dr. Weber Pearson, who pressed for clearer definitions and guardrails to prevent discriminatory enforcement. Several senators said the bill bundled two separate policy changes — the solicitation element and a new loitering offense — and they urged the author to work on statutory language fixes.

Senator Aragon, closing debate, acknowledged those concerns and said the bill’s loitering provision requires intent to purchase and that staff analyses identify areas for improvement. "Let's not lose sight of what this bill also does," Aragon said, listing the survivor fund, prosecutorial tools and penalties for businesses that look the other way. He asked colleagues for an aye vote to advance the measure while committing to further engagement on the loitering language.

The Assembly passed AB 379 earlier by a bipartisan vote of 74 to 0. During Senate debate, lawmakers recounted survivor testimony and years of legislative effort on trafficking bills, citing prior measures such as SB 14 and SB 1414 that targeted buyers and trafficking, and noting SB 357 (formerly AB 357/SB 357) had repealed an earlier loitering offense to address abuses.

Several senators said local law enforcement had used loitering enforcement as a tool to identify victims, citing instances where proactive stops led to rescues. Opponents emphasized risks of racial profiling and vague standards like "repeatedly circling an area" or "unauthorized stops," calling for tighter statutory definitions and procedural safeguards before the provision is implemented.

The Senate roll call recorded 33 ayes and 0 noes; the measure passed the Senate and now moves on for the next steps in the legislative process. Supporters and critics on the floor said they expect follow‑up amendments or clarifying language in subsequent committee and implementation work.

Votes at a glance: AB 379 (Assemblymember Schultz) — Senate passage: Aye 33, No 0; Assembly passage: Aye 74, No 0. Key provisions noted on the floor include felony solicitation where an adult is more than three years older than a minor, a $1,000 fine earmarked for community survivor services, a survivor support fund, new prosecutorial tools, and a newly defined loitering offense tied to intent to purchase commercial sex.

The debate combined elements of criminal‑justice policy and civil‑rights concerns, and senators on both sides said they expect additional work to refine loitering language and implement protections intended to prevent discriminatory enforcement.