Some people were posting on the new California Court of Appeals ruling in the Los Angeles regional forum. Though it was in the Second Appellate District, other District will respect its holding, so it will hold for all of California. However, the posts didn't provide any context, explaining what the hell it means. One just provided a link. The other just cut-and-paste a few paragraphs.

Under California Penal Code 647(b), a conviction for prostitution or solicitation requires not only an agreement to prostitution, but an act in furtherance of. That means you have to agree to it, and do something more. Supposedly, requiring the act prevents entrapment and false arrests. The act has to be directly related to prostitution.

Under In Re Cheri, 70 Cal. App. 4th 100 (1999), the act can come before the agreement. A minor grabbed an undercover officer's crotch and then made an agreement for a blowjob for $30.

Which brings us to to the February 16, 2006 case of Kim v. Superior Court, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 189, 2006 WL 330313. A woman placed her finger on her mouth and told a police officer to be quiet when he asked her if he could have sex with her for a little more money. She raised her index finger and said "one" after the officer asked if he could have sex for sixty dollars. She then stated "yes" after the officer pointed to her groin area and asked if she was clean 'down there. She responded 'yes' when the officer asked whether she had a condom, and instructed the officer to take off his clothes.

The court held that mere words were enough to constitute the act. When the woman said to get undress, that were the words that were the act in furtherance that the law requires. No money changed hands, but by asking him to undress, it was clear she wanted to engage in prostitution. The words have to be in furtherance of prostitution.