The government appeals from the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of infor-mations charging appellees with solicitation for prostitution in violation of D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2701.1 Appellees had moved to dismiss the informations on the ground that the statute is discriminatorily enforced against women.

The court, after hearing testimony on the motions, concluded that Section 22-*292701 “is enforced exclusively against females”, that “it is neither the policy nor the practice of [the Metropolitan Police Department] to make any effort to arrest male persons who are on the streets looking for females with whom they can engage in sexual acts at a price” and that “it is the explicit policy and practice of the Department not to enforce that statute against males who would invite females to engage in sex for a price”. Accordingly, the court opined that “[s]o long as the . . . Department persists in its policy of enforcing Section 22-2701 solely against females, this court must dismiss the prosecutions resulting.”

The sole evidence before the trial court concerning the policy and practice of the Department in enforcing Section 22-2701 consisted of the testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Prostitution, Perversion and Obscenities Branch of the Morals Division of the Police Department. He testified in essence that:

In order to arrest for violation of Section 22-2701, a police officer must overhear the solicitation for prostitution;

In his opinion an offer by a male to pay a female money to engage in a sexual act with him would constitute the offense of solicitation for prostitution;

One of the functions of police officers assigned to his Branch is to be solicited by a prostitute, and his officers are instructed under no circumstances themselves to solicit but rather to wait until they have been solicited by the prostitute, a sexual act is described by her and a price agreed on before they can arrest her;

The modus operandi of his officers is to walk in the area where prostitutes are believed to be as if they were prospective customers, “the prostitute will normally, as he’s [the officer] walking by, say, ‘hi are you sporting’, and the conversation will go from there”;

The Department on occasion has placed female police officers on the street to pose as prostitutes and, thereafter, males looking for prostitutes were arrested on the charge of soliciting for prostitution; but, the cases “were all dismissed because [of] the entrapment aspect. And we have never had a conviction of a male subject for soliciting a policewoman that I know of”, because “the girl usually does the approaching apd if the policewoman says hi, are you sporting, that’s entrapment”;2 and,

In answer to a question from the trial court as to why women undercover officers posing as prostitutes in order to arrest men seeking to buy the favors of a prostitute could not adopt the same approach taken by undercover male officers making a case against prostitutes, the Lieutenant explained, “That seems to be the problem that it doesn’t just work that way on the street . . . the approach is always made by the girl . . . the john [male customer] feels that the woman should be telling him what he’s going to get . .” The male undercover officer is “able to get around . . . for the simple reason the girl is willing to tell what the act is the man is willing to obtain”.

As a starting point for our analysis we will assume that the Constitution 3 pro*30hibits discriminatory enforcement of criminal laws, and that impermissibly discriminatory conduct by the police bars prosecution under even valid laws.4 At the same time, we must recognize when dealing with law enforcement that prosecutorial discretion “is by its very nature exceedingly broad”. United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.Cir. 1974). “The conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not itself a federal constitutional violation.” Denial of equal protection of the laws can be found only where “selection [is] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 506, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962).

One claiming the defense of discriminatory enforcement of the laws bears a heavy burden of proving the actual existence of intentional and purposeful discrimination against him as an individual or the class of which he is a member. United States v. Cozart, supra, at 344; Washington v. United States, supra, 130 U.S.App. D.C. at 384, 401 F.2d at 925. See Moss v. Hornig, 314 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1963). Accepting the finding of the trial court that the Metropolitan Police Department is making no effort to seek out and arrest males who solicit females to engage in sexual acts with them for a price,5 such conscious and intentional selectivity in enforcement of the criminal laws is not vio-lative of the Constitution if it rests upon a valid ground. United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 1972). The police have, and indeed must have, broad discretion in allocating their available resources in the manner they deem will be most effective. Selectivity in law enforcement is impermissible only if designed to discriminate against those prosecuted rather than to be part of a “rational pattern of general enforcement.” People v. Utica Daw’s Drug Co., 16 A.D.2d 12, 21, 225 N. Y.S.2d 128, 136, 4 A.L.R.3d 393, 402 (1962).

In the instant case, the uncontroverted testimony was that the use of women undercover officers to arrest male solicitors of .prostitutes had proven infeasible, both because of the scarcity of women police officers on the force and because the general rule among streetwalkers is that the women must name the act and the price. The trial court rejected as contrary to “common experience” the testimony that (1) the prostitute makes and is expected to make the solicitation and (2) the Department’s brief experience with the use of women undercover agents had not resulted in convictions.6 We think it was error for the trial court to reject the uncontroverted testimony of the officer. We cannot agree that the testimony was inherently incredi*31ble, see Jackson v. United States, 122 U.S. App.D.C. 324, 353 F.2d 862 (1965), and no basis appears in the record to doubt the witness’s credibility. Apolskis v. Concord Life Ins. Co., 445 F.2d 31 (7th Cir. 1971).

Viewing all the evidence presented in this case, we are not convinced that appellees have, as a matter of law, demonstrated a conscious policy of discrimination based on sex in the enforcement of Section 22-2701.7 Given the testimony as to the nature of the offense at issue here and the past experience of the Department in enforcing the statute, and giving due respect to the discretion vested in the police rationally to allocate their resources and efforts where they find the greatest need and anticipate the greatest benefit, we do not find here administration of the statute with such “an evil eye and an unequal hand”, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 374, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1073, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

Accordingly, the orders of dismissal are reversed.

So ordered.

(concurring):

As I agree not only with Judge Kern’s conclusion but also his lucid reasons for reversing the trial court, a statement of additional grounds for reversal may seem superfluous. But, as the opinion of the trial court portrays such a distorted picture of the statutes in this jurisdiction dealing with commercialized vice and their enforcement, a few observations to put the matter in proper perspective seem to be in order.

By the device of quoting only a portion of that section of the Code under which appellees were charged — D.C.Code 1973, § 22-2701 — the author of the opinion asserted that “[t]he evidence . . . demonstrates beyond any doubt that the quoted portion ... is enforced exclusively against females.”1 This ignores the fact that this very section of the Code is relied upon by undercover officers in arresting men proposing homosexual conduct to strangers. (See citations of numerous decisions of the court affirming convictions for such solicitations under § 22-2701 collected in n. 4, Riley v. United States, D.C.App., 298 A.2d 228 (1972), a decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to this code provision.)

The trial court’s opinion also fails to state that § 2701 is only one part of Ch. 27, Title 22, of the D.C.Code — a comprehensive chapter entitled “Prostitution-Pandering” containing several other code sections defining other offenses related to the pro*32motion of commercialized vice, e. g., running houses of prostitution, § 22-2712;2 inducing females to reside in such houses, § 22-2705; procuring, § 22-2707, etc. The reported cases in the annotated code reveal that most of the offenders convicted under these sections have been males, and that in the enforcement of the procuring statute, arrests are frequently brought about by the use of plainclothes officers accosted by pimps who for a stated sum offer to arrange the services of a prostitute.3

In short, the implication that the police discriminatorily enforce the vice statutes only against women is misleading; and the trial judge’s denunciation of the police force for conforming to “our historical double standard” and analogizing the situation to a hypothetical policy of enforcing criminal statutes against blacks and not against whites must be deemed an unjudi-cial exercise of infla'mmatory rhetoric.

If the applicable District statutes or their enforcement were directed only at female vendors of illicit sexual activity, as may be the situation in some states — State v. Devall, 302 So.2d 909 (La. 1974) 4 — a constitutional question of some substance might be present. The text of the lower court’s opinion reveals, however, that its underlying notion is that the buyers as well as the sellers of illicit sexual services should be equally punished, and that while the statute prohibits only solicitation defined as “inviting, enticing, or persuading” —the police department could round up substantial numbers of prospective customers of prostitutes if it saw fit to put on the streets a squad of police — presumably women disguised as harlots — to provoke such invitations.5

According to the police official who testified, however, his department did adopt such methods in 1970 but discontinued the scheme because it did not result in convictions. Despite this explanation, the trial court without any record support whatever, saw fit to disparage this testimony and to mandate its own personal view of what police tactics might be effective.

Plainly, it is outside the province of a trial court to direct a police department, whose manpower is already severely strained in coping with the increase in such major felonies as murder, robbery, rape, and other assaults, how best to utilize its *33personnel in the enforcement of a relatively minor misdemeanor statute. As this court is satisfied that the record does not support any finding of sexual discrimination, I concur in the judgment of reversal.