Friday, Oct. 12, 2007 | 7:22 a.m.
In what massage parlor operators call an intimidation tactic, Metro Police raided a parlor last week where a group of owners have been meeting to plan their fight against a proposed Clark County ordinance that would restrict their operating hours.
Members of the new trade organization, the United Massage Business Association, claim the raid was designed to squelch opposition to the proposed law.
In particular, they question why police entered the massage parlor with weapons drawn and then pointed the store's wall-mounted security camera toward the ceiling before handcuffing the three women at the store.
Police, however, say the bust had nothing to do with intimidation, but was a routine undercover sting in which a masseuse offered sexual services.
The incident occurred on the day the proposed ordinance was introduced at a county zoning meeting. More than 15 massage business owners attended that meeting, where their attorney, Allen Lichtenstein, asked to meet with county staff and police to address the owners' concerns. The county agreed to Lichtenstein's request and put off a vote until December.
The proposal would require massage parlors to close from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. It would apply to all such businesses obtaining new permits, but the county would have the discretion to apply the restriction to those seeking renewals as well.
Concern about illicit sexual activity at massage parlors is the main reason for the proposal, but many massage parlor operators say the law would devastate their businesses, which profit from casino workers and others seeking late-night massages.
After the zoning meeting, the massage parlor owners met at Miyako, a Chinatown massage establishment that has become the new group's ad hoc headquarters in recent weeks. The group broke up after 7 p.m., according to those in attendance.
Then the action really began.
An undercover Metro officer entered Miyako about 10 p.m. Store surveillance video obtained by the Sun shows the officer speaking with the owner and then with a masseuse in the lobby. After paying, the officer is taken to a massage room.
A few moments later, three more officers enter the store. Two of them appear to have their weapons drawn. One of the officers then circle s behind the front desk and point s the mounted security camera toward the ceiling.
According to members of the new group, officers handcuffed the owner and two masseuses, who were the only ones in the store in addition to the four police officers. All three were women, association members said.
In the end, the masseuse who conversed with the undercover officer was arrested on a charge of soliciting prostitution. The others were not arrested.
The drawn weapons and the repositioning of the security camera are cause for concern, Lichtenstein said.
"It is very troubling when police act in a way that indicates they don't want to have public scrutiny or transparency regarding their actions," he said.
Officer Martin Wright, a Metro spokesman, said that when undercover detectives are involved, they try to avoid cameras.
"It is to protect the identities of the undercover detectives," Wright said.
The initial undercover officer was on camera for several minutes while speaking with the masseuse. And the other officers were on camera briefly inside the store and for longer times on the store's outside cameras.
"In a perfect world, their faces wouldn't be on there," Wright said.
As for the fact that officers appear to have drawn their weapons, Wright said that's standard procedure when officers enter an unknown situation.
"It's not an intimidation factor," he said.
Lichtenstein questioned that explanation.
"If there is a legitimate question of safety, I don't want to second-guess the police," he said. "But I like to think they don't routinely draw their weapons when making arrests of women."
William Sousa, a criminal justice professor at UNLV, said it did not surprise him that the officers would take out their weapons.
"When there is an element of the unknown, it's not unusual for police to do that," he said.
Pointing the camera at the ceiling is harder to explain, he said.
"That strikes me as usual, but I don't know the circumstances," he said.
Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina professor and expert on police use of force, said the drawn weapons seemed "a little heavy-handed.
"The only time you would have your weapons drawn is if there is a threat," he said.
As for the cameras, "You would think police would want security cameras to take pictures of everything they do. That way when people complain about their heavy-handedness, they would have it on camera and could show otherwise."
When told that Metro Police considers the actions standard procedure, Alpert said: "If these are the procedures they use all the time, they should be reviewed."
archive
