I interviewed prominent attorney and strip club landlord Dominic Gentile on Saturday about last weeks' controversial Nevada Supreme Court decision. The decision allows the city of Las Vegas to punish strippers or customers who "fondle" or "caress." Before that this ordinance had been deemed too vague by lower courts. And probably for good reason.
As I blogged last week, the problem for dancers and customers is that no one involved in the case agrees on what the fondle and caress ban means. This includes the lawyers on both sides and the judge who wrote the opinion that the ordinance was not vague. For one thing the judge seems to think the ordinance is meant to ban lap dances, but the lawyer for the city who fought to uphold the ordinance disagrees.
This may not be a complete list, but these clubs all fall in the city limits of Las Vegas and therefore are places where the no longer vague ordinance is being enforced: Olympic Gardens, Treasures, Cheetahs, Crazy Horse Too, Talk of the Town, Sheri's Cabaret, Glitter Gultch and Larry's Villa.
I turned to Gentile to help sort this out, because the very nature of the lap dance in Las Vegas was established in 1996, when Gentile successfully represented Club Paradise (located across from the Hard Rock) in a fight against the county's lap dancing ordinance. As a result of that case, neither Gentile's Palomino in North Las Vegas nor any of the topless bars in the county (like Scores and Club Paradise) are impacted by the decision.
Q: Were you surprised by
the Supreme Court decision?
A: Well, let me start by saying I haven't
had time to read it yet. But I am not surprised by
it given the current Nevada Supreme Court. If this
decision were to come down in 120 days it might be
different.
Q: You mean because of
the election?
A: Yeah. I don't want to cast a
negative light on the intelligence of any of the
justices, but when you are dealing with First
Amendment concern this current supreme court as a
whole has not been sensitive to them. You do have
some really guiding lights in the First Amendment
area on the court, but you are really talking
about two votes here. This was a 5-2 decision. I
believe the incoming justices would have seen this
case very differently.
Q: I don't want to put
you on the spot if you haven't read the decision.
But do you know the ordinance that was upheld?
A: Oh, yes. Yes, I do.
Q: Do you consider the
language vague?
A: Yes. I filed this very same
case 10 years ago and got a ruling holding this
very language vague. You have already had two
District Court judges that have considered it [and
ruled it vague]. I think the most significant
thing is that [City Attorney] Brad Jerbic
disagrees...
Q: Yeah, I noticed that.
Didn't he win the case?
A: He won the case in the sense
that the court has said these are not vague terms.
However, Brad is interpreting the case somewhat
differently than the Supreme Court justices.
Q: According to the
Review-Journal, Justice Nancy Becker put in the
decision that the intent was to make lap dances
illegal and Jerbic said that isn't what the
ordinance intends.
A: Right. She is dead wrong in
terms of the ability to make lap dances illegal.
You can't do that. Dancing, even lap dancing, is a
First Amendment protected activity.
Q: If you owned a strip
club in the city would you be concerned right now?
A: Yes. Another problem, the
biggest problem, is that the county and the city
ordinances are both enforced by the same law
enforcement agency, Metro. What really needs to
take place out of common sense is a uniformity in
the ordinances and the interpretation of the
ordinances. Now, the problem is more complex
thanks to soon to be ex-Justice Nancy Becker. She
deems the ordinance to outlaw lap dancing. But the
man who drafted it and had to defend it says it
doesn't. Now, the police on the street are in this
difficult situation where they have to determine
what "fondle" and "caress"
mean. "Fondling" usually implies some
sort of lewd conduct but if you look at the
dictionary definition it definitely doesn't mean
that. I think it is going to be a real tough
situation for the clubs in the city. If I had a
place in the city right now I would want to sit
down with Metro and the City Attorney's Office to
find out how they are going to interpret it.
Q: Do you think this
confusion and the wide range of interpretation
encourage a culture where corruption thrives? One
cop can be tough and another see nothing wrong in
the same activity. I mean, we have had so many
problems with owners of strip clubs. Doesn't this
encourage a cop to ask for a bribe or a club to
offer one?
A: I think you overstated that.
You had a corruption problem at Cheetah's and
Jaguars because of Michael Galardi. Michael
Galardi is gone. There was a corruption problem at
Crazy Horse but that did not involve law
enforcement. With respect to the other clubs I
don't think there has been any allegations of
bribery.
I can tell you that as lawyer who represented clubs for a lot of years in opposing cases brought by the vice people at Metro, it has not been my experience that corruption has been prevalent. I believe we have a very honest police department. But to get to your question, it does encourage it. You can be sure there are some people at Metro just like at any other police department who are willing to be corrupted and this kind of environment definitely begs for that. But I think that is not going to happen.
I think the problem is going to be that in the city this is going to reduce a dancer's options to the lowest common denominator based on safety from prosecution. That is going to result in a loss of business for the city. But, I think, Mayor Goodman is the best mayor in the country when it comes to encouraging legitimate business activity. He has a liberal view of what sexual contact can take place between adults. And, it is my hope, he will take a lead here and get the city and Metro and the club owners into a room to work this out. If this is not vague, someone has to establish some guidelines so we are told what these words mean as far as Metro is concerned. Then everyone charged with enforcing the law at Metro has to also be on the same page with what the words mean.
Q: Final question: Is
there anything tourists coming here need to be
concerned about in all of this?
A: You have to consider what you
get for your money in terms of entertainment. This
only applies in the city. If I was a tourist, I
would not go to a club in the city. This is
another good reason to go to the Palomino.