BEWARE MASSEUSES AND MASSAGE PARLOR OWNERS OF VICE UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS

By:   Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq.

            The City of Los Angeles has a proliferation of  Swiss and/or Thai massage parlors.  Young Thai or Swiss masseuses do body massage on  patrons for half hour at about $30.00 to $45.00, or an hour at about $50.00 to $60.00 or more.

            The LA Weekly and LA Express abound with advertisings of massage parlors.    Some massage parlor owners team up with chiropractors, who do massages in their clinics by masseuses of various nationalities.

Violations of Sections 647(b)

 On Prostitution and 316 On Keeping

A Prostitution House Of The Penal Code:

            The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has a Detective Support & Vice Division that conducts prostitution investigations through undercover operations on massage parlors to determine violations:  (1)  of Section 647(b) of the California Penal Code on solicitation, engaging, and agreement to engage in an act of prostitution and commission of an act in furtherance of the agreement; and (2) of Section 316 of said Penal Code on keeping an disorderly house for the purpose of prostitution or letting (leasing) any apartment or tenement to be used for prostitution.

            Violations of said Sections 647(b) and 316 of the Penal Code are misdemeanor offenses, punishable by confinement in the county jail for not exceeding one (1) year and/or fine.

            Section 647(b) thereof defines “prostitution” to include “any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.”

Typical Vice Undercover

Operation In Massage Parlor:

            A.  Conversation With Owner:

             Vice undercover agents are trained in prostitution arrests by attending and completing the LAPD 40-hour vice school and formal roll call training sessions specific to prostitution (punished by said Section 647(b)) and loitering for the purpose of prostitution (punished by Section 653.22 of the Penal Code), and lewd acts in public (punished by Section 647(a) of the Penal Code).         

            In an actual criminal case handled by this Author at the Central Arraignment Court, Department 83, the Hon. Karla D. Kerlin, Presiding, on December 17, 2008, the Arrest Report states the following investigation conversation between the Officer and the Thai owner of the massage parlor:

            “Defendant 1 (name withheld to protect his privacy):  Hello and welcome to                               (name of massage parlor)!

            Officer (name withheld to protect his privacy):  So you guys are (name of                                               massage parlor) also?

            Defendant 1:  Yes, we are combined as one.  We really got busy here so we                             decided to open another location.

            Officer:  Good.  How many girls do you have working today?

            Defendant 1:  I have two (2) here and three (3) downstairs.

            Officer:  So do the girls do anything different at each location?

            Defendant  1:  They do the same just make you happy; I will give you the new girl so you can test her out!

            Officer:  I don’t want to waste my money for nothing!

            Defendant 1:  If she don’t take care of you let me know I have other girls here that will!

            Officer:  Okay I just want half/hour today because I am pushing for time!

            Defendant 1:  Okay $30.00!”

            After the Officer paid with two (2) pre-recorded $20.00 bills, and Defendant 1 handed him $10.00 change, he was directed to a room and told to wait for the new girl.

            B.  Conversation With New Masseuse:

             The new Thai girl had just arrived from Thailand about three (3) weeks earlier.  Wearing a red blouse with a yellow top and white pants (not the required uniform for licensed massage therapists), she entered the room and stated her name.  Her name is withheld to protect her privacy.

            She directed the undercover officer in plain clothes to remove his clothing.  The Officer, who has Department approval to disrobe, did so.  A client of this Author, she told this Author, that the Officer was covered by a towel.

            The following conversation between the Officer and the new masseuse is stated in the Arrest Report:

            Defendant 2:  Hi, my name is….

            Defendant 2  spoke very little English.  (Broken)

            Officer:  I have very little time today.

                        The Thai masseuse began to massage the Officer’s upper back for         approximately 1-3 minutes.

            Defendant 2:  So you come here a lot?

            Officer:  Just when I am stressed out at work!

            Defendant:  Want do you want today?

            Officer:  What can I get?

            Defendant 2:  Moving her right hand in an up/down motion.  I can’t do anything else because you brought

                                  your cell phone inside.

            Officer:  So, all you can do is a hand job?

            Defendant 2:  Moved her head in an up/down motion.

            Officer:  So, how much for a hand job?

            Defendant 2:  $40.00

            Officer:  Man, $40.00 for a hand job?

            Defendant 2:  I am new, I need to make money!”

Arrests, Posting Of Bail,

And Release From Custody:

            Based on the actions and statements of the new Thai masseuse and the training and experience and results of the Officer’s investigation, he formed the opinion that she was engaging in prostitution and had solicited him and agreed to perform sex acts in exchange for money.

            The arrest team and point/cover officers were notified that a violation had taken place.  Defendant No. 1, a part-time receptionist, who took the place of the owner who had left earlier after his conversation with the officer, was arrested for retrieving money, offering sexual favors, and having knowledge of the activity at the location, under said Section 316.

            And Defendant No. 2, the new Thai masseuse, was arrested for prostitution under said Section 647(b).  Defendant No. 1 posted $500.00 cash bond and was released from custody; and Defendant No. 2 posted $2,000.00 cash bond, and was likewise released.

Arraignment Of Defendants No. 1

And No. 2 At Central Arraignment

Court (Departments 81 and 83):

            This Author was informed by the bailiff in Department 81 that the name of Defendant No. 1 was not in the court calendar for December 17, 2008.  A check with the criminal law clerk at the Clerk’s Office revealed that no complaint was filed by the City Attorney against him.

            Indeed, Defendant No 1 was and is not the owner of the massage parlor, only a part-time receptionist.  He was wrongly arrested.  The City Attorney apparently rejected the recommended charge under said Section 316.      

            Defendant No. 2 was charged with a Misdemeanor Complaint by the City Attorney, with Count I of loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution under Section 653.22 of the Penal Code and Count II of soliciting, engaging, and agreeing to engage in prostitution under said Section 647(b).

Plea Bargaining And Sentencing

Under Section 647(h), Penal Code:

            This Author, informed the Deputy City Attorney assigned to Department 83 that his Thai masseuse client had told him that:  (1) the Officer tried to get her consent to do a hand job, but she refused; (2) she hardly speaks English, only three (3) weeks in the United States at the time of the incident; and (3) she has no prior arrest nor conviction.

            This Author also discussed the immigration consequences of conviction for prostitution, a crime involving moral turpitude, which the client insisted did not occur, with the Deputy City Attorney.

            Considering that it would be her word against that of a Vice Officer, and that the jury would likely believe the Officer over a Thai tourist, unlicensed masseuse, she agreed to plead no contest to the crime of loitering in a private property under Section 647(h) of the Penal Code, not a crime involving moral turpitude, for no jail time, 24 months of summary probation, 10 days of Caltrans community work with two (2) days of credit, stay away from the massage parlor, aids education, and $245.00 of court fines.

            The understanding Deputy City Attorney agreed to the no contest plea to the added Count III, and dismissed Counts I and II.  The Thai masseuse was sentenced accordingly by Judge Karla D. Kerlin.

******

            (The Author, Roman P. Mosqueda, is a past participant of the Trial Advocacy Program (TAP) of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, a member of the California Public Defenders Association, and has practiced criminal defense for over twenty (20) years  in California.)