The Sexist

Can Having Three Condoms In D.C. Really Get You Arrested?

Over 1,200 people have signed a petition to demand the right to carry three condoms in the District of Columbia without fear of arrest. Why do 1,200 people think that carrying more than two condoms is against the law?

Widespread media reports of a "three-condom rule" in D.C. began with an item on RH Reality Check investigating the District's anti-prostitution provisions. The item, written by researchers Aziza Ahmed and Brook Kelly, claimed that in the District of Columbia, "Anecdotal evidence suggests that having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker."

When that piece of intel migrated over to the Women's Rights blog at, Alex Dibranco phrased Ahmed and Kelly's anecdotal evidence this way: "Think you might get lucky tonight? Well, if you're in D.C., don't bring more than two condoms in your purse, or you could be arrested as a prostitute."

Last week, the three-condom rule hit Jezebel, where it received 4,426 page-views—and inspired dozens of comments from women concerned that a late-night prophylactic run could send them behind bars. "Don't many brands sell in 3-packs? Anyone who carries around a new package is automatically carrying 3," one wrote. "so people in long term relationships that decide to stock up are really screwed," wrote another. Feministing also picked up the three-condom rule. On Amplify, Jaclyn Friedman worried that her new "cute red vinyl condom case" designed to hold three Trojans could be grounds for arrest. "I once used over a dozen [condoms] in a particularly memorable weekend," Friedman writes. "And I still wasn't a sex worker." Meanwhile, Dibranco's post has been viewed over 40,000 times.

Where did this "three-condom rule" originate?

It's not a legal standard. In D.C., police can set up temporary "Prostitution Free Zones" where officers who suspect you of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution can force you to leave the area. If you don't leave, they can arrest you. The zone can remain in place for up to 10 days. According to the Prostitution Free Zone Law, "prostitution-related offenses" include "repeatedly beckoning to, stopping, attempting to stop, or attempting to engage passers-by in conversation for the purpose of prostitution," "stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles for the purpose of prostitution," or "repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons for the purpose of prostitution." Cops can also ask you to disperse if they recognize you from previous incidents as a gang member or a sex worker, or if a "reliable source" informs the police that they have observed you engaging in prostitution. The law contains plenty of objectionable procedures—they can make me leave my neighborhood if someone "reliable" tells them I'm a sex worker?—but no mention of contraceptives.

According to D.C. police spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump, carrying condoms can lead an officer to suspect prostitution—but there's no three-condom arrest rule. "Although the possession of multiple condoms may be a factor that leads an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution, it is not enough to establish probable cause for any crime," Crump writes. "Depending on the circumstances, factors such as this may justify an investigative stop—but not an arrest." She adds: "Essentially, if police cannot arrest someone for having two or more condoms outside a [Prostitution Free Zone], police cannot arrest them for it within a PFZ." [Update: DCist also reported on this statement from Crump].

Of course, it's possible that some D.C. police officers don't always follow the letter of the law. Is there any evidence that D.C. police have an internal three-condom rule?

Both RH Reality Check and cite a 2008 "Move Along Report" on the Prostitution-Free Zones as evidence of the cops' condom counting. The report cites plenty of evidence of police officers confiscating or destroying sex workers' contraception. According to the report, 8.6 percent of sex workers interviewed claimed that officers had taken "safe sex supplies" from them during their interactions with police; the report also cites evidence of police officers seizing or destroying condoms in Las Vegas and San Francisco. Again, the report's findings reveal police conduct that can be extraordinarily harmful for D.C.'s sex workers. However, the report includes no magic number of condoms required to ignite suspicion—and it doesn't provide any evidence that condoms alone are enough to get you locked up.

Cyndee Clay, Executive Director of HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive), says her organization has heard from "many, many" sex workers in D.C. who attest to police targeting them over condom possession. "People will come in and tell us they're afraid to carry too many condoms, because they're afraid of drawing attention from the police," says Clay. Still, no specific number has emerged as a red flag.

Brook Kelly, who co-wrote the original RH Reality Check item, wrote in an e-mail that the three-condom tidbit emerged during the course of her research. Kelly's work included "interviews with sex workers' organizations, sex workers, or individuals who do not identify as sex workers but who seek support from DC based sex worker organizations, organizations that worked with drug use in the DC area, lawyers working on issues of HIV/AIDS, homelessness and poverty, and law enforcement." But even though Kelly's anecdotal evidence suggests that "having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker"—at least according to one source she interviewed—her report didn't mention anything about three condoms leading to arrest.

D.C.'s anti-prostitution laws and internal practices are dangerous to sex workers. Frightening sex workers into being unsafe—or physically removing their protection from them—is an extremely harmful practice, whether it's reinforced in the law or not. But the blogs and petitions that extend the harm of these practices to any girl who runs over to CVS for a three-pack of condoms are misleading. "Did you know you can be charged with prostitution in Washington D.C. if the police catch you carrying three or more condoms on the street?" the petition reads, in an attempt to rally all of D.C.'s condom users against the Prostitution Free Zones. Really, condom possession is only going to present a problem if you're a sex worker. And that should be enough for all of us to get angry about.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

  • Pingback: The Schrug » Mommy, where do urban legends come from?

  • Pingback: Liquid Lunch « The Drunk Report

  • Julie

    Thank you for making that last point. I know certain individual women were freaking out about their own safety (and who wouldn't), let's not forget this rule still affects sex workers regardless of its status as "law" or "practice."

  • Jessica

    There are lots of outdated laws like this. I went to school at the University of Pennsylvania, which is in Philadelphia. Our sorority houses were not allowed to hold any kind of social events there because there is a Pennsylvania (perhaps Philadelphia?) blue law that says that if 5 or more girls/women are living in a residence and there is liquor in the house it is considered a brothel. I've never heard of anyone being convicted (and there was certainly covert alcohol in the house) but it goes to show how ridiculous perspectives used to be and still show up in our laws.

  • F*** this guy

    Holy christ, have you even asked any cops about this? No sane officer in his right mind is going to lock someone up for having more than three condoms. It wouldn't remotely qualify for Probably Cause. Reasonable suspicion? Sure. What's lost in this whole hysteria is that possession of condoms can only provide one piece of the puzzle that is P.C. or reasonable suspicion which would allow an officer to order a group of women to disperse.

    And for all you filthy jezebels out there- officers aren't going to be setting up roadblocks searching and counting condoms, so you can rest easy knowing you'll have enough condoms for all the turgid members you'll be accommodating this week.

  • Maxine Doogan
  • Joe Schmoe

    In the U.S.S.R, and former U.S.S.R., where bananas were not, and still aren't, too common a fruit, a woman standing at the side of the road eating a banana is supposedly a signal for prostitution. Not that the police would care, but if any of you ladies travel abroad, eat your bananas discreetly or you may wind up in some embarassing conversations.

  • Rick Mangus

    If this is true in a city with the highest HIV numbers of any city in the USA and some countries in the world would a stupid law like this be enforced, if it's true.

  • Julie

    F*** this guy, did you read the whole article? And probable cause my ass/reasonable suspicion my ass. If police officers pull over, question and arrest black men because they "fit a description" then don't underestimate them pulling similar moves on women who are loitering and carrying condoms. But the rights, health and safety of "filthy jezebels" sex workers and women are probably no concerns of yours. So don't worry about it, eh?

  • DB

    Folks... in DC there is no such law. Carry whatever you want. Just don't ignore the police if they ask you to move along when they see you loitering in a area prone to prostitution. Carry a thousand condoms, walk straight through a cruising strip, nod to strangers. Just don't engage in sex work with them, and if the police ask you to leave, leave.

    You can't be charged with a crime absent evidence of a crime. You can be wrongly arrested and released.

    Bad cops aren't total lunatics--just subject to pride power trips, taking out anger on third parties and "i'm trying to help" exaggeration/fabrication.

    Don't act the sex worker at a cruising ground and no one will wonder.

  • Pingback: End Prostitution Free Zones « Three Fifteen AM

  • Pingback: Discouraging condoms to discourage sex is unsafe, misguided « i, sandwich