Here are some excerpts from the federal code from Prof. Mark Tunick's FAU website. We report, you decide:
18 USCS @ 2421 (1994) @ 2421.
*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 103-321, APPROVED
8/26/94 ***
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 117. TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND
RELATED CRIMES @ 2421.
Transportation generally
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution,
or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged
with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both
HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES PRIOR LAW AND REVISION:
1948 Act
This section is based on Act June 25, 1910, ch 395, @@ 1, 2,
5, 8, 36 Stat. 825--827 (former 18 U.S.C. @@ 397, 398, 401, and
404).
AMENDMENTS: 1949. Act May 24, 1949, substituted "induce" for
"induct" in the second paragraph.
1986. Act Nov. 7, 1986, substituted this section for one
which read: "Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, any woman or girl
for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other
any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,
or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose
to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a
prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in
any other immoral practice; or "Whoever knowingly procures or
obtains any ticket or tickets, or any form of transportation or
evidence of the right thereto, to be used by any woman or girl
in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia
or any Territory or Possession of the United States, in going to
any place for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for
any other immoral purpose, or with the intent or purpose on the
part of such person to induce, entice, or compel her to give
herself up to the practice of prostitution, or to give herself up
todebauchery, or any other immoral practice, whereby any such
woman or girl shall be transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, or in the District of Columbia or any Territory or
Possession of the United States-- "Shall be fined not more
than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.".
I. IN GENERAL
1. Generally
Congress had power over transportation among states; that
power was complete in itself; and Congress, as incident to it,
could adopt not only means necessary but convenient to its
exercise, and means could have quality of public regulation such
as predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Hoke v United States (1913)
227 US 308, 57 L Ed 523, 33 S Ct 281.
2. Constitutionality, generally White Slave Traffic Act (18
USCS @ 2421) was valid because it was intended to prevent use of
interstate commerce to facilitate prostitution or concubinage,
or other forms of immorality. Hoke v United States (1913) 227 US
308, 57 L Ed 513, 33 S Ct 281; Wilson v United States (1914) 232
US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; 33 S Ct 281; Wilson v United
States (1914) 232 US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; Caminetti v
United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct 192.
3. -Equal protection 18 USCS @ 2421 could be violated by
males or females, was thus sexuallyneutral and did not raise
questions of illegal classification. United States v Garrett
(1975, CA8 Mo) 521 F2d 444; United States v Green (1977, CA9
Wash) 554 F2d 372.
4. -Police power of states Fact that regulation of marriage
was state matter did not make predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
unconstitutional interference by Congress with police powers of
states. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed 12,
67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361.
reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was not unconstitutional as
unwarranted attempt on part of Congress to exercise police
powers. United States v Westman (1910, DC Or) 182 F 1017; United
States v Warner (1911, CC NY) 188 F 682.
5. -Standing Defendant who was charged with conspiracy to
knowingly transport women in interstate commerce for purposes of
prostitution in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 could not challenge
constitutionality of @ 2421 on grounds that since prostitution is
legal in parts of Nevada, that @ 2421, therefore, violates and
derogates rights of females to seek legal employment was
constrained by @ 2421, and he consequently lacked standing to
attack statute on this basis. United States v Pelton (1978, CA8
Mo) 578 F2d 701, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 334, cert den (1978) 439
US 964, 58 L Ed 2d 422, 99 S Ct 451. Defendant charged with
violation of Mann Act did not have standing to challenge
constitutionality of 18 USCS @ 2421 on grounds that statute
denied protection by protecting only female victims of
prostitution, since he was not victim. United States v Bankston
(1979, CA5 Tex) 603 F2d 528, 4 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1515.
6. Purpose In enacting predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421,
Congress was seeking to help states to stamp out degradation and
debauchery of women by punishing those who engage in using them
for prostitution. Bell v United States (1955) 349 US 81, 99 L Ed
905, 75 S Ct 620. Purpose of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 is
to reach and punish movement in interstate transportation of
women and girls with view to accomplishment of unlawful purposes
prohibited. Hunter v United States (1930, CA4 W Va) 45 F2d 55,
73 ALR 870. unlawful purposes prohibited. Hunter v United States
(1930, CA4 W Va) 45 F2d 55, 73 ALR 870. Primary purpose of
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was to deal with so-called
commercial type of case of transportation of females for immoral
purposes although statute includes within its scope so-called
noncommercial cases. United States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60
F Supp 281.
7. Applicability of statute, generally Predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 covered acts which might ultimately lead to sexual
relations. Athanasaw v United States (1913) 227 US 326, 57 L Ed
528, 33 S Ct 285.
There is no congressional intent to limit application of 18
USCS @ 2421 to only those cases involving commercial vice.
Caminetti v United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct
192; Long v United States (1947, CA10 Okla) 160 F2d 706; De
Vault v United States (1964, CA10 Kan) 338 F2d 179.
While predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 was primarily aimed at use
of interstate commerce for purposes of commercialized sex, it was
not restricted to that end. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329
US 14, 91 L Ed 12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed
704, 67 S Ct 361.
18 USCS @ 2421's protection is not confined to unmarried
women and its punishment is not intended to be limited to
unmarried men. Denning v United States (1918, CA5 Tex) 247 F
463.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 applied to voluntary
prostitution. Crespo vUnited States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151
F2d 44, cert dismd (1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct
520.United States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151 F2d 44, cert dismd
(1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct 520.
8. -Territorial applicability Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
was applicable to transportation taking place wholly within
District of Columbia, notwithstanding local laws for
districtconcerning prostitution. United States v Beach (1945)
324 US 193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
Predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 applied to Territory of Hawaii
although not specifically mentioned. Sun Chong Lee v United
States (1942, CA9 Hawaii) 125 F2d 95. Predecessor to 18 USCS @
2421 applied to transportation wholly within Puerto Rico.
Crespo v United States (1945, CA1 Puerto Rico) 151 F2d 44, cert
dismd (1946) 327 US 758, 90 L Ed 991, 66 S Ct 520.
9. Violations as single or separate offenses, generally
Indictment charging defendant with violation of predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2422 and with violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421
charged two separate offenses because engaging in practice of
debauchery and illicit sexual relations was different offense
than to go for purpose of debauchery and immoral purpose since to
engage in practice of debauchery and illicit sexual relations
would seem to indicate continued course of illicit sexual
relations, such as living with woman in state of concubinage.
Gillette v United States (1916, CA8 ND) 236 F 215.
II. ELEMENTS OF CRIME A. In General
12. Generally Immoral conduct and relations of parties were
not elements of offense under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
Neff v United States (1939, CA8 Iowa) 105 F2d 688. By terms of
18 USCS @ 2421 two indispensable ingredients to valid conviction
under statute are: (1) transportation in interstate commerce (2)
transportation for prohibited purpose. Stewart v United States
(1962, CA9 Wash) 311 F2d 109; United States v McConney (1964, CA2
NY) 329 F2d 467; United States v Dimsdale (1969, CA5 Fla) 410 F2d
358.
13. Pecuniary gain
There was no condition in predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 that
furnisher of transportation was to be guiltless unless he shared
in or somehow profited by hire of woman's body. Johnson v United
States (1914, CA7 Ill) 215 F 679. Pecuniary gain as motive for
transportation is not essential element of offense under Mann
Act (18 USCS @ 2421). Whitt v United States (1959, CA6 Ky) 261
F2d 907.
In prosecution for violation of 18 USCS @@ 2421 and 2422, merely
because evidence failed to show what, if any, share of proceeds
were given by defendant to other defendant would not prevent
conviction. United States v Sorrentino (1948, DC Pa) 78 F Supp
425, affd (1949, CA3 Pa) 175 F2d 721, cert den (1949) 338 US 868,
94 L Ed 532, 70 S Ct 143, reh den (1949) 338 US 896, 94 L Ed 551,
70 S Ct 238.
14. Knowledge or consent of individual transported It was not
necessary that woman should have known purpose held in view by
accused at time of her transportation to sustain conviction under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Prdjun v United States (1916,
CA6 Mich) 237 F 799; Qualls v United States (1945, CA5 Ga) 149
F2d 891. It was not necessary to prove immoral purpose on part
of girl transported to find violation of predecessor to 18 USCS
@ 2421. Hart v United States (1926, CA9 Or) 11 F2d 499, cert den
(1926) 273 US 694, 71 L Ed 844, 47 S Ct 92. Fact that woman
furnished automobile and money to make interstate transportation
did not bar jury from finding that defendant transported her in
violation of 18 USCS @ 2421. Brown v United States (1963, CA9
Wash) 314 F2d 293.
B. Transportation
15. Generally Offense denounced by predecessor to 18 USCS @
2421 as procuring of interstate transportation of women or girls
for purpose of prostitution, is complete when any such woman or
girl shall have been transported in such commerce as result of
any of criminal acts. Wilson v United States (1914) 232 US 563,
58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347.
16. Procuring transportation Defendants charged with causing
and procuring interstate transportation of girls for purpose of
prostitution, contrary to predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421, cannot
escape conviction because they did not control or instruct in
choice of means of conveyance, agent employed by them to effect
transportation, and furnished by them with money to cover
transportation expense. Wilson v United States (1914) 232 US
563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347. Procuring of interstate
transportation for girl to place where she could go and await
confinement was not violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
Van Pelt v United States (1917, CA4 Va) 240 F 346. It is not
offense under 18 USCS @ 2421 to counsel, command, or induce woman
to transport herself and therefore, where there was no evidence
that defendant in any way participated in interstate
transportation of victim, conviction would be reversed despite
fact that defendant participated in separate intrastate
transportation of victim. Twitchell v United States (1964, CA9
Wash) 330 F2d 759, reh den (1964) 376 US 946, 11 L Ed 2d 770, 84
S Ct 799 and cert den (1964) 376 US 916, 11 L Ed 2d 612, 84 S Ct
670.
17. Providing transportation Furnishing money to accomplice
with which to pay transportation of girls in interstate commerce
to become inmates of house of prostitution, and with which money
such transportation was furnished, was violation of predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421; but furnishing of cab fare for such girls
from railroad station in destination town to house of
prostitution in such town did not constitute violation; such
transportation being intrastate. Hietler v United States (1917,
CA7 Ill) 244 F 140.
It was sufficient in prosecution for violation of predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421 if transportation was by automobile operated
and controlled by accused. Gowling v United States (1920, CA9
Cal) 269 F 215.
Defendant violated predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 where he
furnished money for ticket and expenses for himself and woman in
interstate journey for purpose of having illicit relations.
Tobias v United States (1924, CA9 Or) 2 F2d 361, cert den (1925)
267 US 593, 69 L Ed 804, 45 S Ct 229. cert den (1925) 267 US 593,
69 L Ed 804, 45 S Ct 229.
Defendant could be guilty of transportation violative of
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 without being personally present
and accompanying female. Gillenwaters v Biddle (1927, CA8 Kan) 18
F2d 206.
It was not necessary that defendant actually transported
woman himself or that he procured tickets, but it was sufficient
if defendant caused to betransported or aided or assisted in
obtaining transportation in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421. Wagner
v United States (1948, CA5 Ala) 171 F2d 354, cert den (1949) 337
US 944, 93 L Ed 1747, 69 S Ct 1499.
Known brothel operator who gave woman, who had previously
engaged in prostitution at his solicitation, money to travel from
Arizona to California andarranged for her to ride in automobile
driven by another prostitute in order to get to brothel in
California to ply her trade, was guilty of causing woman to be
transported in interstate commerce in violation of 18 USCS @
2421. Ege v United States (1957, CA9 Cal) 242 F2d 879.
Defendant could be found to have procured interstate
transportation of woman for immoral purposes in violation of 18
USCS @ 2421 where jury could properly find that loan made by
defendant to woman was connected to her presence veryearly next
morning in another state. Lattanzio v United States (1957, CA9
Cal) 243 F2d 801.
18. Inducing transportation Evidence that defendant
knowingly induced and procured interstate transportation of girl
by definite promises and enticements, and who gave assurance of
place and means to practice prostitution and did it for profit
she got out of it was sufficient to sustain conviction under
predecessor of 18 USCS @ 2421, although actual transportation
was made by another. Schrader v United States (1938, CA8 Mo) 94
F2d 926.
Where woman made interstate journey to defendant's house of
prostitution at her own expense because of defendant's request by
telephone that she return, and there was no evidence that
defendant gave any aid or assistance in obtaining transportation,
defendant was not guilty of causing unlawful transportation in
violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 although she might have been guilty
of inducing such transportation in violation of 18 USCS @ 2422.
Le Page v United States (1945, CA8 Minn) 146 F2d 536, 156 ALR
965.
Act of furnishing money which is used for interstate trip
allegedly in violation of 18 USCS @ 2421 and in accordance with
plan of one who furnishes money goes beyond mere persuading and
inducing and constitutes offense within purview of statute.
Williams v United States (1959, CA4 NC) 271 F2d 703.
Mere inducement to travel for purpose of prostitution when
prostitute is likely to and does get transportation for herself
does not violate 18 USCS @ 2421. Graham v United States (1946)
81 App DC 49, 154 F2d 325. 18 USCS @ 2421 does not extend to
cases of mere inducement, since if it did so, 18 USCS @ 2422
would be redundant. United States v Jones (1990, App DC) 909
F2d 533.
19. Manner or means of transportation In order to constitute
offense under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421, it was not essential
that transportation was by common carrier. Wilson v United
States (1914) 232 US 563, 58 L Ed 728, 34 S Ct 347; Holden v
United States (1928, CA9 Ariz) 23 F2d 678...
Defendant was guilty of violating 18 USCS @ 2421 regardless of
fact that he and prosecuting witness were in separate automobiles
when crossing border into Alaska from United States. Bennett v
United States (1956, CA9 Alaska) 234 F2d 675.
C. Interstate or Foreign Commerce
... Where dominant purpose of transporting girls in automobile
across bridge through which state line passed was to transport
girls from one state into another for immoral purposes, fact that
when car approached state line girls got out and walked across
line and then got back in car for rest of trip did not have
effect of splitting trip into segments, so as to bar prosecution.
United States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60 F Supp 281.
Where attempted transportation of girl from one state into
another for immoral purposes in violation of predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 was suppressed by girl and police officers before
transportation reached state line, transportation was not
interstate but was intrastate. State v Reed (1917) 53 Mont 292,
163para. 477.
21. District of Columbia Transportation of woman between
points within District of Columbia with intent or purpose to
induce or entice her to practice prostitution violatesFederal
White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421). United
States v Beach (1945) 324 US 193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
... 24. -Particular circumstances Evidence showing
defendant practiced illicit sexual relations with woman withwhom
he traveled interstate, and who periodically entered house of
prostitution to supply them with funds, was sufficient to
sustain conviction under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Hoffman
v United States (1937, CA9 Cal) 87 F2d 410. Defendant violated
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 when she took her niece from Texas
to Arkansas, placed niece in house of prostitution run by
defendant, received fixed percentage of niece's earnings and
charged her with fixed room rental. Grayson v United States
(1939, CA8 Ark) 107 F2d 367. While defendant could not be
convicted upon mere ground that she operated house of
prostitution to which apparently women were accustomed to come
from other states, she was not entitled to acquittal of charge
under predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 where women she urged to come
from point in another state were also prostitutes subject to
orders of her codefendants. McGuire v United States (1945, CA8
Minn) 152 F2d 577. Where there was evidence that defendant's
wife was prostitute and he knew it,that she was practicing
prostitution in Peoria, Illinois, before he brought her to
Evansville, Indiana, for purpose of engaging in same work, which
she didwithin 48 hours after their arrival, it was sufficient to
sustain conviction of violation of predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421.
United States v Fleenor (1947, CA7 Ind) 162 F2d 935. Evidence
that witness worked as prostitute for defendant, that he beat her
and she left him, that they thereafter went to Mexico for purpose
of getting married and were married while there, that upon their
return defendant put witness back to work for him, warranted
conclusion by jury that interstate journey and marriage was
nothing but device to violate 18 USCS @ 2421. Langfordv United
States (1949, CA9 Cal) 178 F2d 48, cert den (1950) 339 US 938, 94
L Ed 1355, 70 S Ct 669. Where defendant took two girls from
Galveston, Texas, where they engaged in prostitution at
defendant's house, to Louisiana to attend to some legal matters
and thereafter returned to Galveston defendant was not liable
under 18 USCS @ 2421 since there was no intention to engage in
prostitution in Louisiana. Smart v United States (1953, CA5 Tex)
202 F2d 874.
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction under 18 USCS @
2421 where defendant took victim into his home, admittedly had
intercourse with her, and then suggested that they were going to
another state to place her in house of prostitution since from
these acts it is reasonable to infer that he intended to entice
her to give herself up to debauchery at time of interstate
transportation. United States v Marks (1959, CA7 Ind) 274 F2d
26. -Debauchery Term "debauchery" as used in predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421 is not limited to being synonym for "seduce," but
includes also exposing of woman to such influences as will
naturally and inevitably so corrupt her mind and character as to
lead her to act of sexual immorality, or leading of already
sexually corrupt woman to engage or continue more or less
habitually in sexually immoral practices. Van Pelt v United
States (1917, CA4 Va) 240 F 346. "Debauchery" as used in
White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @2421) is not
limited to initial successful assault upon girl's virtue or to
her more or less enjoying persistence in state of adultery or
concubinage. United States v Mellor (1946, DC Neb) 71 F Supp
53, affd (1947, CA8 Neb) 160 F2d 757, cert den (1947) 331 US 848,
91 L Ed 1858, 67 S Ct 1734.
27. -Lewd dancing or other public exhibitions Predecessor
to 18 USCS @ 2421 was violated by transportation of woman in
interstate commerce for purpose of becoming accused's mistress,
and it was notessential that there was any intention that gain
was to be derived from woman's transportation. Caminetti v
United States (1917) 242 US 470, 61 L Ed 442, 37 S Ct 192.
Employment of young girls in Indiana, and their
transportation to Illinois, to take part in public exhibitions
which defendants furnished as part of entertainment features of
traveling carnival was violation of White Slave Traffic Act
[predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 et seq.] if employment and
influenceswith which defendants surrounded girls tended to induce
them to give themselves up to condition of debauchery which
eventually and naturally would lead to course of immorality
sexually. United States v Lewis (1940, CA7 Ind) 110 F2d 460,
cert den (1940) 310 US 634.
28. -Polygamous marriage Members of Mormon sect who
practiced polygamy and each of whom transported atleast one
plural wife across state lines, either for purpose of cohabiting
with her, or for purpose of aiding another member of cult in
such project could be held guilty of violating predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421. Cleveland v United States (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed
12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den (1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct
361; Malaga v United States (1932, CA1 Mass) 57 F2d 822.
Enticement of girl into another state to contract bigamous
marriage and after such marriage persuading her to live with
defendant in immoral way was no offense under predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421. Gerbino v United States (1923, CA3 NJ) 293 F 754.
Conviction under White Slave Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS
@ 2421) will be upheld where it was shown that defendant, while
"married" to two other women, transported girl from District of
Columbia into Virginia, where they were bigamously married, and
then transported her from Virginia back to District of Columbia,
where they had sexual relations. Burgess v United States (1924)
54 App DC 71, 294 F 1002.
29. -Rape Transportation by defendant of woman across state
line with purpose of raping her violated 18 USCS @ 2421 since
statute covers interstate transportation of woman without
pecuniary motive where intent is to have illicit relations with
her by force or otherwise. Poindexter v United States (1943, CA8
Ark) 139 F2d 158; Brown v United States (1956, CA8 Mo) 237 F2d
281; Wegman v United States (1959, CA8 Mo) 272 F2d 31.
Transportation of girl as secretary was not offense under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421 unless there was present purpose to
have sexual intercourse with her. Ghadiali v United States
(1927, CA9 Or) 17 F2d 236, cert den (1927) 274 US 747, 71 L Ed
1328, 47 S Ct 660. Proof that defendant took woman not his
wife, in automobile to another state and lived with her in
hotel, registered as husband and wife, with other evidence of
intent, supported conviction under predecessor of 18 USCS @ 2421.
Rockwell v United States (1940, CA9 Cal) 111 F2d 452.
Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for violation
of 18 USCS @ 2421 where defendant and woman were living together
in New York and went to Washington and continued to hold
themselves out and act as husband and wife. United States v Pape
(1944, CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778, cert den (1944) 323 US 752, 89 L Ed
602, 65 S Ct 86.
Sexual intercourse after interstate transit for purpose other
than suchintercourse was not offense under 18 USCS @ 2421.
United States v Grace (1934, CA2 NY) 73 F2d 294. If sole
purpose of trip was legitimate, purely incidental intent to have
illicit relations was not federal offense under predecessor to 18
USCS @ 2421.Yoder v United States (1935, CA10 Okla) 80 F2d 665;
United States v Pape (1944, CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778, cert den (1944)
323 US 752, 89 L Ed 602, 65 S Ct 86; United CA2 NY) 144 F2d 778,
cert den (1944) 323 US 752, 89 L Ed 602, 65 S Ct 86; United
States v Jamerson (1944, DC Iowa) 60 F Supp 281.
III. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CRIMES
... 38. State criminal laws, generally Local laws of
District of Columbia, which make it criminal offense for
"anyprostitute" to invite or persuade any person to go with her
to any building for purpose of prostitution, or for any person
to entice or force any woman to go to house of assignation, or
for any person to invite, induce, or procure another to engage
in prostitution or to go to any place for purposes of
prostitution, do not operate to except from Federal White Slave
Traffic Act (predecessor to 18 USCS @@ 2421 et seq)
transportation of woman for immoral purposes, wholly
withinDistrict of Columbia. United States v Beach (1945) 324 US
193, 89 L Ed 865, 65 S Ct 602.
Fact that offense proved may contain elements of graver crime,
cognizable by state law, does not affect prosecution under
predecessor to 18 USCS @ 2421. Yeates v United States (1918, CA5
Ga) 254 F 60, cert den (1919) 248 US 583, 63 L Ed 432, 39 S Ct
136.
While states alone can penalize practice of prostitution,
debauchery, orother immoral conduct within their respective
borders, Congress has power under Constitution to forbid such
immoral practices and conduct through channels of interstate
commerce. Cleveland v United States (1945, CA10 Utah) 146 F2d
730, affd (1946) 329 US 14, 91 L Ed 12, 67 S Ct 13, reh den
(1946) 329 US 830, 91 L Ed 704, 67 S Ct 361 and revd on other
grounds (1946) Chatwin v United States 326 US 455, 90 L Ed 198,
66 S Ct 233.
39. -Effect of federal prosecution upon subsequent state
prosecution Fact that woman was arrested and charged with
violation of local ordinance regarding immorality did not
preclude prosecution under 18 USCS @ 2421 on on double jeopardy
ground since different evidence would be necessary to sustain two
offenses. United States v Tyler (1972, CA10 Wyo) 459 F2d 647,
cert den (1972) 409 US 951, 34 L Ed 2d 223, 93 S Ct 297.
40. -Conflict with federal law State statute making it
unlawful to transport woman into, through, or across state, for
purposes of prostitution, was proper exercise of state police
powerand not interference with interstate commerce. Sisemore v
State (1918) 135 Ark 179, 204 SW 626.
... 87. -Wife as victim In prosecution under 18 USCS @ 2421,
victim of offense may be compelled, over her objection and that
of defendant, to testify on behalf of prosecution,
notwithstanding fact that defendant and victim were, at time of
prosecution, married, and marriage took place after commission of
offense. Wyatt v United States (1960) 362 US 525, 4 L Ed 2d 931,
80 S Ct 901.
Husband's privilege as criminal defendant to prevent his wife
from testifying against him is inapplicable in prosecutions for
prostituting his wife, in violation of White Slave Traffic Act
(18 USCS @ 2421), since such crimeconstituted "shameless offense
against wifehood." United States v Massey (1965) 15 USCMA 274,
35 CMR 246.
18 USCS @ 2422 (1994) @ 2422. Coercion and enticement
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in
prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can
be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under the
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 USCS @ 2422 (1994) @ 2422. Coercion or enticement of female
"Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
woman or girl to go from one place to another in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, for the purpose of
prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or
with the intent and purpose on the part of such person that such
woman or girl shall engage in the practice of prostitution or
debauchery, or any other immoral practice, whether with or
without her consent, and thereby knowingly causes such woman or
girl to go and to be carried or transported as a passenger upon
the line or route of any common carrier or carriers in interstate
or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any
Territory or Possession of the United States, shall be fined not
more than $ 5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.". 1988. Act Nov. 18, 1988 substituted "or foreign
commerce" for "of foreign commerce".
