Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1995-08-29 I I I ':~ 8-29-95 Seal Beach, California August 29, 1995 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:10 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Shelver, Interim city Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Steele, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA By consensus, the Council approved the order of the agenda as presented. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. The following is a transcript of the proceedings relating to the appeal of Pacific Pain Control in the matter of the revocation of a massage establishment permit by the Chief of Police. II BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SEAL BEACH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF CITY MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT. ) ) ) ) VOLUME I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, TAKEN AT SEAL BEACH CITY HALL, 211 8TH STRE!:.'T, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, COMMENCING AT 6:10 P.M., HEARD BEFORE THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL, REPORTED BY KRISTINA DELATORRE, CSR NO. 7870, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APPEARANCES: FOR THE APPELLANT: LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH T. VODNOY BY: JOSEPH T. VODNOY 316 WEST 2ND STREET SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 8-29-95 FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH: LAW OFFICES OF RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON BY: CRAIG A. STEELE 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET 38TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469 I CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR HASTINGS MR. DOANE MR. BROWN MR. LASZLO MS. FORSYTHE CITY MANAGER: JACK SHELVER CITY ATTORNEY: QUINN BARROW CITY CLERK: JOANNE YEO I N D E X CITY'S WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS I WILLIAM STEARNS 29 42 KENNETH MOLLOHAN 53 83 STEPHEN BOWLES 93 121 132 134 ROBERT MULLINS 141 178 CITY'S: E X H I BIT S MARKED FOR RECEIVED IDENTIFICATION IN EVIDENCE 1 - LETTER 34 2 - REPORT NUMBER DR951244 77 3 - REPORT NUMBER A950334 77 4 - REPORT NUMBER A950334-35 77 I 5 - REPORT NUMBER DR95-1243 177 I I I 8-29-95 MAYOR HASTINGS: I NEED TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. MR. BARROW: IT APPEARS THE APPLICANT AND HIS ATTORNEY ARE HERE AND MR. STEELE FROM MY OFFICE IS HERE AND THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE HERE. I THINK YOU CAN BEGIN THE MEETING. MAYOR HASTINGS: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 29TH. PLEASE COME TO ORDER. AND WILL YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE FLAG SALUTE? (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR HASTINGS: MRS. YEO, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? THE CLERK: MAYOR HASTINGS? MAYOR HASTINGS: HERE. THE CLERK: COUNCIL MEMBERS, MRS. FORSYTHE? MS. FORSYTHE: HERE. THE CLERK: MR. LASZLO? MR. LASZLO: HERE. THE CLERK: MR. BROWN? MR. BROWN: HERE. THE CLERK: AND MR. DOANE? MR. DOANE: HERE. MAYOR HASTINGS: NOW IS THE TIME FOR A SCHEDULED APPEAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION OF A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE. THE APPELLANT AND PERMITTEES ARE PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, AND BUSINESS OWNERS, CONRAD YOUNGERMAN AND KI SUN GRAHAM. THE ADDRESS OF THE BUSINESS IS 550 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 207, IN SEAL BEACH. MAY WE HAVE A REPORT FROM THE CITY CLERK REGARDING THE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING, PLEASE? THE CLERK: MADAM MAYOR, THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING FOR THIS APPEAL WAS MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, ON AUGUST 4TH, TO PACIFIC PAIN AND IN CARE OF THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY, MR. VODNOY, AND TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, MR. YOUNGERMAN AND MS. GRAHAM, ,AT 550 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF THAT HEARING AS THE ATTORNEY WAS OUT OF TOWN, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY NOTIFIED THEM AND THEY ACCEPTED THE DATE OF THIS APPEAL HEARING. MAYOR HASTINGS: THANK YOU. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS HEARING, WE WILL REQUEST THAT ALL PERSONS WHO INTEND TO GIVE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING DO SO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE ADMINISTER THE OATH TO ALL WITNESSES? WILL THE WITNESSES PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND MRS. YEO WILL GIVE YOU THE OATH. THE CLERK: THIS IS A TOTAL OF PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY THIS EVENING. IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. (WHEREUPON ALL PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES WERE COLLECTIVELY SWORN.) THE CLERK: WILL YOU PLEASE EACH STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? MR. BOWLES: BOWLES, B-O-W-L-E-S, FIRST NAME STEPHEN, S-T-E-P-H-E-N. MR. MOLLOHAN: M-O-L-L-O-H-A-N, FIRST NAME KENNETH. MR. MULLINS: MULLINS, M-U-L-L-I-N-S, FIRST NAME ROBERT. MR. STEARNS: STEARNS, S-T-E-A-R-N-S, FIRST NAME BILL. MR. YOUNGERMAN: CONRAD YOUNGERMAN, C-O-N-R-A-D, Y-O-U-N-G-E-R-M-A-N. THE CLERK: THANK YOU. MAYOR HASTINGS: THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETING THAT WILL BE SOMEWHAT INFORMAL, GENTLEMEN, AND THAT FORMAL RULES OF EVIDENCE WILL NOT APPLY. HOWEVER, WE WILL REQUIRE THAT ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO BE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION WHICH IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, NAMELY WHETHER CHIEF 8-29-95 STEARN'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT SHOULD BE UPHELD ON APPEAL. I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE PRESENT, THAT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL. THIS IS JUST SIMPLY A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS BUSINESS SHOULD RETAIN ITS PERMIT TO OPERATE IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. OUR PROCEDURE FOR THIS HEARING WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STEELE WILL FIRST PRESENT A STAFF REPORT ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WILL PRESENT THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CHIEF STEARN'S DECISION. MR. STEELE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES WHO THEN MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANTS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THE APPELLANTS WILL PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THEY MAY HAVE WHICH TENDS TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS EITHER ERRONEOUS, UNREASONABLE OR ABUSIVE DISCRETION. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY OF THE APPELLANT'S WITNESSES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, WE WILL ALLOW EACH SIDE A BRIEF OPPORTUNITY TO SUM UP. THE COUNCIL THEN MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE. AS REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT, WE WILL THEN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL THEN DELIBERATE ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROCEDURE, I WILL OPEN THE HEARING AND ASK THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SIR? MR. VODNOY: MAYOR, MY NAME IS JOSEPH VODNOY. AND MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY ON A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS MATTER? IT'S NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT I DID NOT KNOW WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TODAY. WE OBVIOUSLY ARE HERE TODAY. IT IS MY POSITION THAT WE HAVE FILED, ONE, A DEMURRER TO THE ALLEGATIONS ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO FORMAL NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND IN FACT, NO FORMAL NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN GIVEN AT ALL. WE HAVE GOTTEN INFORMAL NOTIFICATION OF.THE CHARGES. THEY WERE NOT GIVEN TO US UNTIL LAST WEEK, IN WHICH WE RECEIVED IN A LETTER FROM MR. STEELE, WHO I GUESS IS ASSISTING THE CITY ATTORNEY -- OR I'M NOT QUITE SURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE -- EXACTLY HIS STATUS IS, BUT HE'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND MR. BARROW WORKS FOR THE SAME LAW FIRM. IN ADDITION TO THAT -- AND I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF NOTIFICATION IS A CRUCIAL ONE. AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT BECAUSE THE MASSAGE TECHNICIANS IN QUESTION HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED, AND IN FACT THEY ARE -- THEIR HEARING WAS CONTINUED FROM THE 16TH OF AUGUST TO THE 31ST, NOT BY COUNSEL, BUT EITHER BY THE COURT OR BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THEY HAVE ASSERTED THEIR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND HAVE ELECTED NOT TO TESTIFY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATUS OF THEIR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. IT IS MY POSITION, BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY WERE UNABLE TO PUT ON A PROPER DEFENSE TO A NUMBER OF THE ALLEGATIONS. I I IN ADDITION, I HAD NOTIFIED MR. STEELE IN A LETTER I -- AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A COPY. I ASSUME YOU HAVE COPIES OF ALL OF MY CORRESPONDENCE. BUT IF NOT, I WILL BE HAPPY TO FURNISH THE CITY COUNCIL WITH MY CORRESPONDENCE. BUT IT'S MY ASSUMPTION THAT MR. CARTER WOULD BE HERE BECAUSE I HAVE ALLEGATIONS OF INPROPRIETY BY OFFICER CARTER DIRECTLY RELATING TO HIS ACTIVITIES ON JULY 6TH, AND WAS INTENDING TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM. AND I DO HAVE COLLABORATING EVIDENCE OF HIS IMPROPER ACTIVITIES. CONSPICUOUS BY HIS ABSENCE IS OFFICER CARTER, AS I HEARD THE LINEUP OF OFFICERS THAT ARE OFFICERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY. AND FINALLY, IT IS MY POSITION THAT THE BURDEN IS I I' I 8-29-95 IMPROPERLY PLACED ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS ERRONEOUS IN HIS RULING RATHER THAN HAVING THE BURDEN ON THE CITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RULING WAS CORRECT. BECAUSE UNDER THE STATUS, AS WE STAND, BASICALLY, CHIEF OF POLICE STEARNS COULD BE TOTALLY -- COULD BASE HIS OPINION ON TOTALLY ERRONEOUS INFORMATION AND YET BE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF HIS BELIEF THAT THE REVOCATION SHOULD BE GRANTED. AND THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITHOUT ANY PROPER APPELLATE RIGHTS. IN MY OPINION, THIS. IS NOT A PROPER APPEAL. WE HAVE NOT BEEN AFFORDED THE HEARING FROM THE - - IN FRONT OF THE POLICE CHIEF. THIS IS IN EFFECT AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION MADE WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION OR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE PRESENTED WITH OUR SIDE OF THE STORY. AND FINALLY, AS MY TWO OTHER POSITIONS, ONE IS THE FACT THAT REVOCATION IS DATED JULY 6TH. THE BULK OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS RELATE TO INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED AFTER JULY 6TH. IT IS MY POSITION THAT THAT IS IMPROPER AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF -- THE PROPER SCOPE OF WHAT THE POLICE CHIEF HAD IN HIS POSSESSION ON JULY 6TH TO FORM HIS BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE MATERIAL OR THE BUSINESS SHOULD BE CLOSED. AND FINALLY, WE HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ACTING BOTH AS A PROSECUTOR AND AS A JUDGE. IF YOU ARE THE JURY AND YOU'RE EQUIVALENT, ANALOGOUS TO A JURY THAT ARE HEARING THE FACTS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION, THE JUDGE IS THE PROSECUTOR. AND I SUGGEST THAT THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND PREJUDICIAL OF THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. MAYOR HASTINGS: I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO REPLY TO YOUR CHARGES. MR. BARROW: ACTUALLY, I SHOULD ADDRESS MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE POSITIONS TAKEN BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, MR. VODNOY. MR. VODNOY HAS RAISED ALL BUT -- EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, HE'S RAISED THESE IN LETTERS, WHICH WE DO HAVE COPIES OF. THERE IS AN AUGUST 25TH LETTER AND AN AUGUST 28TH LETTER WHERE HE RAISES EACH OF THESE ISSUES. AND THEY CAN BE INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD. THE COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THOSE LETTERS. THE COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER. AND WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS WE GO -- PROCEED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AT THIS TIME, AND THEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, AT THAT TIME, THE COUNCIL COULD MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER AND SO WE CAN REACH THAT ISSUE AT THAT TIME. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. STEELE? MR. STEELE: I WOULD ONLY JUST REPLY WITH A COUPLE OF POINTS MR. VODNOY MADE, JUST FOR THE COUNCIL'S INFORMATION. AND GOOD EVENING, BY THE WAY, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. IT LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM THIS SIDE OF THE PODIUM. I WOULD NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH I DID SEND A LETTER TO MR. VODNOY ON AUGUST 22ND, I BELIEVE, WHICH DETAILED THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS PRIOR TO THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT ON JULY 6TH, THAT WAS NOT THE FIRST NOTICE THAT THE PERMITTEES IN THIS INSTANCE HAD OF THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS. THEY WERE AWARE AS EARLY AS JULY 6TH, WHEN ARRESTS WERE MADE AT THE BUSINESS, OF THE VARIOUS CHARGES THAT WERE BEING RAISED UNDER BOTH THE PENAL CODE AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE. AS FAR AS THE PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND THE CIVIL PROSECUTION, THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT MATTERS. WE, AS A CITY, CAN'T DELAY THE REVOCATION PROCESS INDEFINITELY WHILE A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY PROSECUTES FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THIS MATTER. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD NO -- NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE CRIMINAL ARRAIGNMENT WAS POSTPONED AFTER AUGUST 16TH. IN FACT, I UNDERSTAND IT WASN'T THE D.A.'S 8-29-95 DECISION AT ALL. IT WAS POSTPONED ON MOTION OF THE JUDGE, SO NEITHER THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. AS FAR AS THE DEMURRER WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT DEMURRER IS TO. ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO ACCUSATORY PLEADING. THERE IS NO COMPLAINT FILED, NOR IS ANY COMPLAINT REQUIRED UNDER THE 'I MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CODE SETS OUT A PROCEDURE. WE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. THERE IS NO ACCUSATORY PLEADING REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. AS FAR AS OFFICER CARTER GOES, THE INTENDED FIRST ITEM OF MY STAFF REPORT THIS EVENING WAS A REPORT ON OFFICER CARTER. IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE TODAY, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT OFFICER CARTER IS INVOLVED RIGHT NOW IN A PENDING UNDERCOVER MATTER FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY IN A PUBLIC MEETING WOULD COMPROMISE HIS UNDERCOVER STATUS ON ANOTHER INVESTIGATION. AND FRANKLY, THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS UNWILLING TO HAVE THAT STATUS COMPROMISED ON THIS CASE. WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT ALL OF THE CHARGES THAT ARE RAISED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT ARE BASED ON REPORTS FROM OFFICER CARTER WILL BE WITHDRAWN. AND WE WOULD ADVISE THE COUNCIL TO DISREGARD ALL OF THOSE ITEMS INCLUDING THE POLICE REPORT THAT WAS FILED BY OFFICER CARTER, WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN COPIES OF. THAT WOULD INCLUDE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER THE HEADING MAY 24TH, 1995. THAT STARTS ON PAGE 4 AND CONTINUES ON TOP OF PAGE 5. ALL OF -- MR. VODNOY: I DON'T HAVE A DESK. MR. STEELE: ALL OF THE ITEMS ALSO ON PAGE 5 UNDER THE HEADING UNDERCOVER OFFICER, NUMBER 390, WHICH IS DATED MAY 31ST, 1995, AND AGAIN ON PAGE 6, THE ITEMS UNDER UNDERCOVER OFFICER, I NUMBER 390, UNDER THE HEADING JULY 6TH, 1995. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE WHICH WERE OBSERVED BY OTHER OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT IN UNDERCOVER STATUS AND WHOSE UNDERCOVER STATUS WOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED BY TESTIFYING AT THIS HEARING. AND WE ARE THEREFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE REVOCATION BASED ON THOSE IDENTIFIED CODE VIOLATIONS. THOSE CODE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE FOR JUSTIFYING CHIEF STEARN'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. IN FACT, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS JUST WITHDRAWING CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE UNDERCOVER STATUS OF AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND I DID JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, BEFORE WE MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT WE'LL DO FROM HERE, ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE'RE RELYING ON TO JUSTIFY THE PERMIT REVOCATION OCCURRED ON OR BEFORE JULY 6TH, 1995. I THINK WHAT MR. VODNOY IS REFERRING TO IS THE POLICE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED JULY 12TH, 1995, WHICH IS WHEN THE NOTICE WAS DELIVERED TO THE BUSINESS. AND THAT PERMIT SIMPLY INDICATED THAT ALL THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OBSERVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED WERE STILL A PROBLEM AFTER THE TIME THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED. WE'RE NOT BASING ANY OF THIS HEARING ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS ON JULY 12TH. THAT WAS A POLICE REPORT THAT I WAS SIMPLY TURNED OVER TO MR. VODNOY FOR HIS INFORMATION. I WOULD PROCEED WITH THE STAFF REPORT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IS INCLINED TO DO, OR WHATEVER YOUR DECISION IS. MAYOR HASTINGS: DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE ON WITH THIS? MR. BROWN: YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ASK A QUESTION AT THIS TIME OR SHALL WE WAIT? MR. BARROW: YES, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION. MR. LASZLO: MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE I I I ,~ ." . 8-29-95 QUESTION OF WHETHER THE EVENT OCCURRED OR ARE WE LOOKING AT THE QUESTION OF THE POLICE CHIEF'S DECISION? MR. STEELE: YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE POLICE CHIEF HAD SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION OF THE VIOLATIONS HAVING OCCURRED, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT WITH AN EYE TOWARD DECIDING WHETHER THAT DECISION WAS ERRONEOUS, UNREASONABLE OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT AN EVENT OCCURRED. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO JUDGE WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE IN CHIEF STEARN'S POSSESSION AT THAT TIME. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU CAN'T MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. ALL YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF WHAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT THEY ARE GIVING, WHETHER THAT TESTIMONY SUPPORTED THE DECISION OF CHIEF STEARNS, WHICH WAS TO REVOKE THE PERMIT. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THEN; IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING? MR. STEELE: THESE ARE ALL VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. MAYOR HASTINGS: OKAY. THEN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THIS, AS WE'VE HEARD, IS A HEARING REQUESTED BY THE OWNERS OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY. THEY ARE APPEALING A DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE, WHICH WAS TO REVOKE WHAT'S CALLED A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, AND THAT PERMIT IS A TYPE OF BUSINESS LICENSE THAT THE CITY ISSUES TO SPECIFIED MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. IT MIGHT BE MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTS, THEY MIGHT BE ACUPRESSURE-TYPE ESTABLISHMENTS, AS THIS ONE PURPORTS TO BE, OR OTHER TYPES OF MEDICAL THERAPY ORIENTED TYPE MASSAGE BUSINESSES. THE NOTICE THAT THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED BY CHIEF STEARNS WAS DELIVERED TO THE BUSINESS BY TWO OFFICERS ON JULY 12TH, 1995. PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL APPEALED THAT DECISION, AS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THEY FILED A TIMELY APPEAL THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY. THAT HEARING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONTINUED UNTIL TONIGHT. THE BUSINESS, I MUST EMPHASIZE, HAS REMAINED OPEN PENDING THAT APPEAL. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT MR. VODNOY HAS RAISED IS THE ISSUE OF THE RIGHT TO A HEARING AND THE CONSTITUTION -- THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND 'FEDERAL CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THAT A PROPERTY RIGHT, SUCH AS THIS PERMIT, WON'T BE REVOKED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, WITHOUT NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. , PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL HAS HAD NOTICE OF THIS HEARING. THIS IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. FROM THERE THE LAW ALLOWS A CITY OR STATE OR A COUNTY TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR THAT HEARING. THE BASIC GUARANTY IS THAT THE HEARING BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. BUT AFTER THAT, THE CITY HAS THE DISCRETION TO ESTABLISH WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED, WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND WHERE THE HEARING GOES. THIS HEARING IS ESTABLISHED -- PROCEDURES FOR IT ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND CHAPTER 12 IMPOSES A NUMBER OF REGULATIONS ON THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS. AND THEY'RE VERY STRICT REGULATIONS ADMITTEDLY. AND I'LL JUST TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THE MORE RELEVANT REGULATIONS HERE THIS EVENING. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF HAVE A PERMIT, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, THAT'S WHAT IS AT ISSUE TONIGHT. THEN THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE -- WHAT ARE CALLED THE MASSAGE TECHNICIANS, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GIVING THE MASSAGES, HAVE INDIVIDUAL PERMITS THEMSELVES. AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE APPLYING FOR 8-29-95 PERMITS HAVE TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK DONE, BASICALLY, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE THE EDUCATION, QUALIFICATION TO OPERATE THIS KIND OF BUSINESS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY CRIMINAL RECORD, ANY RECORD OF ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PROSTITUTION, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT PERHAPS IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. THE CODE ALSO REQUIRES A NUMBER OF HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES BE IN PLACE. IT REQUIRES THAT EVERYBODY BE FULLY CLOTHED WHILE THEY ARE IN THE PREMISES, REQUIRES THAT ALL OF THE TOWELS AND ALL OF THE OTHER MATERIALS BE CLEANED AND FRESHLY LAUNDERED. IT REQUIRES THAT MASSAGES CANNOT BE GIVEN IN ROOMS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED. IT REQUIRES THAT ALL OF THE EXTERIOR DOORS TO THE BUSINESS, FRONT AND REAR, SIDE, WHATEVER, ALL THOSE DOORS BE UNLOCKED AT THE TIME THAT THE BUSINESS IS OPENED. IT REQUIRES THAT NOBODY OTHER THAN A PERSON WHO HAS A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY BE ALLOWED TO GIVE MASSAGES IN THAT BUSINESS. IT REQUIRES THAT AT ALL TIMES THE ESTABLISHMENT IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS, SOMEBODY WHO HAS A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN'S LICENSE, VALID, ISSUED BY THE CITY, MUST BE ON THE PREMISES AT ALL TIMES. IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE MASSAGE TECHNICIANS TO GIVE ANY MASSAGE TO THE GENITAL AREAS OF THE PATRONS. IT REQUIRES THAT THE TECHNICIANS BE FULLY CLOTHED AT ALL TIMES. IT REQUIRES THAT WRITTEN RECORDS OF CUSTOMERS, THEIR NAMES, THEIR ADDRESSES, THE TREATMENTS THAT THEY WERE GIVEN, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY'VE ATTENDED THE ESTABLISHMENT, THE MONEY THEY PAID, REQUIRES THAT THOSE WRITTEN RECORDS BE MAINTAINED ON THE PREMISES AND OPEN FOR INSPECTION FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. IT REQUIRES THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT POST A SIGN CLEARLY VISIBLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH LISTS THE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MASSAGE AND THERAPY THAT THAT ESTABLISHMENT IS QUALIFIED TO GIVE, AND THE PRICES THAT ARE CHARGED FOR THOSE SERVICES. THOSE ARE THE MOST RELEVANT OF THE CODE SECTIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 12. AND FRANKLY, THEY ARE THE SECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. AND THE TESTIMONY TONIGHT WILL INDICATE THAT. AND THE CODE IMPOSES THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR VERY GOOD REASON. IT IMPOSES THE REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESSES, THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE NEEDED, CAN SURVIVE AND THRIVE IN THIS CITY, BUT IT ALSO GIVES US A MEANS TO ELIMINATE BUSINESSES, LIKE THIS ONE, WHICH AREN'T LEGITIMATE. THEY'RE ILLICIT, BASICALLY SEX FOR HIRE BUSINESSES MASQUERADING AS LEGITIMATE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. IT GIVES THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND THE CITY COUNCIL THE MEANS BY WHICH TO ELIMINATE THAT KIND OF BUSINESS FROM THE CITY. NOW, THE CHIEF HAS A MANDATORY DUTY UNDER THE CODE TO REVOKE THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMEN~ PERMIT WHENEVER HE HAS WHAT'S CALLED SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF TWO OR MORE VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE -- I'M SORRY, OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE ON TWO OR MORE OCCASIONS. AND THOSE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT I JUST LAID OUT FOR YOU. NOW, THAT'S A MANDATORY DUTY. THE CODE SAYS, "SHALL REVOKE." HE IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S SATISFACTORY TO HIM. IF IT IS, - HE'S REQUIRED TO - REVOKE THE PERMIT. HE DID THAT IN THIS CASE. THE PERMITTEE, THEN, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU AS THE HEARING BODY AND PROVE TO YOU THAT THE CHIEF'S DECISION WAS 'ERRONEOUS, UNREASONABLE OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO TONIGHT. I THINK YOU'LL SEE ONCE THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, THAT CHIEF STEARN'S DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS NONE OF THOSE. THERE IS CERTAINLY MORE THAN SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE CODE WAS VIOLATED ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS ON MAY 31ST, 1995, I .1, I I I I "'.... " i~ 8-29-95 AND ON JULY 6TH OF 1995~ . I WILL BE CALLING CHIEF STEARNS AND THREE OTHER OFFICERS WHO INVESTIGATED THIS MATTER TO DESCRIBE MORE FULLY HOW THOSE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED. THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE STAFF REPORT PORTION. AND IF IT'S OKAY BY THE COUNCIL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START CALLING WITNESSES UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MAYOR HASTINGS: I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THE GENTLEMAN STATED -- THE OTHER ATTORNEY STATED THAT WE HADN'T SENT THE NOTICES IN A TIMELY MANNER? MR. STEELE: I THINK WHAT MR. VODNOY'S POSITION IS -- AND CERTAINLY HAS BEEN HIS POSITION IN LETTERS TO US, IS THAT HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS, EACH ONE OF THE LIST OF 44, AND NOW SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN IN ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE A DEFENSE. IT'S NOT THAT HE WASN'T GIVEN NOTICE OF THE HEARING. MAYOR HASTINGS: THE HEARING TIME? MR. STEELE: HE'S OBJECTING TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE'S HAD TO PREPARE FOR THE CHARGES. IT'S OUR POSITION THAT CHARGES HAVE BEEN WELL KNOWN AND THAT NO FORMAL NOTICE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. AND HE'S HAD APPROXIMATELY SEVEN WEEKS, I BELIEVE, AS OF TONIGHT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. MAYOR HASTINGS: THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTION. MR. VODNOY: YOUR HONOR, JUST BRIEFLY BEFORE WE START, A COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE, I AM NOT STATING THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TONIGHT. MY POSITION IS -- AND IT'S EVEN REINFORCED BY TONIGHT'S ACTIVITY, IS THAT I'M NOT PROPERLY PREPARED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET SEVEN WEEKS' NOTICE OF THE CHARGES. YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REVOCATION BY CHIEF STEARNS ON THE 6TH. THERE'S NO GROUNDS STATED OTHER THAN THE BROADEST GENERAL GROUNDS. THE FIRST TIME I'VE HAD ANY SPECIFICITY OR ANY DISCOVERY, WHICH IS REPORTS OF OFFICERS - AND THAT'S WHAT DISCOVERY IS -- IS THE OUTLINE AND THE REPORTS OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC CHARGES ARE AND WHAT WAS WRONG ALLEGEDLY AT THE BUSINESS. I GOT THAT ON THE 22ND, I THINK. IT WAS A LETTER SENT. I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE LETTER SENT BY MR. STEELE. THAT WAS MY FIRST NOTICE OF THE CHARGES IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MEETING. I THEN RECEIVED CONTINUOUSLY UP UNTIL AND THROUGH TODAY ADDITIONAL MATERIALS WHICH CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY. TODAY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, I FIND OUT THAT A WHOLE SLEW OF CHARGES ARE BEING WITHDRAWN, AND THAT'S ALL RELATING TO DEPUTY CARTER. I JUST WANTED TO STATE CLEARLY WHAT THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT. THE OTHER THING IS, I'M MAKING A MOTION FOR -- A MODIFIED MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES. I ORDINARILY, WHEN I MAKE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES, THAT ALSO DEPRIVES YOU OF YOUR. OWN WITNESS. BUT SINCE HE IS THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY WANT HIM TO HEAR AND RESPOND TO WHATEVER THE CHARGES ARE. SO I'M ASKING THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCEEDING IN HEARING EACH OTHER. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN CALL WHOEVER THEY WANT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THE OTHER OFFICERS BE EXCLUDED SO THAT THEY CANNOT HEAR WHAT THE OTHER OFFICERS ARE TESTIFYING TO. MR. STEELE: MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS, AS WE HAVE SAID, AN INFORMAL HEARING. I DON'T SEE ANY REAL REASON TO THROW PEOPLE OUT AND BRING PEOPLE IN, RUN THEM AROUND. THE OFFICERS ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE. THE OFFICERS ALL READ THE POLICE REPORTS. I SEE NO REASON TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES. ALTHOUGH I WOULD CERTAINLY ARGUE THAT IF WITNESSES ON ONE SIDE ARE GOING TO BE EXCLUDED, THEN WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED. I THINK WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER AND HAVE THE WITNESSES IN THE ROOM AND JUST DO THIS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT OUGHT TO GO BOTH WAYS IF WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES. 8-29-95 MR. BARROW: SO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IS WHETHER, DURING THE TESTIMONY PORTION OF THIS HEARING, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WITNESS AT A TIME IN THIS ROOM. NOW, MR. VODNOY HAS MADE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE OUR WITNESSES EXCEPT FOR THE ONE WHO IS GIVING TESTIMONY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HE WANTS HIS WITNESS TO STAY HERE FOR THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING. SO YOU HAVE AN OPTION -- THERE'S THREE OPTIONS. YOU CAN SAY FINE, WE CAN KEEP ALL THE WITNESSES HERE BECAUSE THIS IS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THAT'S OPTION NUMBER ONE. OPTION NUMBER TWO IS TO GRANT HIS MOTION, WHICH WOULD BE TO EXCLUDE OUR WITNESSES. (WHEREUPON MR. DOANE EXITED THE HEARING ROOM.) MR. BARROW: AND OPTION NUMBER THREE WOULD BE TO EXCLUDE ALL WITNESSES. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE -- MAYOR HASTINGS: ISN'T THIS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INFORMAL HEARING? I MEAN, WE'RE NOT IN COURT. MR. BARROW: THAT'S TRUE. THIS IS AN INFORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. MAYOR HASTINGS: HAVING TO DO WITH CODE VIOLATIONS. MR. BARROW: THAT'S TRUE. MAYOR HASTINGS: I MEAN -- MR. LASZLO: I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN THESE WITNESSES APPEAR, DO THEY JUST GIVE A STATEMENT OR DO WE QUESTION THEM OR DOES THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY QUESTION THEM? MR. BARROW: YES. THE WITNESSES WILL COME UP. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN, UNLESS THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. AND MR. STEELE WILL ASK QUESTIONS. AND WHEN HE IS DONE WITH HIS QUESTIONS, MR. VODNOY WILL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE WITNESSES. AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE WITNESSES BROUGHT BY MR. VODNOY. MS. FORSYTHE: MAYOR HASTINGS, I WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH OPTION NUMBER ONE, TO HAVE ALL THE WITNESSES STAY IN THE ROOM DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS. MAYOR HASTINGS: I WOULD PREFER, BEING THAT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, MEANING THAT IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT INFORMAL, AND THAT THE FORMAL RULES OF EVIDENCE WILL NOT APPLY. AND THAT'S -- THAT'S MY FEELING, JUST AS YOURS IS. BUT, YOU KNOW -- MR. BROWN: CAN I BE THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT, UNFORTUNATELY? I LEAN TOWARDS HIS RECOMMENDATION IN THAT WHEN HE CROSS-EXAMINES, HE MAY BE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT WILL LEAD THE OTHER OFFICERS TO SOME ANSWERS. AND WE WANT TO GET AN INFORMAL HEARING, BUT WE WANT IT AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. BUT I THINK WHEN HE CROSS-EXAMINES OR ASKS THE OFFICERS QUESTIONS, IF I WERE ON HIS SIDE, I WOULD LIKE THOSE OFFICERS TO BE OUT OF THE ROOM SO THAT THEY WON'T HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF HEARING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THIS TYPE OF THING. THEY ARE ALL GOING TO SAY WHAT'S FAIR AND WHAT'S TRUE AND IT WON'T MATTER IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, SO I JUST HATE TO PREPARE THEM IN ADVANCE. I'D RATHER HAVE THEM OUT OF THE ROOM, MYSELF. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. DOANE? MR. DOANE: I DISAGREE. I AGREE WITH MR. STEELE WHO SAID THAT THEY'VE ALL BEEN PRIVY TO THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AS WE HAVE, SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NECESSARY THAT THEY BE OUT OF THE ROOM. MAYOR HASTINGS: WHAT'S YOUR OPINION, MR. LASZLO? MR. LASZLO: I AGREE WITH BILL DOANE HERE, ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE A LITTLE FEELING ABOUT WHAT GEORGE IS SAYING. HOWEVER, WE'VE SEEN IT ALL AND THIS IS JUST -- THIS IS NOT A REGULAR TRIAL WE ARE CONDUCTING HERE, SO... MAYOR HASTINGS: IT SEEMS AS IF THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL IS TO GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW THROUGH IN AN INFORMAL WAY AND CONDUCT IT THE WAY IT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY SET UP, IF THAT WILL BE FINE WITH YOU? MR. VODNOY: WELL, JUST SO THE RECORD -- IT IS NOT FINE WITH ME, BUT I'M CERTAINLY PREPARED -- I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE A RECORD HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT. I. I I I I I : . 8-29-95 I'M TRYING TO REPRESENT MY CLIENT THE BEST WAY I CAN. MAYOR HASTINGS: WE UNDERSTAND. WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. MR. STEELE? MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'D LIKE TO CALL CHIEF STEARNS TO TESTIFY, PLEASE. WILLIAMS STEARNS, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN BY THE CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEELE: Q CHIEF, WILL YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE COURT REPORTER? A IT'S CHIEF WILLIAM STEARNS; THAT'S S-T-E-A-R-N-S. Q THANK YOU. AND, CHIEF, FOR THE COUNCIL'S INFORMATION, SINCE I'M NOT SURE THEY KNOW ALL OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARE HERE, WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST BRIEFLY INTRODUCE THE THREE OFFICERS AND GET A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON EACH ONE OF THEM? A OKAY. IN THE SECOND ROW FROM THE BACK YOU HAVE DETECTIVE BOB MULLINS. HE'S BEEN AN OFFICER WITH US FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO BOTH THE PATROL DUTIES AND THE DETECTIVE DIVISION. SEATED OVER HERE IN THE DARK COAT IS RESERVE OFFICER STEPHEN BOWLES. YOU MAY RECALL WHEN WE CAME BEFORE YOU WITH OUR NEW RESERVE PROGRAM, OFFICER STEPHEN BOWLES WAS THE FIRST ONE WE HIRED. AND HE'S BEEN ON APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND HAS RECEIVED BOTH IN-FIELD TRAINING AND POLICE ACADEMY TRAINING. AND BESIDE HIM IS LIEUTENANT KENNETH MOLLOHAN, A 25-PLUS YEAR VETERAN OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SERVED IN ALL RANGES INCLUDING UP TO LIEUTENANT. HE IS PRESENTLY COMMANDER OF THE DETECTIVE INVESTIGATOR DIVISION. Q THANK YOU. CHIEF, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MASSAGE PARLORS? A YES, I AM. Q BROADLY SPEAKING, CAN YOU JUST GIVE THE COUNCIL AN IDEA OF WHAT YOUR DUTIES ARE UNDER CHAPTER 12? A UNDER CHAPTER 12, I'M REQUIRED TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENTS -- MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. WE THEN DO BACKGROUND CHECKS, CRIMINAL CHECKS, ON THE APPLICANTS. AND WE ALSO REQUIRE THAT ANY MASSAGE TECHNICIANS APPLY FOR -- IT'S A SEPARATE PERMIT THAT IS ALSO ISSUED. AND THEY HAVE TO COME BY, BY HAVING BEEN GRADUATED FROM AN APPROVED MASSAGE THERAPY SCHOOL AND HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS THAT ARE REQUIRED THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETED. Q AND THEN WITH REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 12, WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES? A WE'RE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT TO MAKE SURE IF THEY DO CONFORM TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE. AND BY THE CODE, IF -- AS YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY ALLUDED TO, IF I BECOME AWARE OF VIOLATIONS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, TWO OR MORE OCCASIONS, I AM MANDATED BY THE CODE TO REVERT -- REVOKE THE ESTABLISHMENT'S PERMIT AT THAT TIME. Q AND AT SOME POINT AFTER MAY 2ND OF 1995, DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION REGARDING PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. Q AND HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT INVESTIGATION? MR. VODNOY: COULD I HAVE THAT DATE AGAIN? MR. STEELE: HE SAID AT SOME POINT AFTER MAY 2ND, 1995. MR. VODNOY: THANK YOU. THE WITNESS: RIGHT AROUND MAY 2ND I WAS AWARE OF COMPLAINTS COMING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS POSSIBLE ILLEGAL 8-29-95 ACTIVITY GOING ON AT THIS ESTABLISMENT. I CONFERRED WITH DETECTIVE COMMANDER AND DETECTIVE MULLINS AT THAT TIME, AND IT WAS OUR DECISION TO, AT THAT TIME, START CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BUSINESS. BY MR. STEELE: Q AND IN WHICH -- WAS IT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE MULLINS WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THAT INVESTIGATION? A LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN IS THE OVERALL CON ANDER OF THE INVESTIGATION DIVISION AND IS THEREFORE IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION. Q WERE YOU KEPT SORT OF PERIODICALLY INFORMED AS TO THE PROGRESS OF THAT INVESTIGATION? A YES, I WAS, ON A REGULAR BASIS. Q HOW WAS THAT INFORMATION CONVEYED TO YOU? A BY AT LEAST WEEKLY MEETINGS WITH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN KEEPING ME UP TO DATE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE INVESTIGATION. Q NOW, MOVING ALONG TO ON OR ABOUT JULY 6TH OF 1995, WERE YOU MADE AWARE THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN CONCLUDED? A YES, I WAS. . Q AND WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT DATE? A AFTER BEING ADVISED THAT IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED AND THAT THERE WERE VIOLATIONS FAR AND ABOVE TWO, WE THEN ISSUED AND I SIGNED A REVOKING OF THE ESTABLISHMENT'S PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, CONRAD YOUNGERMAN AND KI SUN GRAHAM. Q SO YOU WERE MADE AWARE AS OF ABOUT JULY 6TH, 1995, THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO JUSTIFY REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE ANY -- AND I'M PUTTING ASIDE HERE THE ISSUE OF ANY PENAL CODE VIOLATIONS -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE ANY ARRESTS MADE OR CITATIONS ISSUED STRICTLY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE? A NO ARRESTS OR CITATIONS WERE ISSUED PERTAINING STRICTLY TO THE MUNICIPAL CODES. Q AND WHY IS THAT? A BECAUSE WE HAVE THE OPTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO CITE UNDER THE CODE OR SEEK ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. WE ELECTED TO GO WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE END OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND HANDLE THE PENAL CODE VIOLATIONS AS SEPARATE CRIMINAL ACTS. Q SO IS THE FACT THAT YOUR OFFICERS DIDN'T MAKE ANY ARRESTS FOR MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS INDICATE ANY SORT OF LACK OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE THERE OR ANY LESS IMPORTANCE BEING PLACED ON THOSE VIOLATIONS? A NO, IT DOES NOT. MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO HAVE MARKED A COPY OF A LETTER. I I MR. VODNOY: NO OBJECTION. MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO ASK THE REPORTER TO MARK THIS -- THANK YOU, MR. VODNOY -- I'M GOING TO ASK THE REPORTER TO MARK THIS AS EXHIBIT 1. AND, CHIEF, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER ALREADY? THE WITNESS: YES, I DO. MR. STEELE: SINCE YOU HAVE A COPY, IT WILL SAVE ME WALKING ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. I (CITY'S EXHIBIT 1 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION BY THE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND IS ATTACHED HERETO. ) BY MR. STEELE: Q CHIEF, WHAT IS THIS LETTER? A THIS LETTER IS FORMALLY ADVISING MR. YOUNGERMAN AND MISS GRAHAM OF MY DECISION TO REVOKE THEIR -- A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT, AS OF THURSDAY, JULY 6TH, 1995. Q AND DID YOU CAUSE THAT LETTER TO BE DELIVERED TO THE BUSINESS IN THIS CASE? A YES, I DID. I I I 8-29-95 Q WOULD YOU PLEASE READ ALOUD THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT LETTER? A "I HAVE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED AN INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT INTO VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. THIS INVESTIGATION HAS RESULTED IN THE DISCOVERY OF VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12, WHICH HAVE OCCURRED AT YOUR BUSINESS LOCATED AT 550 P.C.H. AND KNOWN AS PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, P.P.C. "THIS INVESTIGATION HAS REVEALED THAT ON MORE THAN TWO OCCASIONS WITHIN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12. ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAS BEEN CONDUCT WHICH IS IMMORAL, IMPROPER, AND OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE. "AS GRANTED TO ME BY S.B.M.C. 12-13, I AM REVOKING YOUR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT AS OF THURSDAY, JULY 6TH, 1995. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO PHYSICALLY SURRENDER YOUR PERMIT AND CEASE ANY ACTIVITY AS A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT." Q JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE LETTER? A YES. Q DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WHICH WAS PREPARED FOR THE HEARING THIS EVENING? A YES, SIR. Q HAVE YOU SEEN THAT STAFF REPORT PRIOR TO TONIGHT? A YES, I HAVE. Q YOU AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT REPORT, HAVE WE NOT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q I WOULD REFER YOU AND ANY MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE STAFF REPORT. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER THE HEADING, MAY 31ST, 1995, UNDERCOVER OFFICER NUMBER 111, AND THAT'S AT THE TOP OF PAGE 6. CHIEF, WHO IS UNDERCOVER OFFICER NUMBER 111? A THAT'S RESERVE OFFICER STEPHEN BOWLES. Q AND OFFICER BOWLES IS HERE THIS EVENING, I THINK? A YES, HE IS. Q NOW, CHIEF, REFERRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEMS NUMBER 19 THROUGH 29 ON PAGE 6 OF THE STAFF REPORT A YES. Q -- INCLUSIVE, ARE THOSE ITEMS, SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12, THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO IN YOUR REVOCATION LETTER? A YES, THEY ARE. Q AND PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT LETTER THAT WE'VE HAD MARKED AS EXHIBIT NUMBER 1, WERE YOU PRESENTED WITH WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF EACH OF THESE VIOLATIONS? A YES, I WAS. Q AND LOOKING AT THE VIOLATIONS TOGETHER, 19 THROUGH 29 INCLUSIVE, CAN YOU GIVE US SORT OF A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT YOU WERE PROVIDED WITHIN REGARD TO THOSE VIOLATIONS? A THE EVIDENCE I WAS PROVIDED WAS INFORMATION PASSED ON THROUGH THE DETECTIVE COMMANDER AS TO THE FINDINGS OF RESERVE OFFICER BOWLES DURING HIS INVESTIGATION. Q SO THOSE WERE ORAL REPORTS GIVEN TO YOU BY LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE MULLINS? A YES, THEY WERE. Q I NOTICE THAT THERE ARE TWO VIOLATIONS HERE THAT LOOK SIMILAR, AND THAT WOULD BE ITEMS 26 AND 28? A YES. Q THEY REFERENCE TWO DIFFERENT CODE SECTIONS, SECTION 12-9 AND SECTION 12-18, BOTH REFERENCING BASICALLY THE SAME DESCRIPTION OR VIOLATION. CAN YOU GIVE THE COUNCIL SOME INFORMATION AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 12-9 AND 12-18? A YES. 12-9 HAS TO DO WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO COMPLY WITH. 12-18 RELATES TO THE CONDUCT OF A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN. Q IN OTHER WORDS, IN 12-9, IS THE ESTABLISHMENT 8-29-95 REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN DOESN'T GIVE THIS ILLEGAL MASSAGE? A THAT'S TRUE. Q AND IN 12-18, DOES THE TECHNICIAN, HIM- OR HERSELF, IS REQUIRED TO -- A THAT'S CORRECT. Q REFRAIN FROM THAT CONDUCT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q NOW, OTHER VIOLATIONS LISTED AS 19 THROUGH 29 INCLUSIVE, DID ANY OF THOSE VIOLATIONS IN YOUR MIND CONSTITUTE CONDUCT WHICH IS IMMORAL, IMPROPER OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONAHLE AS REFERENCED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER, WHICH WE'VE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1? A YES. Q CAN YOU TELL THE COUNCIL WHICH OF THOSE ITEMS, NUM6ER 19 THROUGH 29, YOU CONSIDER TO BE -- FIRST, LET'S TAKE IMPROPER? A IMPROPER, WOULD BE 19 THROUGH 29. Q SO YOU WOULD CONSIDER EACH ONE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS TO BE IMPROPER CONDUCT? A YES, I WOULD. Q AND WHICH OF THE VIOLATIONS, NUMBERED 19 THROUGH 29, WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE IMMORAL CONDUCT? A I WOULD CONSIDER NUMBER 22, "MASSAGE TECHNICIAN NOT FULLY CLOTHED, EXPOSED HER BREASTS." I WOULD CONSIDER NUMBER 25, "MASSAGE ADMINISTERED TO PATRON WHO WAS NOT WEARING CLOTHES WHICH FULLY CLOTHED THE PATIENT'S GENITALS, EMPLOYEE REMOVED PATRON'S CLOTHING." NUMBER 26, "MASSAGE TECHNICIAN MASSAGED PATRON'S GENITAL AREA." AND NUMBER 28, "MASSAGE TECHNICIAN MASSAGED PATRON'S GENITAL AREA." AND NUMBER 29, "MASSAGE TECHNICIAN DISROBED AND WAS NOT FULLY CLOTHED AT ALL TIMES ON THE PREMISES." Q OTHER THAN THE ITEMS YOU'VE MENTIONED AS BEING EITHER IMMORAL OR IMPROPER, IN YOUR OPINION, DID ANYTHING ELSE FALL UNDER THE OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE CATEGORY OR HAVE WE CAUGHT EVERYTHING? A I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH CAUGHT IT. Q NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION AND COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO PAGE 7 OF THE STAFF REPORT. UNDER THE HEADING JULY 6TH, 1995, UNDERCOVER OFFICER NUMBER 111, AGAIN, DOES THAT REFER TO OFFICER BOWLES? A YES, IT DOES. Q LOOKING AT THE VIOLATIONS, THEN, THAT ARE NUMBERED ON THE STAFF REPORT NUMBER 38 THROUGH NUMBER 43 INCLUSIVE, ARE THOSE ITEMS ALSO SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 WHICH YOU CITED IN YOUR LETTER WE'VE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1? A YES, THEY ARE. Q NOW, PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT LETTER, WERE YOU PRESENTED WITH WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS? A YES, I WAS. Q AND WOULD THAT BE IN THE SAME FORM AS THE EARLIER VIOLATIONS, BASICALLY REPORTS FROM LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND -- A LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE MULLINS. Q NOW, OF THE VIOLATIONS LISTED AS 38 THROUGH 43, DO YOU CONSIDER ANY OF THOSE VIOLATIONS TO BE IMPROPER OR IMMORAL OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE AS NOTED IN YOUR LETTER, EXHIBIT 1? A YES, I WOULD CONSIDER 38 THROUGH 43 TO BE IMPROPER, AND THEY PROBABLY COULD ALSO BE CLASSIFIED AS OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE. Q WOULD YOU CLASSIFY ANY OF THOSE ITEMS AS IMMORAL? A NO, I WOULD NOT. Q OKAY. SO WHEN YOU -- IN THE SENTENCE IN THE LETTER, "ADDITIONALLY THERE HAS BEEN CONDUCT WHICH HAS BEEN IMMORAL, IMPROPER, AND OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE," YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE VIOLATIONS FROM MAY 31ST, AS FAR A IMMORAL, AND THERE ARE VIOLATIONS ON BOTH DATES AS FAR AS IMPROPER AND . I I' I I I I .1 8-29-95 OBJECTIONABLE? A . THAT'S CORRECT. Q DO YOU KNOW -- OR DID YOU KNOW AT THE TIME THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN WHO THE PERMITTEES WERE FOR PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY WERE MR. YOUNGERMAN AND MISS GRAHAM. Q DO YOU VIEW THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS EVENING, THOSE NOTED ON MAY 31ST AND THOSE NOTED ON JULY 6TH OF 1995, EXCUSE ME, DO YOU VIEW THOSE VIOLATIONS AS RELAYED TO YOU FROM OFFICER BOWLES THROUGH DETECTIVE MULLINS AND LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN TO HAVE OCCURRED ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS? A YES, I DID. Q AND JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, IN YOUR LETTER WHICH WE'VE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1, YOU REFERRED TO VIOLATIONS ON, QUOTE, "MORE THAN TWO OCCASIONS," CLOSED QUOTE, AND AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT LETTER WHEN YOU WROTE, "MORE THAN TWO OCCASIONS," WERE YOU REFERRING TO ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OBSERVED ON OTHER OCCASIONS BY OFFICER CARTER, WHICH WE'VE NOW WITHDRAWN? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND EXCLUDING THE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED BY OFFICER CARTER THAT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN, DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED AS OF ABOUT JULY 6TH, 1995, WITH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD? A YES, I DO. Q AND THOSE TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, AGAIN, WOULD BE MAY 31ST AND JULY 6TH? A YES. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODNOY: Q GOOD EVENING. A HI, THERE. Q THE LETTER OF JULY 6TH SPECIFIES THAT THERE WERE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 IN THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. HAVE YOU EVER PRESENTED ANY -- THAT IS, YOU OR ANY OF THE OFFICERS AT YOUR DIRECTION, PRESENTED TO MR. YOUNGERMAN OR MS. GRAHAM THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE CHARGES IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 12? A I HAVE NOT. . Q ALL RIGHT. AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, THAT OTHER THAN STATING THAT CHAPTER 12 WAS VIOLATED, THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS LETTER THAT WOULD PUT ON NOTICE AS TO EXACTLY WHAT VIOLATIONS THERE WERE? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND IN ADDITION, THERE'S -- YOU STATED THAT, ADDITIONAL GROUND NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF CHAPTER 12 VIOLATIONS WAS OF "AN IMMORAL AND IMPROPER AND OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, n IS THAT FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE? A YES, IT IS, ON CHAPTER 12. Q DOES THE CODE DEFINE THOSE WORDS FOR YOU? A THE CODE DOES NOT DEFINE THOSE WORDS. Q ALL RIGHT. DID YOU GO TO A DICTIONARY TO DEFINE IT OR HOW DID YOU INTERPRET WHAT IMMORAL, IMPROPER AND OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE MEANS? A THE CODE STATES THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WILL DETERMINE ~lHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE IMMORAL, IMPROPER OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE. I FIND THAT IN MY OPINION, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD BASE THIS ON. Q SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S YOUR DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT'S IMMORAL, IMPROPER OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? A THAT'S CORRECT. . Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE LETTER THAT YOU SENT ON THE 6TH, THAT WAS AS A RESULT OF AN ORAL 8-29-95 PRESENTATION BY TWO DIFFERENT OFFICERS; IS THAT CORRECT? A YES. Q AND THAT ORAL PRESENTATION WAS MADE TO YOU ON THE 6TH? A NO. ON MANY OCCASIONS GOING FROM APPROXIMATELY THE FIRST PART OF MAY ON UP THROUGH JULY 6TH. Q NOW, DID YOU EVER READ ANY POLICE REPORTS FROM ANY OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE PRIOR TO JULY 6TH ? A I DID NOT PRIOR TO JULY 6TH. Q DID YOU READ IT ON JULY 6TH? A I READ IT AFTER JULY 6TH WHEN WE WERE FILING CRIMINAL -- Q SO AS OF JULY 6TH, YOU DID NOT READ ANY POLICE REPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION? A NO, I DID NOT. Q AND IN CONNECTION ALSO WITH YOUR DETERMINATION OF JULY 6TH, DID YOU INTERVIEW RESERVE OFFICER BOWLES IN PERSON? A NO, ONLY DETECTIVE MULLINS AND LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. Q STATEMENT OF SO WHAT YOU WERE RELYING ON ON JULY 6TH WAS THE -- WELL, LET ME ASK THIS. DID BOTH OF THOSE OFFICERS INTERVIEW BOWLES OR WAS IT A SITUATION WHERE MULLINS WAS IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN WAS THE, I GUESS, WAS THE SUPERVISING OFFICER WITH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, SO THAT BOWLES WOULD TALK TO MULLINS, MULLINS WOULD TALK TO MALONEY (SIC), WASN'T IT? A MOLLOHAN. Q MOLLOHAN, I'M SORRY. AND THEN MOLLOHAN TALKED TO YOU? A IT'S A SITUATION WHERE THE DETECTIVES -- MULLINS WAS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. I WOULD GET REPORTS PERIODICALLY BY TALKING WITH HIM ON HOW THAT WAS GOING. LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN SUPERVISED HIM, SO IT WAS ALL -- POLICE REPORTS AND ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS BEING CONDUCTED, SO ANYTHING WOULD HAVE COME THROUGH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. Q WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- IS THAT YOU HAVE AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER BOWLES GO OUT TO THE SCENE AND OBSERVE WHATEVER HE OBSERVED. HE WOULD THEN TELL DETECTIVE MULLINS. DETECTIVE MULLINS WOULD THEN REPORT TO DETECTIVE MOLLOHAN -- LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. AND THEN LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN WOULD IN TURN SPEAK TO YOU; IS THAT RIGHT? A NOT -- NOT EXACTLY. IT IS WHERE THOSE DETECTIVES MENTIONED WERE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS TIMES THAT THEY WERE OUTSIDE THE PREMISES. WHILE IT WAS INSIDE THE PREMISES, THEY WERE TALKING WITH EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION. DETECTIVE MOLLOHAN WAS A PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION. AND ALTHOUGH YOU'RE REFERRING TO A CHAIN OF COMMAND, I WOULD TALK DIRECTLY TO DETECTIVE MULLINS ON OCCASION AS WELL AS LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND GET MY INFORMATION FROM BOTH OF THEM. Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU SAID THERE WAS SOME -- YOU GOT SOME NOTIFICATION BY COMPLAINTS OF PEOPLE; DO YOU HAVE COPIES OF THOSE COMPLAINTS? A NO. I WAS MADE AWARE OF TELEPHONE CALLS COMING IN, COMPLAINING, WHICH WE THEN REFERRED TO THE DETECTIVES ON WHAT CITIZENS WERE SAYING SEEMED TO BE SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY AT THAT LOCATION. DETECTIVES THEN CONDUCTED THEIR INVESTIGATION. Q DID YOU RECORD ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS ON ANY OF I DON'T MEAN TO DO THAT. THESE -- A I DID NOT PERSONALLY. Q DID OFFICERS MULLINS OR MOLLOHAN TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD PERSONALLY SPOKEN TO CITIZENS? A I BELIEVE THAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN HAS SPOKEN WITH ONE OF THEM OR MORE, BUT I COULDN'T -- YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THEM THAT QUESTION. I I I' I I I ,-,. .. 8-29-95 Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN TERMS OF AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION, WAS ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO TAPE-RECORD THE INCIDENT SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RECORDING HERE OF EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE BUILDING? A I BELIEVE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WILL BE SHOWN IN A VIDEOTAPE DURING THIS HEARING. Q WELL, I'M AWARE OF A VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 12TH AFTER THE ARREST, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT A TAPE RECORDING, AUDIOTAPE RECORDING MADE IN TERMS OF THE INVESTIGATION? IN OTHER WORDS, LET'S ASSUME I'M A POLICE OFFICER AND I'M GOING TO GO IN UNDERCOVER. I CAN HAVE EITHER A MICROPHONE LEADING TO A RECORDING DEVICE OUTSIDE OR A MINI TAPE RECORDER. WAS ANY EFFORT MADE TO RECORD WHAT OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO RESERVE OFFICER BOWLES AND THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN IN QUESTION? A NO. Q CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO JULY 6TH, WHAT TIME OF THE DAY AND NIGHT WAS IT THAT YOU SPOKE WITH THE OFFICERS? A I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TIME. IT WAS DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY. I WAS AWARE THE INVESTIGATION WAS GOING ON, SO I WAS IN TOUCH WITH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN PERIODICALLY. Q WAS DETECTIVE MOLLOHAN THE ONLY OFFICER YOU SPOKE TO ON THE 6TH? A ON THE 6TH, IT WAS LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN THAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH. Q SO YOU DID NOT TALK TO MULLINS ON THE 6TH? A I TALKED WITH DETECTIVE MULLINS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS UNTIL THE 6TH. ON THE 6TH, I BELIEVE, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN I WAS SPEAKING WITH. Q ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME OF THE DAY AND NIGHT THIS LETTER THAT IS EXHIBIT 1 WAS DICTATED AND PREPARED? A Q A CAN'T RECALL. Q I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME. IS IT EVENING, MORNING? IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IT WAS LATE AFTERNOON, BUT I ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE VIOLATIONS THAT -- STRIKE THAT. OFFICER BOWLES, I TAKE IT, AS A RESERVE OFFICER, IS NOT A FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND WHAT IS IT HE DOES WHEN HE'S NOT WORKING FOR THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT? A AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE HE'S EMPLOYED AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, AND PRIOR TO THAT, I BELIEVE HE WAS A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER. Q AND DO YOU PAY HIM FOR HIS SERVICES? A WE DO NOT. Q AND HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK DOES HE GIVE YOU? A I BELIEVE HE'S DONE A LITTLE OVER A THOUSAND HOURS IN THE LAST YEAR. Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT WAS IT SPECIFICALLY THAT OFFICER MOLLOHAN TOLD YOU ABOUT -- JUST ABOUT JULY 6TH ? A HE REALLY KIND OF SUMMED UP EVERYTHING THAT HAD OCCURRED UP UNTIL THAT TIME. HE DID LET ME KNOW THAT THEY -- THERE WAS ILLICIT ACTIVITY IN THERE. HE LET ME KNOW THAT THEY HAD FOUND NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS INCLUDING DOORS WITH LOCKS ON, THAT THE RECORDS WERE NOT THERE. AT THAT TIME, THEY HAD FOUND LOCKED EXTERIOR DOORS AND THAT THEY HAD VIDEOTAPED MANY OF THESE AS EVIDENCE. Q VIDEOTAPED ON THE 6TH? A THAT THEY HAD VIDEOTAPED -- THAT HE HAD -- I DON'T RECALL IF HE TOLD ME THAT ON THE 6TH, BUT THAT THESE WERE THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAD OCCURRED. Q WASN'T THE VIDEOTAPE ON THE 12TH? A PARDON ME? 8-29-95 Q WASN'T THE VIDEOTAPE ON THE 12TH? A I DON'T RECALL THE DATE OF THE VIDEOTAPE. Q AND WASN'T THE THRUST OF WHAT HE WAS TELLING YOU ON THE 6TH ABOUT OFFICER CARTER'S ACTIVITIES? A NO, IT WASN'T. IT WAS DEALING WITH BOTH OFFICERS AT THE TIME. Q DID OFFICERS -- DID DETECTIVE MOLLOHAN - I LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN SAY THAT HE WENT INTO THE LOCATION ON THE 6TH? A I DON'T RECALL IF HE WENT IN OR NOT. HE WAS JUST TELLING ME THE FINDINGS THAT WERE OBSERVED THERE. Q THAT WAS THE FINDINGS OF SOME OTHER OFFICER, OFFICER BOWLES? A THAT WAS THE FINDINGS THAT 'WERE OBSERVED BY THE DETECTIVES ON THE 6TH. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS MORE THAN OFFICER BOWLES; THAT IT WAS DETECTIVE MULLINS, ALSO. Q IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE OFFICERS MORE THAN ONE OFFICER WENT IN, NOT IN AN UNDERCOVER CAPACITY, BUT IN THE CAPACITY OF POLICE OFFICERS DOING AN INSPECTION ON JULY 6TH? A YES. Q AND WHO WERE THE OFFICERS THAT WENT IN TO DO AN INSPECTION ON JULY 6TH? A AS FAR AS I KNOW, DETECTIVE MULLINS ALSO FOLLOWED UP ON OFFICER BOWLES' FINDINGS. Q ON THE 6TH? A THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. Q MULLINS. A THAT THAT OCCURRED ALSO ON THE 6TH. Q ALL RIGHT. THERE WAS NO VIDEOTAPE ON THE 6TH OR YOU'RE NOT SURE? A I'M NOT SURE WHEN THAT VIDEOTAPE WAS DONE. I' Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THE VIDEOTAPE? A I SAW THE VIDEOTAPE TODAY. Q TODAY WAS THE FIRST TIME? A YES. Q WHO SHOWED IT TO YOU? A LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. Q HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THIS LOCATION PERSONALLY? A NO, I HAVE NOT. Q DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN HAS BEEN IN THE LOCATION? A NO, I DO NOT. Q DO YOU KNOW IF IT'S MORE THAN ONE? A I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES HE HAS BEEN. Q HAS HE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THERE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? A YES, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE HAS BEEN IN THERE. Q AND I TAKE IT DETECTIVE MULLINS HAS BEEN IN THERE? A Q A MR. FINISHED. I YES. AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THAT ~S EITHER? NO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES. VODNOY: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT? I THINK I'M JUST WANT TO TALK TO MY CLIENT. (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) BY MR. VODNOY: Q IF I WAS TO CALL THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT I' AND MAKE A COMPLAINT, WOULD MY CALL BE RECORDED? A YOUR CALL, IF IT CAME IN EITHER THROUGH 911 OR TO THE SWITCHBOARD, WOULD BE RECORDED. ONCE IT'S TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE RECORDED. Q HOW ABOUT IF I WAS TRANSFERRED, NOT TO ,THE -- THAT'S YOUR OFFICE, I GATHER; RIGHT? A YES, OR MY SECRETARY'S. Q SO I CAN SPEAK FREELY TO YOU, IS THAT RIGHT, WITHOUT BEING RECORDED? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q BUT IF I WAS TALKING TO A DETECTIVE, WOULD I BE RECORDED? I I I -:: 8-29-95 A NO. Q SO ONLY THE 911 CALL IS RECORDED AND CALLS THE FRONT DESK OR -- THAT'S WHAT'S RECORDED; IS THAT CORRECT? A RIGHT. Q HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PLAYED A RECORDING OF ANY CITIZEN COMPLAINT? A YES, I HAVE. Q SO THERE IS A COPY OF A CITIZEN COMPLAINT SOMEWHERE? A OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID A CITIZEN COMPLAINT. Q NO. I MEAN CITIZEN COMPLAINT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE. I'M SORRY. IT'S A BAD QUESTION. A NO, I HAVE NOT. MR. VODNOY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, CHIEF. I'D LIKE TO CALL LIEUTENANT KEN MOLLOHAN NEXT, PLEASE. KEN MOLLOHAN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN BY THE CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEELE: Q LIEUTENANT, IF YOU WOULD, FOR THE COURT REPORTER, STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME, PLEASE? A MOLLOHAN, M-O-L-L-O-H-A-N, FIRST NAME IS KENNETH. Q THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT. WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST BRIEFLY DESCRIBE FOR THE COUNSEL WHAT YOUR DUTIES ARE WITH THE DEPARTMENT? A I'VE BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR 28 YEARS, AND PRESENTLY I OVERSEE AND SUPERVISE THE DETECTIVE BUREAU. Q AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN OR SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION REGARDING A REPORT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. Q NOW, GOING BACK TO JULY 6TH OF 1995, DID YOU RESPOND TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON THAT DATE? A YES. Q CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECALL WHAT OTHER OFFICERS WERE PRESENT AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON JULY 6TH OF 1995? A I HAD DETECTIVE GARY KROGMAN THERE, DETECTIVE DARRYL HARDIN, DETECTIVE KAY MOULTON, DETECTIVE BOB MULLINS, POLICE OFFICER KEVIN VILENSKY, RESERVE OFFICER STEVE BOWLES AND OFFICER CARTER. Q AND AT SOME POINT ON JULY 6TH, 1995, DID YOU PERSONALLY ENTER THE OFFICES OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. Q NOW, THERE ARE TWO DOORS TO GO INTO THAT BUSINESS, ARE THERE NOT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q NOW, THERE IS A FRONT DOOR AND A REAR DOOR AND, I GUESS, JUST FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, CAN WE REFER TO THE FRONT DOOR AS THE DOOR THAT FACES P.C.H. AND THE REAR DOOR AS THE DOOR THAT FACES MARINA; IS THAT RIGHT? A THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. Q OKAY. WHICH DOOR DID YOU GO IN? A THE REAR DOOR. Q AND THAT WAS THE EXTERIOR DOOR, RIGHT? IT LED OUT TO THE PARKING LOT? A IT'S ON THE SECOND STORY. IT LEADS OUT TO A BALCONY. Q AND THEY HAVE SOME STAIRS OR SOMETHING DOWN TO THE PARKING LOT OR THE STREET? A CORRECT. 8-29-95 Q AT THE TIME YOU ENTERED ON JULY 6TH, 1995, YOU WENT IN THE REAR DOOR. WAS THAT DOOR LOCKED? A YES, IT WAS. Q DID SOMEBODY HAVE TO UNLOCK IT AND LET YOU IN FROM THE INSIDE? A YES, THEY DID. Q NOW, ON THAT DAY ON JULY 6TH OF 1995, DID YOU I AND THE OTHER OFFICERS, OR SOME OF THEM THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, WE DID. Q AND THAT'S THE INSPECTION, IS IT NOT, THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE AS FAR AS OFFICERS ENFORCING THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 12? A CORRECT. Q HOW LONG ABOUT DID THAT INSPECTION LAST? A IT LASTED ABOUT 45 MINUTES, MAYBE AN HOUR AT THE MAX. Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COUNCIL THE BASIC LAYOUT IN PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL AS FAR AS HOW MANY ROOMS ARE IN USE FOR MASSAGE AND THAT TYPE OF THING? A WELL, AS YOU ENTER THROUGH THE REAR DOOR THERE'S KIND OF A STORAGE AREA WHERE THEY KEEP TOWELS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND THERE IS A BATHROOM. THERE IS A HALLWAY, JUST LIKE THERE WOULD BE IN ANY DOCTOR'S OFFICE, WITH EXAM ROOMS ON BOTH SIDES. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S SIX OF THEM, THREE ON EACH SIDE. AND THEN WHEN YOU REACHED TOWARDS THE FRONT, THERE IS AN OFFICE, AND THEN THERE IS A DOOR ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE IS A WAITING ROOM. Q AND SO ALONG EITHER SIDE OF THAT CORRIDOR, AS YOU REFERENCED, LIKE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, THERE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF ROOMS ON EITHER SIDE FOR MASSAGE AREAS? 1_ A CORRECT. Q WHAT DOES THE INTERIOR OF THOSE ROOMS LOOK LIKE GENERALLY? A WELL, FOUR OF THE ROOMS APPARENTLY WERE BEING USED FOR MASSAGES. THEY APPEARED TO HAVE A BED IN THEM, NIGHTSTAND, A LIGHT. THAT WAS ABOUT IT. Q AND IN LOOKING AT THOSE ROOMS DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INSPECTION, DID YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE THE DOORS AND THE DOOR KNOBS TO THOSE ROOMS? A YES, I DID. Q AND WERE THE DOORS OF THE MASSAGE ROOMS THAT YOU OBSERVED CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED? A YES, THEY WERE. Q DID YOU INSPECT THE PREMISES ON JULY 6TH, 1995, FOR WRITTEN RECORDS OF TREATMENTS AND PATIENTS AND TECHNICIANS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ON THE PREMISES UNDER THE CODE? A YES, I DID. Q AND DID YOU FIND ANY SUCH RECORDS ON THE PREMISES? A NO. Q DID YOU LOOK FOR, AT THE TIME YOU WERE MAKING YOUR INSPECTION, A SIGN OR SOME TYPE OF POSTING THAT INDICATED THE LIST OF SERVICES AVAILABLE AT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE COSTS FOR THOSE SERVICES THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE? A YES, I DID. I Q AND DID YOU SEE ANY SUCH SIGN POSTED ANYWHERE IN PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR INSPECTION, AGAIN ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU SEE ANY MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS POSTED THERE AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES. Q AND DID YOU LOOK AT THAT TIME AT THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE PERMITTED UNDER THOSE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS? .A YES, I DID. I I I . ":r 8-29-95 Q THE BUSINESS A THERE WAS. Q AND JUST FOR THE COUNCIL'S INFORMATION, WHAT CAUSED YOU AND THE OTHER OFFICERS TO ENTER THE PREMISES? A WELL, WE HAD UNDERCOVER OFFICERS THAT HAD JUST COME OUT OF THE BUSINESS AND ADVISED US OF THE V.IOLATIONS. Q AND SO YOU THEN WENT INTO THE BUSINESS TO MAKE ARRESTS; IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? A WELL, THE OFFICERS THAT OBSERVED THE VIOLATIONS DID. THE OTHER OFFICERS WERE THERE FOR THE INSPECTION. Q AND AT THE TIME THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS WERE THERE, WHICH I THINK YOUR TESTIMONY WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE YOU ENTERED THE PREMISES, PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS? A YES, THEY WERE. Q AND IN FACT, WHILE YOU WERE IN THE PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL MAKING YOUR INSPECTION, CUSTOMERS CAME IN LOOKING FOR WHATEVER SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE THERE? A YES, THERE WERE. Q NOW, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AT THE TIME YOU WERE MAKING THAT INSPECTION, WERE EITHER OF THE LICENSED MASSAGE TECHNICIANS ON THE PREMISES AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL WHILE IT WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS THAT DAY? A NO, THEY WEREN'T. Q ON JULY 6TH, AT THE TIME YOU WERE MAKING THAT INSPECTION, DID YOU PERSONALLY SHOOT SOME VIDEOTAPE OF THE INTERIOR OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A VIDEOTAPE, WHICH BEARS THE LABEL, SEAL BEACH POLICE A9503340335, WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. VODNOY, AND ASK YOU IF THAT LOOKS LIKE. THE TAPE THAT YOU SHOT ON THAT DAY? I'M GOING TO PLAY THIS TAPE BRIEFLY TO THE COUNCIL. MR. VODNOY: MAY I RECORD MY OBJECTION TO THE TAPE? THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT THE POLICE CHIEF DID NOT SEE THIS TAPE, AND THEREFORE THE TAPE PLAYS NO PART IN HIS DETERMINATION TO ISSUE THE REVOCATION. THIS IS DESIGNED STRICTLY TO PREJUDICE THE COUNCIL AND HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE ON THE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE POLICE CHIEF KNEW ON THE DATE IN QUESTION, WHICH WAS THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THIS HEARING. MR. STEELE: TESTIMONY OF CHIEF STEARNS WAS THAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN REPORTED TO HIM VERBALLY THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS THAT WERE DISCOVERED AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, BOTH ON MAY 31ST AND ALSO ON JULY 6TH. CHIEF STEARNS TESTIFIED THAT THAT WAS AN ORAL REPORT GIVEN TO HIM BY LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, ALSO INFORMATION FROM DETECTIVE MULLINS. THIS VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOT PERSONALLY BY LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, SHOWS WHAT HE SAW AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL THAT DAY, SHOWS WHAT HE THEN REPORTED ON TO CHIEF STEARNS. MR. VODNOY: I'VE NOT OBJECTED, OBVIOUSLY, TO WHAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN HAS TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT HE SAW AND WHAT HE REPORTED TO CHIEF STEARNS, BUT TO PLAY THE VIDEOTAPE WHEN IT WAS NOT PLAYED FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS STRICTLY PREJUDICIAL, ADDS NOTHING IN THE WAY OF ANY PROBATIVE VALUE AND CONTAINS MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE CHARGES AND CONTAINS INTERVIEWS THAT WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA AND STATEMENTS FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE AT THE LOCATION. AND I WOULD STRENUOUSLY OBJECT BECAUSE, AS I UNDERSTAND, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHIEF OF POLICE ON THE 6TH OF JULY WAS PROPER IN REVOKING THE PERMIT. NOW, THE CHIEF HAS STATED THAT HE SAW IT TODAY. THIS IS AUGUST 29TH, I BELIEVE, AND YOU WILL BE SEEING IT TODAY. AND WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH WHAT THE CHIEF KNEW OR WAS GIVEN ON JULY 6TH? MR. STEELE: AND AT THE TIME YOU WERE MAKING THIS INSPECTION, WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS, WASN'T IT? THERE WERE PATIENTS THERE WHEN WE ARRIVED, SO YES, I'LL JUST TAKE ONE MORE MINUTE -OF YOUR 8-29-95 TIME AND NOTE THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT HOW YOU WERE TO MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION. AND I NOTED THAT ONE OF YOUR DETERMINATIONS WAS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS. YOU'VE HEARD WHAT THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED. NOW, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE WHAT HE SAW. IT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT TO THE CASE. IT'S THE INFORMATION THAT CHIEF STEARNS KNEW ABOUT AT THE TIME HE MADE THE DECISION, WAS THE INFORMATION THAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN SAW AND WAS CONVEYED TO I THE CHIEF. WHETHER OR NOT THE CHIEF SAW IT AT THE TIME ISN'T REALLY RELEVANT. THIS GOES TO SHOW WHAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN KNEW AND WHAT HE REPORTED ON TO CHIEF STEARNS. MR. VODNOY: ONE OTHER THING, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, I'M NOT CONTESTING THAT LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN SAW DOORS LOCKED -- OUTSIDE DOORS LOCKED, INSIDE DOORS LOCKED. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT AND LOOK FOR SUSPENSION. BUT I THINK THOSE ARE FACTS. AND TO PLAY THIS -- YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO CONTEST. WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT HE'S LYING, SO THEREFORE, I DON'T SEE THE PURPOSE IN -- YOU KNOW, IF I DESTROY HIM ON CROSS SOMEHOW, WHICH I'M NOT INTENDING TO DO, THEN I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH REBUTTAL, PUTTING THE TAPE IN TO SHOW HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH. BUT I DON'T INTEND TO CHALLENGE HIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DOOR LOCKS ON THE OUTSIDE AND THE INSIDE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE BEING SHOWN, OTHER THAN TO PREJUDICE YOU. MR. STEELE: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. MR. BARROW: ONCE AGAIN, I SHOULD REMIND THE CITY COUNCIL, AS THEY ARE CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION, THAT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, NOT A PROCEEDING -- NOT A CIVIL OR A CRIMINAL TRIAL. IN CIVIL TRIALS THERE IS A SECTION OF THE EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 WHERE IT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE. AND LET ME READ THE STANDARD TO YOU. IT MAY HELP YOU I' IN RULING ON THIS OBJECTION. "THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IF ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE PROBABILITY THAT ITS ADMISSION WILL" -- AND TH:tS IS THE KEY PART, THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER -- "WILL THE INTRODUCTION NECESSITATE UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME." IN OTHER WORDS, WILL IT TAKE TOO LONG. OR TWO -- AND YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON THIS -- "CREATE SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF UNDUE PREJUDICE OF CONFUSING THE ISSUES OR MISLEADING THE JURY," WHICH IS THE TRIER OF FACT. THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT A COURT -- A JUDGE WOULD USE IN A CIVIL TRIAL, SO THAT MAY HELP YOU IN REACHING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO OVERRULE HIS OBJECTION OR SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION WITH RESPECT TO SHOWING THE TAPE. YOU'VE HEARD ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES. IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A RULING. MR. BROWN: I HAVE A QUESTION, IF I MAY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE STIPULATING TO THE FACT THE DOORS ARE LOCKED. I PRESUME YOU WILL PROBABLY STIPULATE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SIGN UP AND SOME OF THOSE THING~, AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE ARE TESTING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND IS THERE ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TESTING ABOUT WHETHER -- THE OTHER PART OF IT WAS THE CRIMINAL PART. IT WAS DIVORCED FROM THIS AND IT -- WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THINGS? LET ME KNOW. MR. STEELE: THERE ARE OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT -- AND I NOTE, THEY AREN'T DEALT WITH ON THE VIDEOTAPE -- REGARDING THE I" NATURE OF THE MASSAGE THAT WAS GIVEN, THE CLOTHES THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN WAS WEARING OR WASN'T WEARING IN THIS CASE, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE THE ITEMS THAT CHIEF STEARNS REFERRED TO AS THE IMMORAL CONDUCT, THAT TYPE OF THING, THAT MR. VODNOY HASN'T ADDRESSED. I WELCOME THE FACT THAT HE'S ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE DOORS ARE LOCKED AND THOSE THINGS, BUT THERE ARE ALSO OTHER VIOLATIONS WHICH YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. MR. LASZLO: THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ON TAPE? MR. STEELE: NO, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ON TAPE. MR. BROWN: YEAH, SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF LOOKING AT THE TAPE? I I I . .0" '.. .~ '.' .....t. 'r~ 8-29-95 MR. LASZLO: YOU ARE ASKING US WHETHER WE SHOULD SEE THE TAPE OR NOT AND THAT SEEMS TO ME THE QUESTION, IS THAT CORRECT, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO SE~ THE TAPE? YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SEE THE TAPE AND HE'S SAYING WE SHOULD NOT SEE THE TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT? MR. STEELE: RIGHT. MR. LASZLO: NOW, THE QUESTION IS, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A DECISION UNLESS WE KNOW WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON THAT TAPE? MR. BARROW: LET ME INTERRUPT AND RESPOND TO THAT. WHAT'S COMMON -- ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, BUT IN COURT, OFTEN THE JUDGE -- SEE, THIS IS CONCERNED ABOUT PREJUDICING THE JURY. YOU'RE THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE. OFTENTIMES A JUDGE WILL REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PROPOSED AND THEN MAKE A LATER DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. AND SO IF YOU WANT, AS ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS, IS TO REVIEW THE TAPE AND LATER THEN TAKE HIS OBJECTION UNDER SUBMISSION, AND IF YOU FEEL THAT THIS HAS THE -- THAT IT'S PROBABLE THAT THIS WILL CREATE SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF UNDUE PREJUDICE, YOU WOULD INSTRUCT YOURSELVES TO DISREGARD THE TAPE AND SUSTAIN HIS OBJECTION. SO THAT'S A THIRD OPTION. MR. LASZLO: THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S IN THIS CASE, THOUGH. MR. BARROW: THAT'S WHAT YOU DO IN CIVIL COURTS, BUT YOU COULD ADOPT THAT STANDARD, IF YOU LIKE. MR. STEELE: OR I CAN, IF YOU WOULD RATHER, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ASK LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN WHAT'S ON THE TAPE AND WHETHER HE TOOK PICTURES OF THOSE THINGS AND YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO SEE IT. MAYOR HASTINGS: THE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, IS THIS GOING TO VALIDATE THE MAY 31ST, 1995 UNDERCOVER OFFICER'S STATEMENTS HERE, 19 THROUGH 29, EXCLUDING 26 A 28? AND WILL IT VALIDATE JULY 6TH, 1995, BY OFFICER 111, STEPHEN BOWLES? YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VIEWING IS GOING TO BE THE IMPROPER AND OBJECTIONABLE PART AND ALL THE IMPROPER 19 THROUGH 29 EXCLUDING THE IMMORAL, 22, 25, 26, 28 AND 29? I JUST -- WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS THAT, IS THIS GOING TO VALIDATE AND VERIFY THE REPORTS THAT ARE HERE? MR. STEELE: IT'S GOING TO VERIFY PARTS OF THE REPORTS THAT ARE HERE. MAYOR HASTINGS: PARTS, EXCLUDING THE IMMORAL PARTS? MR. BROWN: MR. STEELE MADE A SUGGESTION -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FINDS THAT AGREEABLE, TO HAVE THE LIEUTENANT GO THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE TAPE AND VERBALLY TALK ABOUT THEM AND THAT -- MR. VODNOY: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIS TESTIFYING. I HAVE NOT OBJECTED TO HIS TESTIFYING. I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY VALID. I THINK HE'S COVERED FRANKLY AT THIS POINT -- AND IT'S NOT MY -- THERE ARE DOORS ON THE INSIDE AT THAT TIME ON JULY 6TH THAT WERE CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED. THE BACK DOOR, I'M NOT CONTESTING, WAS IN FACT LOCKED. I INTEND TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES WITH THE COUNCIL AND SEEK SOME MODIFICATION TO A REVOCATION. BUT, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT, YOU KNOW -- AGAIN, I'M STIPULATING FOR THE SAKE OF, IF YOU WANT A WORD, STIPULATION, HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DOORS BEING CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED ON THE INTERIOR AND THAT THE BACK DOOR IS LOCKED, IS COMING IN WITHOUT OBJECTIONS AND WITHOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION BECAUSE THESE ARE HIS PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND THEY ARE ALSO REFLECTED ON THE TAPE. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS, THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS ON THE TAPE WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY -- WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED IN ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE -- HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE SUGGESTION OF MR. BARROW IS THE FACT THAT IN ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN YOU HAVE A JUDGE MAKING THE DETERMINATION OF THE VISIBILITY, THE JURY IS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE JURY ROOM AND THE JUDGE IS RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY WITHOUT THE JURY. THIS IS LIKE SAYING I WANT TO SHOW YOU A PINK 8-29-95 RHINOCEROS IN THE CORNER AND AFTER YOU LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY, I WANT YOU TO FORGET ABOUT IT. AND IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. HUMAN NATURE IS SUCH THAT YOU DON'T UNRING A BELL. SO I WOULD TAKE -- I WOULD OBJECT TO YOUR VIEWING IT BECAUSE WHILE YOU ARE IN EFFECT ANALOGOUS TO BOTH JUDGE AND JURY, I'M TRYING TO GET AS UNPREJUDICED A PRESENTATION AS POSSIBLE. AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO BE AS COOPERATIVE AS I CAN. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IS, IS YOUR TAPE GOING TO VALIDATE SEAL BEACH CODE 12-91 MR. STEELE: I THINK IT WILL, YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THEN, WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TO WATCHING IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE OBJECTING TO BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CODE VIOLATIONS MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT -- MR. VODNOY: I'M NOT CHALLENGING THAT THERE ARE CODE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE ON THE 12TH -- I MEAN, ON THE 6TH. I'M SIMPLY STATING THAT THIS -- IF THEY WANT TO EDIT THE TAPE IN SOME MANNER TO SHOW YOU THE DOOR LOCKS AND SO FORTH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, I MEAN, BUT I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF IT BECAUSE I'M AGREEING WITH THAT. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE 6TH IN TERMS OF THE DOOR LOCKS AND SO FORTH. WE INTEND TO PUT MR. YOUNGERMAN ON TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT. BUT NEVERTHELESS, I'M AGREEING FOR WHATEVER LEGAL VALUE IT HAS THAT, IF THIS OFFICER TESTIFIES THAT THE BACK DOOR WAS LOCKED, IT WAS LOCKED. IF THE OFFICER TESTIFIES THAT THE INTERIOR DOORS WERE CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED, THAT'S TRUE. AND MY POINT IS THERE ARE OTHER THINGS -- I HAVE SEEN THE TAPE. I'VE BEEN GIVEN THE TAPE. AND I KNOW IT'S FRUSTRATING TO ARGUE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN, WHICH IS -- MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT'S TRUE. MR. VODNOY: -- WHICH IS VERY COMMON FOR OUR SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THESE, WHAT'S CALLED.IN CAMERA HEARINGS, AND IN CRIMINAL CASES I HAVEN'T A CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON IN CHAMBERS. AND I KNOW THE FRUSTRATION LEVEL PERSONALLY. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, HAVING SEEN THE TAPE, I BELIEVE IT CONTAINS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO l?UT OUT OF YOUR MIND AND IT WILL INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION. I CAN ONLY MAKE MY RECORD AND TRY TO BE AS COOPERATIVE AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXTENT THAT I CAN BE. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. BARROW, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION FOR THE COUNCIL TO MAKE BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO VALIDATE AND VERIFY, YOU KNOW, THE VIOLATIONS. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT WOULD BE SO OBJECTIONABLE THAT WE COULDN'T SEE IT. PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP US? MR. BARROW: YES. LET ME STATE THE OPTIONS AGAIN AND LET ME ELABORATE ON THE CODE SECTION THAT I CITED TO YOU, SECTION 352 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. PREJUDICE IS MORE CONCERNED -- I MEAN, IT'S THE TRIER OF FACT THAT THE LAW IS MORE CONCERNED THAT A JURY WOULD BE PREJUDICED BY THINGS WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT, AND SO THEY ARE WEIGHING PROBATIVE VALUE, YOU KNOW, THE TENDENCY OF THIS TAPE TO PROVE THINGS COMPARED TO WHATEVER PREJUDICE MAY OCCUR TO A JURY. NOW, I'VE BEEN THROUGH PLENTY OF TRIALS WHERE THERE IS NO JURY AND YOU STILL USE SECTION 352. AND IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE TO APPLY j52. AND MR. VODNOY DID SAY SOMETHING ABOUT UNRINGING THE BELL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT -- IT'S A PHRASE THAT'S OFTEN USED IN TRIALS, BUT JUDGES DO IT ALL THE TIME. JUDGES CAN INSTRUCT THEMSELVES NOT TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. SO YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS~ ONE, IS TO OVERRULE HIS OBJECTION AND LET THE TAPE BE SHO~m; TWO, IS TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AND THE TAPE WILL NOT BE SHOWN; OR THREE, IS TO SHOW THE TAPE AND TAKE HIS OBJECTION UNDER SUBMISSION AND YOU CAN I I I I I I 8-,29-95 MAKE A RULING LATER ON. IN YOUR RULING, YOU CAN STATE, SPECIFICALLY, WE'VE CONSIDERED ,THE OBJECTION OF MR. VODNOY AND WE'VE SUSTAINED IT OR OVERRULED IT. AND IF YOU SUSTAIN IT, YOU CAN SAY, WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED WHAT WE SAW ON THE TAPE IN REACHING OUR DECISION. SO YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS. AND AT THIS TIME IF THE COUNSEL IS READY, THEY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO GO WITH ONE OF THOSE THREE OPTIONS. . MR. LASZLO: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? AND I MAYBE SHOULD ASK BOTH ATTORNEYS. NOW, WE WERE -- IF ,THIS WAS AT A TRIAL WHERE -- A CRIMINAL CASE' OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WOULD THIS BE ADMISSIBLE OR WOULD THIS BE THE SAME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES? MR. BARROW: I WILL ADDRESS AND THEN MR. VODNOY, I'M SURE HE CAN ELABORATE. IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, IN MOST CASES, HE'S RIGHT. THE JUDGE CAN REVIEW IT -- THE JUDGE WOULD REVIEW IT, BUT HE WOULD MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE JURY CAN REVIEW IT. YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE -- MR. LASZLO: WELL, THE POINT IS, ONE IS CLAIMING -~ AND MY POINT IS; ONE IS CLAIMING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT SHOW THE DOOR'S LOCKED. AND HE'S ADMITTING THAT AND THE OTHER STUFF IS IRRELEVANT. AND THAT'S THE POINT t'M SORT OF QUESTIONING WITH, WOULD THIS BE IRRELEVANT IN OTHER KIND OF TRIALS? MR. DOANE: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT OPTION THREE AS EXPRESSED BY MR. QUINN BARROW. MAYOR HASTINGS: I THINK MR. BROWN WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. MR. BROWN: I DID, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A MOTION AND I THINK A SECOND ON IT. BUT MY FEELING IS SOMETHING ~HAT STEELE SAID. I THINK WE COULD ASK THE LIEUTENANT EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT IS ON THE TAPE AND SO FORTH, AND IF IN CROSS-EXAMINATION YOU BEGIN TO TEAR HIM APART BEFORE EVEN LOOKING AT THE TAPE. AND I THINK, O~HERWISE, YOU CAN READILY HEAR EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE TAPE AND YOU WON'T BE IN A SPOT OF BEING PREJUDICED AGAINST IT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE READILY EVERYTHING THEY ARE TAl.KING ABOUT. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S A FAIRLY FAIR WAY TO DO IT. AND IF HE BEGINS TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT YOU PRETTY WELL AGREED , TO BETWEEN STEELE AND THE LIEUTENANT, AND WE'VE GOT A VERBAL PICTURE OF THAT AND -- I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE TAPE. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS SUGGESTED, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE FAIREST OF ALL WAYS. MR. BARROW: OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THERE IS NO SECOND WITH RESPECT TO COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN'S ' COMMENTS. THAT'S ACTUALLY A FOURTH OPTION, WHICH IS TO MAKE NO DECISION AT THIS TIME, NOT SHOW THE TAPE AND SEE IT LATER ON AND DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE TAPE, SO THAT'-S THE FOURTH OPTION. MR. STEELE: WHY DON'T I JUST OFFER TO WITHDRAW MY INTENTION TO SHOW THE TAPE AT THIS TIME, AS LONG AS I CAN RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SHOW IT UNDER REBUTTAL. MR. DOANE: I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. . MR. LASZLO: ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW LONG IS THAT . ' . TAPE? MR. STEELE: 12 MINUTES. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. LASZLO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A RECESS. ARE YOU GOING TO BE THROUGH WITH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN PRETTY SOON? MR. STEELE: JUST SO WE HAVE A CLEAR RECORD, THEN, MR. VODNOY HAS AGREED THAT THE DOORS WERE CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED ON JULY 6TH? MR. VOCNOY: YES, I'VE SAID IT. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. I'LL SAY IT WHEN MY TURN COMES UP. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU. BY MR. STEELE: . Q THEN FOR THE RECORD, LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, IN THAT VIDEOTAPE YOU SHOT ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU TAKE AN INDIVIDUAL SHOT OF EACH DOOR TO A MASSAGE ROOM IN THAT ESTABLISHMENT WHICH SHOWED A LOCKING MECHANISM ON THAT DOOR? 8-29-95 A YES, I DID. Q AND DID YOU REACH OUT AND ACTUALLY LOCK EACH ONE OF THOSE DOORS AND DEMONSTRATE THAT ON THE VIDEOTAPE? A YES, I DID. Q DID YOU ON THAT VIDEOTAPE SHOOT PICTURES OF THE TWO MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS WHICH WERE POSTED ON THE WALL AT THAT TIME? I A YES, I DID. Q DID YOU ON THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKE VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME HANDWRITTEN NOTES WHICH WERE KEPT AT T~E DESK IN THE RECEPTION AREA? A YES, I DID. Q DID THOSE NOTES CONTAIN ANYTHING THAT LOOKED REMOTELY LIKE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CLIENTS AND THE DATES THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED TREATMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE? A THERE WERE NO DATES, NO NAMES, NO ADDRESSES. Q DID YOU ON THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKE A VIDEO OF A -- FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD, FAKE CAN WHICH -- MR. VODNOY: I OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION. THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I WAS OBJECTING TO AND NONE OF THE CHARGES CONTAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY IMPROPER AND I'D LIKE TO CUT IT OFF BEFORE HE GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE QUESTION. MR. STEELE: I THINK THE CHIEF HAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS IMMORAL ACTIVITY ON THE PREMISES, AND THIS IS CERTAINLY EVIDENCE OF THE IMMORAL ACTIVITY. MR. BARROW: DID COUNSEL FINISH THE QUESTION? MR. STEELE: NO. MR. LASZLO: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? MR. BARROW: COUNCIL CAN'T ACT ON THAT QUESTION UNTIL THEY HEAR THE QUESTION, AND SO YOUR OBJECTION IS PREMATURE. YOU I SHOULD LET HIM ANS- -- YOU KNOW, ASK THE QUESTION. AND AT THAT TIME IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN OBJECTION, OBJECT BEFORE THE WITNESS RESPONDS. BY MR. STEELE: Q THANK YOU. DID YOU ON THAT DAY, JULY 6TH, TAKE VIDEOTAPE OF A -- FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD -- FAKE LYSOL CAN? MR. VODNOY: I WOULD OBJECT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ALLEGATIONS FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT RELATE TO JULY 6TH TALKING ABOUT A CAN. AND I OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE NO NOTICE OF THIS. THIS IS IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE ENUMERATED MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN THE NUMBERS, AND THEREFORE, I OBJECT TO THE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THAT, AND ANSWER. MR. STEELE: AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMMORAL ACTIVITY, AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE LIEUTENANT ABOUT EVIDENCE OF THAT ACTIVITY. MR. VODNOY: ALSO, ONE OTHER THING. THE -- I BELIEVE THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE DID NOT STATE THAT THERE WAS ANY IMMORAL ACTIVITY ON THE 6TH. IT WAS BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12, SO THAT HE'S PRESENTING THINGS THAT WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE. MR. BARROW: I'D RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AND DIRECT COUNSEL TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION. SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE A RULING; THAT I S MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. I MR. BROWN: SO MOVED. MAYOR HASTINGS: SECOND. MR. DOANE: AYE. MR. LASZLO: AYE. MS. FORSYTHE: AYE. ~. BROWN: AYES. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: IT'S UNANIMOUS. IT'S 5-0. MR. STEELE: THANK .YOU. I'LL WITHDRAW THAT QUESTION. BY MR. STEELE: . Q LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, WHEN YOU SHOT THE -- STRIKE I I I 8-29-95 THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY.ON JULY 6TH, 1995, DID YOU THEN RETURN TO THE SEAL BEACH POLICE STATION? A YES. Q ON JULY 6TH, 1995, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF ST~S REGARDING THE STATUS OF THIS PARTICULAR MATTER? A YES, I DID. Q AND ON JULY 6TH, 1995, DID YOU INFORM CHIEF STEARNS REGARDING THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED AS HAVING OBSERVED THAT DAY ? A YES, I DID. Q AND ON THAT DATE, JULY 6TH, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF STEARNS REGARDING THE POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT? A YES. Q AND DID YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHIEF STEARNS AT THAT TIME? A YES, I DID. Q WHAT WAS THAT RECOMMENDATION? A THAT THE PERMIT BE REVOKED. Q ONE FINAL ITEM. IS THERE A PROCEDURE AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY WHICH OFFICER'S POLICE REPORTS ARE SORT OF SHIFTED UP THE LADDER FOR REVIEW BY SUPERIOR OFFICERS? A THERE IS AN APPROVAL PROCESS. Q AND ARE YOU.ONE OF THE SUPERIOR OFFICERS WHO HAS A ROLE IN THAT APPROVAL PROCESS? A YES, I AM. Q AND HOW DO YOU INDICATE YOUR APPROVAL OF POLICE REPORTS? A WITH MY SIGNATURE ON THE LAST PAGE. Q I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THREE REPORTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. VODNOY. THESE ARE TWO REPORTS PREPARED BY OFFICER BOWLES.. THEY ARE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCIL AS PART OF THE PACKET, AND ONE REPORT PREPARED BY DETECTIVE MULLINS. AND ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE REVIEWED THESE REPORTS? A YES, I HAVE. Q AND WOULD YOUR APPROVAL OF THOSE REPORTS BE NOTED BY YOUR SIGNATURE IN THE BOTTOM, RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF EACH REPORT? A YES. MR. STEELE: I WOULD ASK THAT THE REPORTER MARK THE REPORT NUMBER DR9S1244 AS EXHIBIT 2, THE REPORT NOTED A9S0334 AS EXHIBIT 3, AND THE REPORT NOTED A9S0334-3S BE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 4 AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. (CITY'S EXHIBITS 2, 3 AND 4 WERE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION BY THE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND ARE ATTACHED HERETO.) MR. VODNOY: I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT FOR THE RECORD TO THE REPORTS AS HEARSAY AND ALSO CUMULATIVE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE REPORTS -- AND I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THE NUMBERS PRETTY QUICKLY, BUT IT'S MULLINS' REPORT -- IT'S HEARSAY AND ALSO CONTAINS -- IS THAT MULLINS' REPORT? MR. STEELE: I HAVEN'T DONE MULLINS' REPORT. MR. VODNOY: YOU HAVEN'T DONE MULLINS? I'M SORRY. IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MOMENT SO I KNOW WHAT I'M OBJECTING TO? (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) MR. VODNOY: I WOULD OBJECT TO MULLINS' REPORT, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 4, WHICH WAS PREPARED ON THE 12TH. IT COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO A DETERMINATION BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I WOULD OBJECT TO THE OTHERS, WHICH WERE TIMELY, BUT I WOULD OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE CUMULATIVE AND HEARSAY. MR. BARROW: MR. STEELE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THAT OBJECTION? MR. STEELE: AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY NOTED FORMAL RULES OF EVIDENCE DON'T APPLY AS TO THE CUMULATIVE AND THE HEARSAY 8-29-95 OBJECTIONS. I ALSO -- I DISAGREE AS TO THE HEARSAY OBJECTION. THESE ARE CLEARLY OFFICIAL REPORTS AND BUSINESS RECORDS. THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO A HEARSAY OBJECTION. AND AS TO THE OBJECTION TO THE JULY 12TH REPORT BY DETECTIVE MULLINS, THIS IS A REPORT WHICH SAYS THAT HE SERVED THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION ON THE BUSINESS ON JULY 12TH AND NOTES WHAT HE OBSERVES THERE~ IT'S NOT OFFERED FOR -- AS BEING ANY I SUPPORT FOR CHIEF STEARN'S DECISION. IT'S OFFERED TO SHOW THAT THE BUSINESS RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE VIOLATIONS AND BOTH OWNERS, WHO ARE LISTED AS OWNERS ON THE PERMITS, WERE GIVEN THAT NOTICE, ALTHOUGH THEY REFUSED TO SIGN IN ACCEPTANCE OF.THAT NOTICE. MR. BARROW: MAYOR, AND COUNCIL, I'LL GIVE YOU A STANDARD -- AND WE CAN TAKE A BREAK. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. MR. STEELE: IT'S MY LAST QUESTION FOR LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN ANYWAY. MR. BARROW: ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, BUT IN COURT YOU HAVE RULES OF EVIDENCE WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. BUT EVEN IN A RULE IN A COURT, YOU HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A HEARSAY RULE WHERE STATEMENTS BY OTHER WITNESSES, ROUGHLY SPEAKING, SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PERSON MAKING THAT STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS. MR. STEELE HAS CITED TWO EXCEPTIONS, A BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION AND THE OFFICIAL RECORDS' EXCEPTION. THESE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE. OFFICIAL RECORDS IS, "EVIDENCE OF WRITING MADE AS A RECORD OF AN ACT, CONDITION OR EVENT MADE BY AND WITHIN THE SCOPE AND DUTY OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE." THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, "AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE ACT, CONDITION OR EVENT." AND THREE, "THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND METHOD AND TIME OF PREPARATION WERE SUCH AS TO INDICATE ITS TRUSTWORTHINESS. " SO THAT'S THE STANDARD. I TO SUM IT UP, IT'S MADE BY A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE AND IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER IS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. WAS IT MADE AT OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL EVENT? AND SO YOU HAVE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ON THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN THIS -- HE DID HIS REPORTS -- WHEN HE REVIEWED THE REPORTS. AND THREE, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION ARE TRUSTWORTHY. IF YOU'D LIKE, WE COULD TAKE A BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE AND YOU CAN MAKE A RULING. (RECESS) MR. BARROW: OKAY. MAYOR, FOR THE RECORD, EVERYONE IS BACK. WE HAD A PENDING OBJECTION. MR. VODNOY WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, APPARENTLY? MR. VODNOY: NO. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. VODNOY, THERE HAS BEEN A SUGGESTION FROM THE LADY THAT IS TAKING MINUTES AS WELL AS YOUR STENOGRAPHER HERE, THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE FREQUENTLY WHEN YOU TURN YOUR BACK, YOU ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, IN THE MICROPHONE AND IT MAKES IT HARD FOR THEM TO HEAR AND WRITE EVERYTHING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WRITE. OKAY? MR. VODNOY: ABSOLUTELY. MAYOR HASTINGS: THANK YOU. MR. VODNOY: I APOLOGIZE. MR. BARROW: OKAY. SO FOR THE RECORD, EVERYONE IS BACK, AND THE FULL COUNCIL IS BACK, THE APPLICANT AND HIS I ATTORNEY, THEY ARE BACK. THE WITNESS IS STILL ON THE COURT STAND. THERE WAS AN OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THREE EXHIBITS AND MR. r-- THERE WAS TWO OBJECTIONS. ONE WAS HEARSAY;, THE OTHER ONE WAS PREJUDICE, AGAIN? MR. VODNOY: PREJUDICE, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE REPORTS IS DATED JULY 12TH AND COULD NOT HAVE IN ANY WAY AFFECTED CHIEF STEARN'S DECISION, AND THEREFORE IS IRRELEVANT. MR. BROWN: I -- I WOULD AGREE WITH THE ONE AFTER THE 6TH, TWO OR THREE DAYS AFTER. I DON'T SEE WHAT BEARING THAT WOULD HAVE ON WHAT CHIEF STEARNS DID. I I I .. ":;ll < " " " " 8-29-95 MAYOR HASTINGS: SURE. MR. BARROW: OKAY. SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT AFFECT ON THE REPORT THAT'S DATED THE 12TH -- MR. BROWN: I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE FIRST TWO AND DELETE THE -- OR NOT USE THE ONE THAT'S DATED THE 12 TH. MAYOR HASTINGS: I'LL SECOND THAT. MS. FORSYTHE: I HAVE A QUESTIl3N. IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT HERE, THAT WE MAKE A DECISION BASED SOLELY ON THE CHIEF'S LETTER OR THE FACT THAT THERE WERE CODE VIOLATIONS THAT EXISTED AND ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT RELATES TO THAT SHOULD BE ABSORBED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? MR. BARROW: THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE BEFORE CHIEF STEARNS WHEN HE MADE HIS DECISION? MS. FORSYTHE: SO THAT'S THE CONSIDERATION, RIGHT, WHETHER THAT LETTER WAS WARRANTED? MR. BROWN: YEAH. MR. BARROW: YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: AND THEN THE 12TH WOULD BE AFTER CHIEF STEARNS -- MR. BARROW: I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE 12TH IN FRONT OF ME. MR. BROWN: WELL, IT'S JUST A LETTER THAT HE WENT DOWN AND SERVED THE NOTICE OF, WHEN THE CHIEF TOLD HIM TO SERVE THE NOTICE. AND AT THAT TIME HE ALSO OBSERVED SOME OTHER THINGS, BUT IT'S AFTER THE CHIEF MADE HIS DECISION. AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO TRY TO DECIDE IF THE CHIEF MADE A GOOD DECISION, SO THAT'S MY MOTION. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, I SECONDED IT, SO LET'S CALL FOR THE -- MR. LASZLO: HOLD IT. HOLD IT. MR. BROWN: OKAY. THE MOTION IS THAT HE'S TURNED IN THREE POLICE REPORTS. ONE IS DATED SUBSEQUENT OR AFTER. I'M SAYING THAT'S PROBABLY -- WE SHOULD IGNORE THAT ONE AND TAKE THE OTHER TWO; THAT I S THE MOTION. MR. LASZLO: ALL RIGHT. MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT PASSES AS 5-0. MR. VODNOY: OKAY. THANK YOU. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODNOY: Q CALLING YOUR ATTENTION, LIEUTENANT -- I WROTE-IT DOWN. MR. STEELE: MOLLOHAN. THE WITNESS: A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT NAME, SO IT'S OKAY. BY MR. VODNOY: Q YOU FOUND MY FLAW ALMOST INSTANTLY. I CAN'T REMEMBER NAMES. WITH RESPECT TO MAY 31ST, DID YOU MAKE ANY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOCATION ON MAY 31ST? A COULD YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF BY "PERSONAL OBSERVATION"? Q DID YOU GO INTO THE LOCATION? A NO, I DID NOT. Q DID YOU GO TO THE LOCATION, ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION, ON MAY 31ST? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q WAS THAT MAY 31ST DONE BY OFFICER MULLINS OR DETECTIVE MULLINS? A DONE BY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "DONE BY"? Q WAS HE IN CHARGE OF THAT PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION ON THAT DATE? IN OTHER WORDS, WAS HE SUPERVISING OFFICER BOWLES -- RESERVE OFFICER BOWLES? A WELL, AT THAT LOCATION HE WAS. Q I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT LOCATION. WHATEVER ELSE HE DOES, I'~ SURE IT'S -- A WE ALL WENT BEFORE. I MEAN, I WAS THERE. Q BUT MULLINS IS THE ONE THAT WENT WITH BOWLES TO 8-29-95 THE LOCATION AND HE WAS ON THE OUTSIDE? A YES. Q AND YOU DID WHATEVER YOU DID ON THE 31ST, BUT THAT DID NOT INCLUDE GOING TO THE LOCATION? A CORRECT. Q OKAY. NOW, THE REVIEW OF BOWLES' REPORT -- STRIKE THAT. DID BOWLES SPEAK TO YOU PERSONALLY ABOUT HIS OBSERVATIONS ON MAY 31ST? A YES, HE DID. Q WHEN WAS THAT? A RIGHT AFTERWARDS, THEY CAME HACK TO THE STATION. , Q NOW, WITH RESPECT TO JULY 6TH -- AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DOORS, WERE ANY -- EXCLUDING THE OUTSIDE, EXTERIOR, REAR DOOR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE MASSAGE ROOMS WERE ALL CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED -- AND I'M NOT CONTESTING THAT; IS THAT CORRECT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WERE ANY OF THOSE DOORS IN FACT LOCKED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE 12TH? DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? I DON'T MEAN THE 12TH. I'M SORRY. JULY 6TH, I APOLOGIZE. A WELL, I UNDERST~D YOUR QUESTION, BUT ARE YOU ASKING MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OR IF I HAD KNOWLEDGE OF? Q YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS? A NO, I DIDN'T SEE ANY DOORS LOCKED. Q AND IN FACT, WHAT'S VIEWED ON THE TAPE WITH RESPECT TO THE DOOR LOCKS, IS THAT YOU SHOW OR DEMONSTRATE -- OR SOMEBODY DEMONSTRATES WITH YOUR CAMERA, I GUESS, THAT YOU CAN LOCK THEM IF YOU WANT TO, THE INTERIOR DOORS; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q BY LOCKING IT AND JIGGLING THE OUTSIDE DOOR AND IT DOESN'T OPEN; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? A THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. Q OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTSIDE DOOR, THERE ARE TWO EXTERIOR DOORS, ARE THERE NOT, TO THIS LOCATION? A YES, THERE ARE. Q ALL RIGHT. THE FRONT DOOR IS OPEN, IS THAT -- OR UNLOCKED, IS THAT RIGHT, WHEN YOU PULL INTO THE WAITING ROOM? A I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. Q OH, YOU DIDN'T GO IN THERE; YOU ONLY WENT THROUGH THE BACK DOOR? A CORRECT. Q OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE BACK DOOR, YOU TRIED THE DOOR AND IT WAS LOCKED; IS THAT RIGHT? A THAT'S RIGHT. Q NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER BUSINESS AT THAT LOCATION HAS LOCKED DOORS ON THE OUTSIDE IN THE BACK? MR. STEELE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. CODE REQUIRES ALL EXTERIOR DOORS HE UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES THAT BUSINESSES ARE IN OPERATION. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT AREN'T MASSAGE BUSINESSES DO. MR. BROWN: SOUNDS REASONABLE. MR. VODNOY: I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION, THEN, AND I'LL ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BY MR. VODNOY: Q WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE LOCATION, WERE THERE ANY MEN IN THE LOCATION WHO ARE -- OTHER THAN CUSTOMERS? IN OTHER WORDS, WERE THERE ANY MEN WORKING AT THE LOCATION? A YOU MEAN AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? Q YES. A I DIDN'T SEE ANY M1~ES, NO. . . Q THERE WERE THREE FEMALES; IS THAT RIGHT? A . YES, THERE WERE THREE FEMALES THERE. ,. Q ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU, IN A COMPLETE SEARCH OF- THE LOCATION, DID YOU RECOVER ANY WEAPONS, THAT IS, GUNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I I' I I I I ~.' t, ''''.4.,1~ 8-29-95 A NO WEAPONS. NO GUNS. Q SO THAT IF A BURGLAR OR ROBBER WANTED TO COME IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR AND IT WAS UNLOCKED, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO IMPEDE HIM FROM DOING WHATEVER HE WANTED TO WITH THREE DEFENSELESS WOMEN; IS THAT CORRECT? MR. STEELE: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. IT'S IRRELEVANT . MR. VODNOY: WELL, THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION -- WE'RE NOT CONTESTING THAT THE BACK DOOR WAS LOCKED. AS I SAID, I WOULDN'T CONTEST IT. HOPEFULLY I HAVE THIS CREDIBILITY WITH THE COUNCIL AT THIS POINT. BUT'MY POINT IS THAT YOU HAVE JUST EXCLUSIVELY WOMEN PERSONNEL AT THIS LOCATION. THAT YOU HAVE -- THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE CODE SECTION SAYS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LOCKED, BUT THAT I THINK THAT IS AN UNREASONABLE -- AN UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH A BUSINESS THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HAS TO LET PEOPLE IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT. NOW, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT -- I AGREE, BY MY QUESTION, THAT THE DOOR WAS LOCKED. I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT TO THE COUNCIL THAT THIS IS A REVOCATION HEARING AND THERE MAY BE OTHER LESS STRINGENT PUNISHMENTS THAT SHOULD BE MADE. OR PERHAPS YOU WANT TO RETHINK THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BACK DOORS BE LOCKED. MS. FORSYTHE: AS A POINT OF CLARITY, MAYBE TO EXPEDITE THE MATTER, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNCIL TO RESPOND "SUSTAINED" OR WHATEVER? THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR RIGHT NOW. AND WE'RE SITTING HERE LIKE FIVE DOPES. MR. BARROW: TO GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE -- MR. STEELE: COULD I RESPOND BEFORE YOU GIVE ADVICE? MR. BARROW: SURE. MR. STEELE: AS COUNCIL HAS REPEATEDLY STATED TONIGHT AND TAKEN A LOT OF TIME, HOTH OF US, DOING THIS, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID THE CHIEF KNOW, WHAT VIOLATIONS WERE THERE, WHAT DOES THE CODE SAY? THE CODE SAYS THE DOORS SHALL NOT BE LOCKED. IF MR. VODNOY AGREED THAT THE DOOR WAS LOCKED, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON. MAYOR HASTINGS: ME, TOO, PLEASE. MR. VODNOY: ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE ON. MR. BARROW: AND I'LL JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. VODNOY WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR POINT AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDING, SO MOST OF YOUR QUESTION WAS REALLY ARGUMENT AND NOT A QUESTION. BY MR. VODNOY: Q WAS THERE ANY DELAY, IN YOUR OPINION AND -- STRIKE THAT -- WHEN YOU KNOCKED ON THE BACK DOOR; IS THAT RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO JULY 6TH. NOW, YOU WENT TO THE BACK DOOR? A CORRECT. Q DETERMINED THAT IT WAS LOCKED? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q DID YOU KNOCK ON THE DOOR? A NO. Q WHAT DID YOU DO? A WAITED. Q YOU DIDN'T ANNOUNCE YOUR PRESENCE AT ALL? A NO. Q DID SOMEBODY UNLOCK THE DOOR? A YES. Q WHO UNLOCKED THE DOOR? A ONE OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS. Q YOU DID NOT REQUEST ANY OF THE PEOPLE INSIDE TO LET YOU IN? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. WAIT A MINUTE. JUST LET ME ASK, WHEN YOU GO INTO THE BACK DOOR, I THINK THE FIRST THING YOU SEE IS A WASHING MACHINE, IS IT NOT? MAY I SHOW A PICTURE? I'LL MARK THIS EXHIBIT A. 8-29-95 A DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE PICTURE ON THE SAME GROUNDS OF THE OBJECTION OF THE VIDEOTAPE. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN. WE DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK IT. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR IT. THERE IS NO REASON TO INTRODUCE THAT INTO EVIDENCE. MR. VODNOY: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. I HAVEN'T ASKED I THE QUESTION BECAUSE I STOPPED. BY MR. VODNOY: Q I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN THIS EVENING AND ASK YOU WHETHER THIS PHOTOGRAPH ACCURATELY REFLECTS WHAT YOU SEE -- OR SAW ON JULY 6TH WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE LOCATION? AND I GUESS WE CAN HAVE THE OBJECTION -- MR. STEELE: I'VE MADE MY OBJECTION. MR. BARROW: SO THE OBJECTION -- MR. STEELE: I DON'T OBJECT TO THE QUESTION. I OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. MR. BARROW: OKAY. SO YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: YES. MR. VODNOY: I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH AS AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN YOU WALKED IN THE BACK WAY ON THE 6TH OF JULY. MR. STEELE: SAME OBJECTION. MAYOR HASTINGS: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WOULD THE TAPE VERIFY THAT THE WASHING MACHINE WAS THERE WHEN IT WAS SHOT? PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THE TAPE FOR VERIFICATION TO SEE IT IS SO. MR. VODNOY: I DON'T RECALL. IF INTRODUCING IT IS GOING TO INTRODUCE THE TAPE, I'LL WITHDRAW THE PICTURE. MR. LASZLO: I AGREE. MR. VODNOY: I'LL WITHDRAW THE PICTURE. I' MR. BROWN: IT'S NOT GONNA MATTER PARTICULARLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IS IT, REALLY? MR. VODNOY: NO. WITHDRAW THE PICTURE. MR. STEELE: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER OF LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. MR. VODNOY: NOTHING FURTHER. MR. STEELE: MOVING ALONG, I'LL CALL OFFICER STEPHEN BOWLES. MR. VODNOY: I WOULD LIKE TO, AT THIS TIME, TO OBJECT TO HIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON THE 31ST BECAUSE HE WAS NEVER INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE CHIEF. ANY STATEMENTS THAT HE MAKES TO YOU WERE NEVER PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN MAKING HIS DETERMINATION. AND IN FACT, THE CHIEF NEVER INTERVIEWED YOU, SAW ANY REPORTS OR DID ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RESERVE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH MAKING HIS DECISION ON JULY 6TH. SO THAT I WOULD OBJECT TO HIS TESTIMONY BECAUSE WHILE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, I SUGGEST THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT WHAT WE'RE NOW LEARNING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE POLICE CHIEF DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THIS, THAT IS, HE NEVER INTERVIEWED HIM. I'M GOING TO MAKE A FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE MAY 31ST INCIDENT ON THE GROUNDS IT'S DOUBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED ON THE 31ST IS THAT -- MR. STEELE: IS THIS AN OBJECTION? I MR. VODNOY: THIS IS AN OBJECTION. OBJECT TO'HIS TESTIFYING REGARDING TO THE EVENTS OF MAY 31 ST. MR. STEELE: THERE IS A CHAIN OF COMMAND IN ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANY ORGANIZATION LIKE THAT. TESTIMONY IS' THAT CHIEF STEARNS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE MULLINS, WHO -- AND LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN TESTIFIED HE RECEIVED INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM OFFICER BOWLES. I DON'T THINK CHIEF STEARNS INTERVIEWS EVERY OFFICER WHO DOES ANYTHING IN THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. 'AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT HE PERSONALLY INTERVIEW OFFICER BOWLES PRIOR TO MAKING THIS DETERMINATION. HE HAD THE INFORMATION' FROM I I I 8-29-9;5 OFFICER BOWLES RELAYED THROUGH A SOURCE THAT CHIEF STEARNS SAID HE CONSIDERED WAS CREDIBLE, AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT WENT TO CHIEF STEARNS. MAYOR HASTINGS: ON THIS OBJECTION THAT HE'S REGISTERED, I WOULD LIKE TO -- COULD WE MAKE A MOTION TO OVERRULE THIS OBJECTION? MR. BARROW: SURE. MAYOR HASTINGS: WOULD THIS BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO IT? MR. BARROW: YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS IF TO ME IT PERTAINS DIRECTLY TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE 12-18, AND SO I WOULD SO MOVE. MR. DOANE: I'LL SECOND. MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT PASSES 5-0. I'M SORRY. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL. STEPHEN BOWLES, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN BY THE CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEELE: Q OFFICER, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE COURT REPORTER. A MY NAME IS BOWLES, B-O-W-L-E-S, FIRST NAME IS STEVE, S-T-E-V-E. MR. STEELE: MAYOR, COUNCIL, SOME OF THIS CONTENT IS A LITTLE BIT DELICATE AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I'M KEEPING IT AS DELICATE AS I CAN. BY MR. STEELE: Q OFFICER, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR RANK AND YOUR STATUS WITH THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT? A I'M A, WHAT WE CALL LEVEL 1 RESERVE OFFICER, AND I'VE BEEN -- I'M THE VERY LOWEST -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY LOWEST IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND, IN THE SWORN STATUS, THAT IS. AND I PRIMARILY WORK IN THE PATROL DIVISION WORKING UNIFORM PATROL. USED IN SPECIALIZED ASSIGNMENTS, SUCH AS THIS UNDERCOVER ASSIGNMENT, AS WELL AS SPECIAL FOOT BEATS AND VARIOUS CONCENTRATIONS OF A PATROL OFFICER. Q WHAT~S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESERVE OFFICER AND REGULAR SWORN OFFICER? A THE DIFFERENCE IS THE HOURS OF TRAINING. THE RESERVE OFFICER HAS APPROXIMATELY 400 HOURS OF TRAINING WHERE THE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER HAS HAD 700 HOURS OF TRAINING. A SIDE NOTE TO MY OWN PERSONAL TRAINING, I RECEIVED 400 HOURS IN MY RESERVE ACADEMY AND TWO WEEKS AGO I COMPLETED MY FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER ACADEMY, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL 700 HOURS. SO NOW I HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1100 HOURS OF FORMAL ACADEMY TRAINING, WHICH IS MORE THAN ANY PATROL OFFICER HAS. Q WERE YOU IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING THAT SECOND 700 HOURS AT THE TIME YOU PARTICIPATED IN THIS INVESTIGATION? A YES, SIR. Q AND IS IT UNUSUAL FOR RESERVE OFFICERS TO BE CALLED IN ON UNDERCOVER ACTIVITIES SUCH AS THIS ONE? A NO, IT'.S ACTUALLY VERY COMMON BECAUSE WE ARE PART-TIME AND WE'RE VOLUNTEER -- SOMETIMES VOLUNTEER, SOMETIMES PAID. WE ARE NOT AS VISIBLE IN THE COMMUNITY AS MANY OF THE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICERS, SO IT WORKS WELL FOR THE ASSIGNMENTS. Q DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THIS UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES. Q WHO SUPERVISED YOUR WORK ON THAT INVESTIGATION? 8-29-95 A I WAS SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY THE DETECTIVE BUREAU THAT WAS HANDLING THE INVESTIGATION, NAMELY LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE DETECTIVE BUREAU. AND THE CASE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO DETECTIVE MULLINS. Q AND YOU REPORTED TO DETECTIVE BOB MULLINS? A YES, SIR. Q AND DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTING TO LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN IN THIS CASE? A OFTENTIMES.-- WELL, THE TWO TIMES THAT I DID GO TO THE P.P.C. CENTER, WE HAD BRIEFINGS, SO EVERY TIME WE WERE BRIEFED OR DEBRIEFED REGARDING THE SITUATION, WHAT HAD OCCURRED OR WHAT WE WERE GOING -- WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND OUR PURPOSE FOR THE INVESTIGATION, MOST OF THE DETECTIVES WERE THERE, AS WELL AS LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. Q HAVE YOU EVER PARTICIPATED IN AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION? A OF THIS NATURE OR -- Q ANY NATURE, ANY KIND OF POLICE INVESTIGATORY I MATTER? A EVERY DAY I GO ON PATROL IT'S AN INVESTIGATION, WHATEVER TYPE OF CRIME WE ARE INVESTIGATING, WHETHER IT'S A VEHICLE BURGLARY OR ANYTHING ELSE, IT ALL HAS CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF CRIMES AND THOSE ARE THINGS TO IDENTIFY. Q NOW, IF YOU INVESTIGATE A CRIME AND YOU DO SOME INVESTIGATION WORK, DO YOU EVER MEET DIRECTLY WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR REPORT YOUR RESULTS TO YOUR INVESTIGATION? A NO. Q YOU MEET WITH THE SUPERVISING OFFICER; RIGHT? A YES. Q TALK ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION; WHAT'S GOING ON DAY-TO-DAY IN THE INVESTIGATION? I' A MY -- CAN I TELL YOU HOW MY PAPERWORK GOES? Q SURE. A MY PAPERWORK THAT I DO, THE REPORTS THAT I WRITE, ARE TURNED IN TO MY SERGEANT; WHEN I'M IN PATROL, THEY ARE TURNED IN TO MY SERGEANT, WHO THEN APPROVES IT, AND THAT GOES TO THE LIEUTENANT, UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. Q AND SOMEBODY UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND MAKES DECISIONS ON CRIMES AND INCIDENTS THAT YOU'VE INVESTIGATED AS TO WHETHER THEY PASS ON -- GET PASSED ON FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENS TO THOSE CASES; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU'RE NOT MAKING THOSE DECISIONS. A NO. Q AS A RESERVE OFFICER? A NO. Q OKAY. TURNING YOUR ATTENTION TO MAY 31ST, 1995, DID YOU VISIT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON THAT DATE IN AN UNDERCOVER CAPACITY? A YES, I DID. Q AT WHOSE DIRECTION DID YOU MAKE THAT VISIT? A DETECTIVE MULLINS'. Q AND DID YOU GO THERE ALONE? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q DID YOU GO WITH ANOTHER OFFICER? A YES, I DID. I' Q ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT OTHER OFFICER OFFICER CARTER- A YES. Q WHOSE REPORT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN THIS EVENING? A YES. Q WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, DID YOU GO IN THE FRONT DOOR OR THE BACK DOOR AS WE'VE DESCRIBED HERE THIS EVENING? A THE BACK DOOR. Q AND WAS THAT DOOR UNLOCKED? A NO. Q SO HOW DID YOU GET IN? I I I ., .... " . ~"'~ . 8-29-9!! A WE PARKED OUR VEHICLE ON MARINA, RIGHT BELOW -- THE PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL BUILDING, THE ACTUAL OFFICE, IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE OFFICE BUILDING. AND SO WE CAME UP THE BACK STAIRS, RIGHT BY OFFICER'S DONUTS THERE, CAME UP THE STAIRS AND WENT DOWN THE BALCONY TO WHERE THE DOOR WAS. AT THAT POINT, ALL THE WINDOWS WERE COVERED -- OR NO, MINI BLINDS, WRAPPED TIGHT, WRAPPED VERY TIGHT, SO THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN SEE IN THE MINI BLINDS. AND WE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR -- ACTUALLY WE TRIED TO OPEN THE DOOR FIRST AND IT WAS LOCKED. AND THEN WE KNOCKED -- ACTUALLY OFFICER CARTER KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND I WAS STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. ABOUT PROBABLY TEN SECONDS TRANSPIRED AND AN ASIAN FEMALE PEEKED HER EYES THROUGH THE MINI BLINDS. THEY CLOSED UP AGAIN. ABOUT TEN SECONDS LATER THE DOOR OPENED AND WE ENTERED. Q COULD YOU HEAR THE DOOR BEING UNLOCKED? A YES. Q NOW, ON THAT DOOR THERE'S SOME LETTERING, ISN'T A YES. Q WHAT DOES THAT LETTERING SAY? A PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL. Q IT'S THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS; RIGHT? A YES. Q IS THERE ANY LETTERING THAT SAYS, "THIS IS NOT AN ENTRANCE," OR, "DON'T COME IN HERE," OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? A NO. THERE IS A BIG BANNER, A BIG PLASTIC BANNER, THAT DRAPES OVER THE BALCONY THERE, AND THAT ALONG WITH THE LETTERING ON THE DOOR -- IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF AN ENTRANCE OR AN EXIT. Q OKAY. SO THE ASIAN FEMALE OPENS THE DOOR, YOU HEARD IT UNLOCK, -AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED? A SHE RECOGNIZED OFFICER CARTER, WHO HAD BEEN THERE ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION. AND THE -- I WAS POSING AS HIS YOUNGER BROTHER FOR THIS OPERATION. WE WERE INVITED INTO THE REAR OF THE BUSINESS. AND AT THAT POINT, WE WERE QUICKLY TAKEN INTO TWO DIFFERENT MASSAGE ROOMS. Q WERE YOU TAKEN INTO. ONE AND OFFICER CARTER INTO THE OTHER? A YES. Q AND IN YOUR ROOM, THE ROOM YOU WERE IN, WAS THE DOOR CLOSED? A YES.' Q NOW, HAD YOU BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE YOU WENT TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL AT THE POLICE STATION? A YES, I HAD. Q AND DID DETECTIVE MULLINS GIVE YOU SOME SPECIFIC THINGS TO LOOK FOR? A YES. Q AND DID HE SPECIFICALLY TELL YOU TO LOOK FOR VIOLATIONS -- MR. VODNOY: OBJECTION. I OBJECT AS LEADING. MR. STEELE: I HAVEN'T ASKED THE QUESTION. MR. VODNOY: I'M OBJECTING AS LEADING. MR. BAAROW: WELL, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED, BUT YOU SHOULD INSTRUCT MR. STEELE TO AVOID LEADING QUESTIONS. ALTHOUGH, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. BY MR. STEELE: Q WERE YOU INSTRUCTED TO LOOK FOR SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE? A YES. Q WHAT TYPES OF VIOLATIONS WERE YOU.INSTRUCTED TO LOOK FOR, SPECIFICALLY? A ALTHOUGH I WASN'T BRIEFED ON COMPLETE MUNICIPAL CODE, I WAS ADVISED TO LOOK FOR LOCKING MECHANISMS ON THE INSIDE ON THE MASSAGE ROOM DOORS, PROPER ETIQUETTE WHEN DOING MASSAGE, MEANING BEING -- ME BEING COMPLETELY CLOTHED AS WELL AS THE MASSEUSE AT ALL TIMES. THERE? 8-29-95 a WHEN YOU WENT INTO YOUR -- WE'LL CALL IT A MASSAGE ROOM, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THE DOOR HAD A LOCKING MECHANISM ON IT? A YES, IT DID. a WAS THAT MECHANISM -- WAS IT CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED, THEN? A YES. 1 a AND ONCE YOU WERE IN THE ROOM -- YOU WENT INTO THE ROOM, WHAT HAPPENED? A I WAS TOLD TO -- SHE OPENED -- THE GIRL THAT GREETED US, THE OTHER OFFICER HAD RECOGNIZED HER AS ANNA. AND HE HAD CALLED HER ANNIE AND SHE HAD SAID HER NAME WAS ANNA TO ME. SHE OPENED THE DOOR TO THE ROOM WHERE I WAS TO GO IN. AT , THIS POINT, I HADN'T SAID A WORD. I HADN'T DONE ANY OVERT ACTIONS OR I HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. I WAS TOLD TO GO INSIDE THE ROOM. AND SHE SHUT THE DOOR IMMEDIATELY BEHIND ME WITH HER ON THE OUTSIDE, SO I WAS THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM AT THIS POINT. a THEN DID SOMEBODY COME IN LATER? A YES, SHE - THE SAME WOMAN ANNA, WHO IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS ANNA, OPENED THE DOOR. I DIDN'T LOCK THE DOOR. BUT SHE OPENED THE DOOR AND ASKED ME -- KIND OF STOOD IN THE DOORWAY AND ASKED ME FOR $40. I WAS GIVEN $60 AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING OUR BRIEFING BEFORE WE LEFT. AND I GAVE HER ~O 20- DOLLAR BILLS. AND SHE IMMEDIATELY CLOSED THE DOOR AND LEFT AGAIN. a LEFT YOU BY YOURSELF? A YES. a DID SOMEBODY ELSE COME IN SUBSEaUENT TO: THAT? A YES, ABOUT -- THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A'TIME DELAY, AND I WAS -- I KIND OF WAS NOT -- I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW 1 WHAT TO EXPECT SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST TYPE OF SITUATlpN LIKE THIS. SO I TOOK MY CLOTHES OFF AND I HAD MY UNDERG~ENTS ON. I HAD A T-SHIRT AND I HAD MY UNDERWEAR, WHICH WERE KI~D OF LIKE A LONG, LIKE A BIKE SHORT UNDERWEAR, YOU KNOW. SO I WAS FULLY COVERED FROM MY NECK DOWN TO ABOUT MY MID-THIGH AT THAT POINT. DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE? a WELL, DID ANYBODY COME INTO THE ROOM WHILE YOU WERE ATTIRED IN YOUR UNDERWEAR? A SURE. THIS FEMALE CAME IN -- DIFFERENT WOMAN CAME IN, ASIAN. AND SHE CAME IN. AND I WAS SITTING IN A CHAIR IN THE ROOM AND I WAS WAITING FOR HER. SHE CAME IN THE ROOM AND I STOOD UP. AND SHE IMMEDIATELY TOOK OFF MY UNDERWEAR AND MY T-SHIRT AND DIRECTED ME TO LAY ON -- LAY ON THE MATTRESS THAT WAS IN THE ROOM. a NOW, SHE REMOVED YOUR CLOTHES? A YES. a IS THAT WHAT YOUR TESTIMONY IS? A YES. a DID YOU ASK HER TO DO THAT? A NO. I STILL HAVEN'T SAID A WORD. a DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HER AT THIS POINT? A NO. a AND WAS THE DOOR CLOSED? A YES. a WAS THE DOOR LOCKED? I' A YES. SHE HAD -- SHE CAME IN AND IMMEDIATELY LOCKED THE DOOR AND THEN CAME OVER TO WHERE I WAS. a DID SHE OFFER YOU ANYTHING TO COVER YOqRSELF WITH? A NO. IN THE VIDEO I HAVE, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TOWELS IN THE ROOM AND TOWELS ON THE BED. AND SHE DZ,DN'T OFFER TO COVER ME UNTIL I LAID ON THE MATTRESS. a OKAY. SO WHEN YOU DID LAY ON THE MATTRESS, DID SHE THEN OFFER YOU A TOWEL? A I LAID ON MY -- I LAID DOWN ON THE MATTRESS ON MY BACK, SO I WAS FACING UP. AND SHE DIRECTED ME TO TURN OVER ONTO MY STOMACH WHERE THEN SHE PLACED A TOW- -- LIKE A SMALL TOWEL I I I 8-29-95 OVER MY BUTTOCX. Q SO YOU HAD NO CLOTHING ON OTHER THAN THE TOWEL AT THIS POINT? A CORRECT. Q TOWEL COVERING, SORT OF DRAPED OVER YOUR BUTTOCK? A CORRECT. Q AND WHAT HAPPENED; WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT? A I STILL HADN'T HAD ANY VERBAL CONTACT WITH HER AT ALL. SHE JUST KIND OF HAD BEEN POINTING. IN A SENSE THERE WAS A KIND OF A LANGUAGE BEARER AT THIS POINT. AND SHE GOT ON HER KNEES RIGHT NEXT TO THE MATTRESS, WHICH IS IN THE ROOM, AND SHE -- WELL, ACTUALLY SHE -- I'M SORRY. PREVIOUSLY, BEFORE COMING TO THE MATTRESS, SHE WENT OVER TO THE LITTLE NIGHTSTAND. AND I TRIED TO GET A VISUAL ON WHAT EXACTLY WAS IN THERE, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE MAYBE SOME DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREAMS OR OILS. AND SHE GRABBED A BOTTLE AND CAME OVER AND WAS ON HER KNEES TO MY RIGHT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MASSAGE ROOM. AT THAT POINT SHE TOOK THE OIL AND PUT IT ON THE BACK OF MY HAMSTRINGS AND MY BUTTOCK AND STARTED MASSAGING. Q SHE WAS MASSAGING YOUR BUTTOCK AREA UNDER THE TOWEL? A YES, SHE WAS. Q YOU MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO IN PASSING, A LANGUAGE BARRIER. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAME TO BE AWARE OF LATER ON, THAT THERE WAS A BARRIER OR -- BECAUSE I THINK YOU TESTIFIED THAT NOTHING HAD BEEN SAID? A RIGHT, NOTHING HAD BEEN SAID. AND I COULD TELL FROM WHEN I FIRST MET WITH THE -- WITH ANNA, WHEN WE FIRST ENTERED THE ROOM, SHE SPOKE KIND OF BROKEN ENGLISH, SO I KIND OF JUST -- THAT'S WHY I JUST KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT AT THIS POINT AND JUST KIND OF WAITED UNTIL -- I'D LET HER DO WHATEVER SHE WAS GOING TO BE DOING. Q AFTER SHE STARTED TO MASSAGE YOUR HAMSTRING AREA AND UP TO YOUR BUTTOCK AREA, WHAT HAPPENED? A SHE SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED THE TOWEL FROM MY BUTTOCK AND SHE REACHED WITH HER HAND UNDERNEATH ME AND GRABBED MY GENITAL AREA. Q AND DID SHE -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. WAS IT KIND OF AN ACCIDENTAL TYPE OF THING? DID SHE ACCIDENTALLY TOUCH THERE? A NO. AND I WAS VERY CONSCIOUS ABOUT THAT HAPPENING, SO I WAS, YOU KNOW, I DEFINITELY LET HER PERPETUATE WHATEVER MOVEMENT SHE WAS DOING. SHE REACHED UNDER AND SPECIFICALLY GRABBED AND MASSAGED MY PENIS AND THE GENITALS AND THAT AREA. AND SHE DID IT CONSISTENTLY FOR PROBABLY ABOUT -- PROBABLY ABOUT A MINUTE. Q DID YOU ASK HER TO DO THAT? A NO, SIR. Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD AN OTHERWISE INNOCENT MASSAGE TECHNICIAN TO JUST START MASSAGING YOUR GENITALS? A NO, SIR, NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID YET. Q AT THIS POINT YOU'RE STILL LAYING ON YOUR STOMACH; IS THAT CORRECT? A YES. Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? A SHE THEN KIND OF PUSHED ME OVER. SHE -- THIS IS WHERE KIND OF THE LANGUAGE BARRIER CAME IN. SHE APPARENTLY ASKED ME TO DO SOMETHING AND I DIDN'T DO WHAT SHE ASKED ME TO DO AND SHE KIND OF PUSHED ME. SHE WAS TELLING ME TO ROLL OVER ON MY BACX. SO AS SHE STARTED TO PUSH ME, THAT'S WHEN I KIND OF STARTED TO REALIZE THAT'S WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO TELL ME, TO ROLL OVER ONTO MY BACX. I ROLLED OVER ONTO MY BACX, HAD NO TOWELS COVERING ME AT ALL. AND AT THAT POINT SHE GOT UP OFF HER KNEES AND SHE BROUGHT -- SHE TOOK HER TOP OFF EXPOSING HER BREASTS UP TO HER NECK, KIND OF PULLED UP HER SHIRT UP TO HER NECK, AND SAT ON TOP OF MY CHEST FACING MY FEET. 8-29-95 Q NOW, DID YOU ASK HER TO PULL UP HER TOP'OR REMOVE HER TOP? A NO. Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HER THAT WOULD HAVE LED AN OTHERWISE INNOCENT MASSAGE TECHNICIAN TO BELIEVE THAT YOU WANTED HER TO PULL UP HER TOP? A NO, NOR HAD I -- Q DID YOU TOUCH HER IN ANY WAY, BEFORE, WHEN SHE WAS PULLING UP HER TOP? A NO. Q WHERE WERE YOUR HANDS? A MY HANDS WERE CLENCHED RIGHT NEXT TO MY BODY. Q WERE YOU A LITTLE NERVOUS AT THIS TIME? A I WAS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY NERVOUS, AS I AM TODAY. Q SO AFTER SHE EXPOSED HER BREASTS AND CLIMBED ON TOP OF YOU, SORT OF FACING THE OTHER WAY, DID SHE -- WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A SHE THEN STARTED TO MASSAGE MY GENITAL AREA, I AGAIN. Q AND AT THIS POINT WHEN SHE'S MASSAGING YOU, YOU HAVE NO CLOTHES ON; RIGHT? A NO CLOTHES ON. Q NO TOWEL COVERING YOU? A CORRECT. Q SO SHE WAS ADMINISTERING A MASSAGE TO SOME PORTION OF YOUR BODY AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU WERE NAKED? A YES. Q DID YOU DO SOMETHING TO STOP HER? A YES, I DID. I WAS -- OBVIOUSLY I WAS THERE FOR A PURPOSE AND MY PURPOSE WAS THERE TO INVESTIGATE AS MUCH AS I COULD. SO WHAT I DID AFTER IS -- I DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY I DETERMINED THAT HER -- THE REASONING FOR HER SITTING ON MY CHEST WAS TO MASSAGE MY GENITAL AREA. I DECIDED TO MOVE HER OFF OF ME, SO I HAD TO KIND OF PHYSICALLY MOVE HER. I ASKED'HER, I SAID, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU PLEASE GET OFF?" AND SHE KIND OF DIDN'T, MAYBE DIDN'T HEAR ME. SO I KIND OF PUSHED HER AND SHE KIND OF MOVED OFF ME TO -- OFF ME TO MY OTHER SIDE. SO NOW SHE WAS OFF ME ON HER KNEES TO MY LEFT. AND I TOOK A TOWEL, PROBABLY THE SAME TOWEL THAT WAS COVERING MY BUTTOCK. IT WAS TO THE RIGHT. AND I GRABBED IT AND COVERED MYSELF. Q OKAY. SO YOU'VE NOW MOVED HER OFF OF YOU AND COVERED YOURSELF BACK UP AGAIN. AND SHE IS SITTING OFF TO ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER? A YES. SHE'S STILL OFF TO MY LEFT AND -- SHE WAS STILL OFF TO MY LEFT AND HER SHIRT WAS STILL AT HER NECK. Q AND DID SHE MAKE ANY OTHER ATTEMPT TO GIVE YOU ANY FURTHER MASSAGE? A WELL, AT THAT POINT IS WHEN I TRIED TO ENGAGE HER IN CONVERSATION. I ASKED HER HER NAME AND I GOT NO RESPONSE, SO I ASKED HER AGAIN, "WHAT IS YOUR NAME?" AND SHE SAID HER NAME WAS YOMI. AND I ASKED HER WHERE SHE WAS FROM, AND I THINK I HAD TO ASK HER AGAIN, AND SHE SAID, "KOREA," AGAIN. Q BUT JUST GETTING BACK TO MY SPECIFIC QUESTION. A SORRY. Q DID SHE AT ANY POINT AFTER THE TIME YOU MOVED HER OFF OF YOU ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN MASSAGE AGAIN? I A YES. Q AND DID SHE ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN MASSAGE IN YOUR GENITAL AREA OR WAS IT THE REST OF YOUR BODY? A MY GENITAL AREA, AGAIN. Q HOW MANY MORE TIMES -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. WHEN SHE MADE HER NEXT ATTEMPT, DID YOU STOP HER AGAIN? A UK - HUH. Q AND AFTER YOU STOPPED HER, DID SHE EVER'MAKE ANOTHER ATTEMPT? .. A SHE TRIED TO DO IT AGAIN AND SHE ACTUALLY SHE DID IT AGAIN AND BECAME -- I COULD TELL, BECAME RATHER I I I r. . 8-29-95 FRUSTRATED. Q FRUSTRATED THAT YOU WOULDN'T LET HER COMPLETE -- A CORRECT, CORRECT. Q THE ACT? A CORRECT. Q SO AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU STOPPED HER FROM TRYING TO REACH FOR YOUR GENITAL AREA AGAIN, TWICE NOW, DID YOU DECIDE TO TERMINATE THE INCIDENT AND GET UP AND GET DRESSED? A WELL, WHAT HAD HAPPENED -- YES, THE TIME WAS OVER. Q OKAY. AND WHO LEFT THE ROOM FIRST? A SHE DID. Q DID SHE PULL HER TOP BACK DOWN BEFORE SHE LEFT THE A YES. Q DID SHE HAVE TO UNLOCK THE DOOR TO GET OUT OF THE ROOM? ROOM? A YES. Q DID SHE LEAVE THE DOOR UNLOCKED ONCE SHE LEFT? A YES. Q NOW, LET'S JUST TAKE ONE STEP BACK, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD. WHEN SHE CAME INTO THE ROOM AND READY TO START THE MASSAGE, YOU SAW HER TURN AROUND AND TURN THE LITTLE SWITCH TO LOCK THE DOOR? A YES. Q AND THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED FROM THAT POINT FORWARD UNTIL THE TIME SHE LEFT THE ROOM HAPPENED WITH A LOCKED DOOR? A YES. Q AND WHEN SHE LEFT THE ROOM, SHE WENT TO THE DOOR, TURNED THE LITTLE SWITCH ON THE DOOR, LIKE WE ALL HAVE ON OUR DOORS AT OUR HOUSE, AND UNLOCKED THE DOOR AND WALKED OUT? A YES. Q AND THEN AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT, YOU -- WELL, AFTER SHE LEFT THE ROOM, DID YOU GET UP AND LEAVE? A YES. Q AND DURING THE TIME YOU WERE AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON MAY 31ST, 1995, DID YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT PREMISES A SIGN THAT LISTED THE AVAILABLE SERVICES AND THE COSTS OF THOSE SERVICES? A NO. Q AND YOU LOOKED AROUND, DIDN'T YOU? A YES. Q YPU WERE MAKING A VISUAL SORT OF TOUR OF THE PREMISES OF EVERYTHING YOU SAW? A YES. I WAS -- I GOT OUT OF THE MASSAGE BEFORE OFFICER CARTER, SO THAT GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AROUND. Q AND DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, AGAIN ON MAY 31ST, DID YOU SEE ANY WRITTEN RECORD OF PATIENTS OR TREATMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU FOR INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN SOME OF THE RECORDS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY THE CODE, LIKE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU IF YOU HAD ANY SORT OF PAIN THAT NEEDED TO BE RELIEVED? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU IF YOU NEEDED SOME SORT OF PAIN RELIEF THERAPY OR MASSAGE THERAPY IN PARTICULAR? A NO. .- Q THEY WALKED INTO THE ROOM -- THIS SAME ASIAN FEMALE WHO EXPOSED HER BREASTS AND BASICALLY STARTED MASSAGING YOUR GENITALS; IS THAT THE GIST OF THE INCIDENT? A YES. " Q OKAY. SO ONCE YOU LEFT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, WHERE DID YOU GO? A LEFT THE P.P.C., PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, AND WENT 8-29-95 BACK TO THE STATION -- POLICE DEPARTMENT. Q OKAY. AND AT THE POLICE STATION, DID YOU GIVE ANY KIND OF ORAL REPORT TO A SUPERIOR OFFICER? A YES. WHAT HAPPENED WOULD BE KIND OF SIMILAR TO BEFORE -- WE WENT DOWN THERE WAS, WE MET BACK WITH LIEuTENANT -- LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE MULLINS AND MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES THAT WERE BACK THERE AT THE STATION.' AND WE I DISCUSSED WHAT HAD HAPPENED, WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. AND FROM THAT, AFTER THAT, THEN THAT'S WHEN I WROTE MY REPORT. Q SO YOU GAVE AN ORAL REPORT TO DETECTIVE MULLINS AND TO LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AS WELL? A YES. Q AND THEN YOU WROTE A WRITTEN REPORT? A YES. Q WHICH IS, I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT REPORT, WHICH WAS ON OR ABOUT MAY 31ST, DID YOU HAVE ALL OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE MEMORIZED? A NO. . Q DO YOU KNOW EVERY VIOLATION THAT THERE IS TO KNOW IN THAT PARTICULAR CODE SECTION? A NO. Q SO THE FACT THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE CITED A PARTICULAR CODE SECTION IN YOUR INCIDENT REPORT THAT BAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU NECESSARILY DIDN'T OBSERVE IT THAT DAY? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU MAY JUST NOT HAVE KNOWN THE PARTICULAR VIOLATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND THEN DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO GO BACK TO I PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON JULY 6TH, 1995? A YES. Q AND AT WHOSE DIRECTION? A LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN 'S, THE DETECTIVE BUREAU UNDER DETECTIVE MULLINS' DIRECTION. Q AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, DID YOU GO WITH OFFICER CARTER? A YES. Q AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON THAT OCCASION, JULY 6TH, WHICH WAY DID YOU GO INTO THE BUSINESS? A WE PARKED OUR VEHICLE OUT FRONT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE CENTER AND WENT IN THE NORTH FACING DOOR ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE MORE PUBLIC ENTRANCE THAN THE REAR. Q SO WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE FRONT DOOR? A YES, FRONT DOOR. Q AND WAS THE FRONT DOOR LOCKED AT THAT TIME? A FRONT DOOR WAS UNLOCKED. Q UNLOCKED, OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE FRONT DOOR, IS THERE SOME SORT OF WAITING AREA OR RECEPTION AREA THERE? A YES. Q THEN CAN YOU JUST SORT OF WALK ON BACK TO WHERE THE MASSAGES ARE? A NO. Q WHAT STOPS YOU? A A DOOR THAT SEPARATES THE WAITING ROOM FROM THE HALLWAY. I Q AND DID YOU AT ANY POINT CHECK TO SEE IF THAT DOOR WAS LOCKED OR UNLOCKED? A YES. Q AND WHICH WAS IT? A THE DOOR -- AS WE WENT IN, ANNA WAS THERE AT THE RECEPTION AREA AND SHE GREETED US. AND SO WE TRIED TO OPEN THE DOOR WHILE SHE WAS OVER THERE, OVER -- EXCUSE ME, TO 'THE LEFT, AND IT DIDN'T OPEN. SO SHE WALKED AROUND AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR US AND TOOK US INTO OUR MASSAGE ROOMS. -, I I I ~ r .... 8-29-95 Q SO IT WAS LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE? A YES. Q AND AT THAT POINT, DID ANNA TAKE EACH OF YOU IN SEPARATE MASSAGE ROOMS? A YES. Q AND SO SHE TOOK YOU INTO A MASSAGE ROOM, AND DID SHE CLOSE THE DOOR? A YES. Q AND NOW, ON THIS SEPARATE OCCASION ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THAT DOOR WAS CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED? A YES. Q AND WAS IT? A YES. Q IT HAD THE SAME KIND OF LOCKING MECHANISM YOU HAD SEEN ON YOUR PREVIOUS VISIT? A YES. Q OKAY. ONCE YOU GOT INTO THAT MASSAGE ROOM, WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A ONCE I GOT INTO THE MASSAGE ROOM, SHE OPENED THE DOOR, SHUT THE DOOR, AGAIN, AND SHE LEFT. SO I WAS IN THE ROOM BY MYSELF. AT THAT POINT I DISROBED AND HAD MY UNDERGARMENTS ON AND WAITED. Q AND AFTER YOU WAITED FOR A WHILE, WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A ANNA POPPED HER HEAD IN AND OPENED THE DOOR AGAIN AND GAVE -- ASKED FOR THE $40. I GAVE HER TWO TWENTIES THAT WERE GIVEN TO ME AT THE STATION. AND I GAVE HER THE MONEY AND SHE CLOSED THE DOOR AGAIN. . Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? A AT THAT POINT -- AT THAT POINT, SHE -- I WENT AND TOOK OFF -- TOOK THE UNDERGARMENTS OFF AND LAID ON THE TABLE. AND THE TABLE WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN IN THE OTHER ROOM. AND I WENT AND COVERED MYSELF WITH A TOWEL AND LAID ON THE MASSAGE TABLE WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN. Q SO YOU TOOK OFF YOUR UNDERGARMENTS WHILE NOBODY ELSE WAS IN THE ROOM AND THEN WENT AND COVERED YOURSELF? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU DIDN'T TAKE THEM OFF AT THE DIRECTION OF ANYBODY ON THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE? A NO. Q DID YOU COVER YOURSELF UP WITH A TOWEL? A YES. Q WERE YOU LAYING ON YOUR FRONT OR YOUR BACK? A ON MY BACK. Q AND THEN WHILE YOU WERE LAYING ON THE TABLE LIKE THAT, DID ANYBODY COME INTO THE ROOM? A YES. Q WAS IT ANNA OR WAS IT SOMEONE ELSE? A IT WAS A DIFFERENT PERSON I HADN'T SEEN BEFORE. Q WAS IT, AGAIN, ANOTHER ASIAN FEMALE OR SOMEBODY A YES, IT WAS A MUCH OLDER ASIAN FEMALE. Q MUCH OLDER THAN - A THAN THE PREVIOUS GIRL THAT I WAS WITH. Q SO IT WASN'T THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD EXPOSED HERSELF AND MASSAGED YOUR GENITAL AREA ON MAY 31ST; THIS WAS A DIFFERENT PERSON? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q DO YOU RECALL WHAT THIS PERSON WAS WEARING, THIS SECOND, ON JULY 6TH? _ A I BELIEVE SHE WAS WEARING A RED VELVET DRESS. Q A RED VELVET DRESS? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q DID IT HAVE SLEEVES? A .1 BELIEVE IT HAD MAYBE SHORT SLEEVES, BUT IT WAS A FULL DRESS, PROBABLY WENT DOWN TO HER KNEES. ELSE? 8-29-95 Q AND DID SHE COME IN AND CLOSE THE DOOR? A YES. SHE CAME INSIDE. SHE TURNED AROUND AND LOCKED THE DOOR AND CAME OVER TO WHERE I WAS LAYING. Q AND YOU SAW HER LOCK THE DOOR PRESUMABLY BECAUSE YOU WERE LAYING ON YOUR BACK AND YOU WATCHED HER COME IN? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED? I A AT THAT POINT SHE HAD GOT SOME OIL, SOME TYPE OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF OIL, AND BEGAN A MASSAGE. Q AND WAS THIS SORT OF THE NORMAL -- WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A NORMAL THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE? A YEAH, IT WAS" A MASSAGE THAT STARTED FROM MY FEET ON UP AND SHE DID NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MY GENITAL OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER AREAS. Q BUT YOU WEREN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND THE DOOR WAS LOCKED, WASN'T IT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THIS WOMAN'S NAME WAS THAT GAVE OR ADMINISTERED THE MASSAGE ON JULY 6TH? A NOT AT THAT TIME. Q HAVE YOU SUBSEQUENTLY COME TO KNOW WHAT HER NAME IS? A I IDENTIFIED HER NAME, BUT I CAN'T THINK RIGHT NOW. I KNOW SHE WAS ON OUR WITNESS LIST, I BELIEVE WITNESS 4. Q AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER AT THE TIME SHE ADMINISTERED THE MASSAGE TO YOU SHE HAD A VALID MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT? A NO, SIR, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I Q OKAY. NOW, ON JULY 6TH, AGAIN, DURING THE TIME YOU WERE AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, DID YOU AT THAT TIME SEE ANY SIGN LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH THE SERVICES AND THE PRICES AVAILABLE? A NO. Q YOU TOOK ANOTHER LOOK AROUND, DIDN'T YOU? A YES. Q DID YOU SEE ANY WRITTEN RECORDS OF THE PATIENTS AND TREATMENTS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU IF YOU HAD SOME SORT OF SPECIFIC PAIN PROBLEM? A NO. Q DID ANYBODY ASK YOU IF YOU NEEDED ANY SPECIFIC KIND OF ACUPRESSURE THERAPY OR ANYTHING? A NO. Q AND ONCE YOU LEFT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON JULY 6TH, THAT IS, WALKED OUT OF THE FRONT DOOR, WHERE DID YOU GO? A I WALKED DOWN THE STAIRS AND MET THE OTHER DETECTIVES THAT WERE WAITING DOWN BELOW. Q AND DID YOU THEN PARTICIPATE IN THE INSPECTION AND ARREST THAT TOOK PLACE LATER THAT DAY? I A YES, I DID. Q AND THEN AFTER THAT INCIDENT WAS CONCLUDED, DID YOU - WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER THAT? A AFTER THE INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WAS CONCLUDED, I WENT BACK TO THE STATION, TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Q AND AT THE END OF YOUR VISIT ON JULY 6TH - OR SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR VISIT ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT REGARDING THAT INCIDENT? A YES. MR. STEELE: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. . I I I I ,.f:......: t'-:~. - . 8-29-95 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODNOY: Q MR. BOWLES, WHY IS IT THAT YOU HAVEN'T APPLIED TO BE A FULL-TIME MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? MR. STEELE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. MAYOR HASTINGS: MAY I HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER WE ARE TO SUSTAIN THIS OR OBJECT TO THIS, I MEAN, SUSTAIN HIS OBJECTION OR NOT? MR. STEELE: HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE WASN'T QUALIFIED TO BE A FULL-TIME MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. MAYOR HASTINGS: NOT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME BECAUSE HE HADN'T COMPLETED HIS 700 HOURS OF TRAINING IN THE POLICE ACADEMY . MR. VODNOY: I UNDERSTOOD THAT. MY QUESTION IS, WHY ISN'T HE NOW A MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? MR. STEELE: YOU SAY TO YOURSELF NOTHING PAST JULY 6TH IS RELEVANT. IT'S PAST JULY 6TH. MR. VODNOY: THIS IS A WITNESS. I'M CROSS-EXAMINING HIM. MR. BARROW: SINCE THIS IS AN 'ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, YOU CAN GIVE THE COUNCIL LEEWAY TO ASK THAT QUESTION AND HAVE HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION. IT'S UP TO YOU. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER? THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE? BY MR. VODNOY: Q I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY, IF YOU'VE GOT 1100 HOURS AND YOU ONLY NEED 700, WHY YOU ARE NOT NOW A FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER FOR THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT? A WELL, I WAS -- I WILL BE SWORN IN, I BELIEVE, IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS. Q SO YOU WILL BE? A I'LL BE THE NEWEST, YEAH, FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER. Q ALL RIGHT. EASY QUESTION. HE'S ANSWERED. MAYOR HASTINGS: YEAH. BY MR. VODNOY: Q GOING BACK NOW ON TO THE 31ST, WHAT WAS IT EXACTLY YOU WERE TOLD ABOUT SECTION 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND WHO TOLD YOU? A DETECTIVE MULLINS AND LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN HAD DIRECTED ME THAT -- JUST TO BE OBSERVANT WHEN YOU GO IN THERE, TO LOOK FOR SUCH THINGS AS THE LOCKING MECHANISMS ON THE LOCKS INSIDE THE MASSAGE ROOMS AS WELL AS OTHER -- Q YOU MENTIONED THE LOCKING MECHANISMS IN YOUR REPORT, BUT WOULD IT BE A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY THAT YOUR REPORT OF MAY 31ST -- MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO OBJECT. HE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS ANSWER. MR. VODNOY: I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. YOU GO AHEAD AND FINISH. MR. BARROW: DID YOU FINISH YOUR ANSWER? THE WITNESS: BASICALLY, THAT THE LOCKING MECHANISMS AND THE CLOTHING SITUATION, WHETHER I HAD CLOTHING ON OR OFF OR THE MASSEUSE HAD CLOTHING ON OR OFF. BY MR. VODNOY: Q WOULD IT BE A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY THAT THE TWO AREAS THAT HE WANTED -- THAT HE ALERTED YOU TO WOULD BE, NUMBER ONE, WERE THERE LOCKS ON THE DOORS, AND THE SECOND ONE IS, ARE YOU CLOTHED AND IS THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN CLOTHED? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND THAT'S EVERYTHING HE TOLD YOU ABOUT AT THAT TIME? A AT THAT POINT, UH-HUH, THAT'S CORRECT. Q ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, THAT WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 12 VIOLATIONS, THE ONLY-VIOLATIONS YOU REFER TO IN YOUR THREE-PAGE REPORT ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE 8-29-95 LOCKING MECHANISM AND THE ISSUE ABOUT CLOTHING AND THE MASTURBATION? MR. STEELE: I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT? I MISSED THE END OF THE QUESTION. MR. VODNOY: AND MASTURBATION, LOCKING, CLOTHING, MASTURBATION. THE WITNESS: I'M NOT COMPLETELY WELL VERSED ON THE I MUNICIPAL CODE, SO I MAY HAVE HIT OTHER VIOLATIONS. BUT THOSE ARE TWO OF THEM THAT I -- I WROTE THAT AS BASICALLY FOR A CRIME REPORT AS WELL. BY MR. VODNOY: Q WELL, LET ME PUT IT THE OTHER WAY. IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LIST OF AVAILABLE SERVICES AND COST OF SERVICES POSTED? A NO. Q IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT ABOUT RECORDS OF TREATMENT KEPT ON THE PREMISES? A NO. Q AND AT THAT TIME YOU DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN HAD A LICENSE OR DID NOT HAVE A COURT LICENSE? A Q A Q FROM YOU; IS A Q THAT'S CORRECT. . AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE TECHNICIAN'S TRUE NAME? THAT'S CORRECT. NOW, THIS TECHNICIAN DID NOT ASK FOR ANY MONEY THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND YOU DIDN'T OFFER ANY MONEY TO HER; IS THAT RIGHT? A Q A Q A MOLLOHAN; $40 AS A TIP. Q AT THE END, I DID. YOU GAVE HER MONEY? THAT'S CORRECT. WAS THAT ON YOUR OWN? THAT WAS -- I WAS GIVEN $60 BY LIEUTENANT WAS GIVEN TO ANNA AND $20 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN I DID YOU LIST IN THE REPORT THAT YOU GAVE HER A TIP? A I'M NOT SURE. MR. VODNOY: COULD WE HAVE THE -- IS THERE AN EXHIBIT HERE SOMEWHERE? I HAVE A COPY OF IT, IF YOU DON'T MIND. MR. BARROW: YOU CAN LOOK AT YOUR COPY. WE'LL TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG. MR. VODNOY: I'M JUST GOING TO ASK HIM TO LOOK AT THE REPORT. MR. BARROW: SURE. MR. VODNOY: AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT GIVING A TIP. THE WITNESS: ON THIS PAGE? MR. VODNOY: ON ANY PAGE. HERE, TAKE A LOOK AT IT. MR. STEELE: I'LL RAISE AN OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION. THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS PROCEEDING THAT HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO WHETHER HE GAVE THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN MONEY. WE'RE ~OT HERE TO TRY THE PROSTITUTION CHARGES. WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE ON THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS. AND MONEY GIVEN TO MASSAGE TECHNICIANS HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. I MR. VODNOY: GOES TO HIS CREDIBILITY. HE SAYS HE GAVE $20 AND I'M ASKING IF HIS REPORT REFLECTS THAT, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE -- MR. STEELE: IS THERE A RULING ON THAT OBJECTION? MR. BARROW: TO ESTABLISH A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COUNCIL'S DECISION ON THE COUNCIL'S OBJECTION. MR. STEELE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REPHRASE YOUR OBJECTION? MR. STEELE: I OBJECTED TO THE RELEVANCY OF ANY QUESTION REGARDING MONEY GIVEN TO THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE ABOUT MONEY CHANGING HANDS; THAT'S A QUESTION OF PROSTITUTION. THE D.A. IS GOING TO I I I 8-29-95 HANDLE THAT. MR. VODNOY IS GOING TO HAVE HIS CHANCE TO DEAL WITH THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS AND MONEY IS IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT. MAYOR HASTINGS: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BY MR. STEELE. MS. FORSYTHE: SECOND. MAYOR HASTINGS: CALL FOR A VOTE. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT PASSES 5-0. BY MR. VODNOY: Q NOW, THE GIRL WHO CAME INTO THE ROOM SPOKE A LITTLE ENGLISH -- SHE SPOKE SOME ENGLISH TO YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING, DID SHE NOT? A WELL, I -- I THOUGHT SHE SPOKE SOMETHING, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HER. I THINK SHE MUMBLED SOMETHING BUT NOTHING THAT I COULD REALLY TELL WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, LITTLE ENGLISH OR IF SHE WAS TRYING TO CONVEY SOMETHING TO ME, BUT... Q AND SHE LEFT THE ROOM AND CAME BACK; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT. A THAT Q ON YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT SHE LEFT THE ROOM AND CAME BACK? A THAT WHO LEFT THE ROOM? Q THAT GIRL WHO GAVE THE MASSAGE? A SHE LEFT THE ROOM AFTERWARDS OR Q WELL A I'M SORRY. YOU NEED TO CLARIFY IT. Q THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS, THAT YOU WERE SITTING ON A CHAIR, YOU SAID, AND THEN SHE CAME IN THE DOOR AND SAT NEXT TO YOU AND -- OR WERE YOU LAYING ON THE MATTRESS? MR. STEELE: WHICH DATE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? MR. VODNOY: TALKING ABOUT MAY 31ST, AT THE OUTSET OF THE -- AND I'M READING FROM THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1. BY MR. VODNOY: Q ISN'T IT A FACT THAT YOU WERE LAYING ON A MATTRESS WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT SHE TOOK OFF YOUR CLOTHES? A NO. Q MAY I APPROACH? I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR REPORTS. A OKAY. IT -- YEAH. WHAT HAPPENED IS, I WAS -- I GOT ONTO THE MATTRESS, AND THAT I S AT THAT POINT WHEN SHE WAS TELLING ME -- WAS KIND OF TRYING TO MOVE ME AROUND AT THAT POINT BECAUSE I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO TELL ME. SO I LAID DOWN ON THE MATTRESS AND THEN I STOOD BACK UP, AND THAT'S WHEN SHE BEGAN TO TAKE OFF MY CLOTHING. Q YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT STANDING UP AFTER LAYING DOWN ON THE MATTRESS, DID YOU, IN YOUR REPORT? A NO, I DIDN'T. . Q OKAY. AND THEN, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOUR REPORT STATED THAT AFTER SHE ASKED YOU TO LAY ON YOUR STOMACH, SHE LEFT THE ROOM? A Q A Q A IT MAY Q RECOLLECTION A Q A Q A Q IF THAT'S WHAT MY REPORT SAID. WELL, I'M NOT ASKING -- IT'S BEEN A I'M ASKING, FIRST OF ALL, DID IT HAPPEN? TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, NO, IT DIDN'T, BUT DOES LOOKING AT YOUR REPORT REFRESH YOUR ABOUT THE CHAIN OF EVENTS? YES, IT DOES. AND DID, IN FACT, SHE LEAVE THE ROOM? YES, SHE DID. YOU JUST SIMPLY DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT; IS THAT IT? THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW YOUR REPORT DATED 8-29-95 MAY 31ST ? A I LOOKED AT IT BRIEFLY TODAY. Q ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY, DID YOU EVER SPEAK ABOUT THIS REPORT TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q DID YOU EVER PERSONALLY TALK TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE AT ANY TIME ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS, EITHER MAY 31ST OR JULY 6TH? A NO, I DIDN'T. Q OKAY. NOW, AFTER THE MASSAGE YOU LEFT THE ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT? A YES, SIR. Q BY THE WAY, BEFORE THAT YOU HAD TO ASK HER FOR SOME SEX; IS THAT RIGHT? MR. STEELE: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. NOTHING ABOUT ASKING FOR SEX HAS ANY RELEVANCY IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE AT ALL. YOU CAN RAISE THAT AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. MR. VODNOY: ALL RIGHT. I WON'T ASK IT. BY MR. VODNOY: Q NOW, ON THE 6TH OF JULY, THE FRONT DOOR -- WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE FRONT DOOR IS THE ONE THAT ORDINARILY THE PUBLIC WOULD GO THROUGH, THE ONE FACING P.C.H.? A THE BUILDING WAS BUILT FOR THAT PURPOSE. IT APPEARED TO BE THE FORMAL WAITING ROOM IS AT THAT END. Q AND WOULD YOU IN FACT PARK IN THAT SECTION AND GO UP THE STAIRS, AND THEN THERE IS A SERIES OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES FACING YOU AS YOU GET UP AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT, ON THE FRONT AND BACK. Q AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE LEFT, AFTER YOU GET UP THE STAIRS, THAT'S WHERE PACIFIC PAIN CENTER WOULD BE; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S -- YES, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. AND THE THAT'S NOW, IT FRONT DOOR IS OPEN AND UNLOCKED? CORRECT. IS THE INTERIOR DOOR THAT WAS LOCKED; IS Q A Q THAT CORRECT? A YES. Q AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THE BACK DOOR ON THE 31ST, IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF 20 SECONDS BEFORE YOU WERE ALLOWED IN TO THE LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A ROUGHLY. Q DID YOU THINK THAT WAS AN UNUSUALLY LONG TIME TO BE LET IN? A Q A: Q NO. AND YOU HAD NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE? NO, I HADN'T -- ON JULY 6TH? NO, NO, ON THE 31ST IS WHEN YOU WENT IN THE BACK DOOR? I I A OKAY. I THOUGHT WE WERE ON JULY 6TH. MY APOLOGIES. Q MY APOLOGIES. I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. ON MAY 31ST WHEN YOU WENT IN THE BACK DOOR -- A OKAY. Q YOU HAD NOT BEEN THERE BEFORE? I A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND IT WAS ABOUT 20 SECONDS AND THE DOOR WAS OPENED FOR YOU? A THAT'S CORRECT. MR. VODNOY: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. ... REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEELE: Q JUST BRIEFLY. ON MAY 31ST, WHEN YOU WENT IN THE BACK DOOR, 20 SECONDS, 30 SECONDS, 40 SECONDS, THE DOOR WAS I I I 8-29-95 LOCKED, THOUGH, WASN'T IT? A THE DOOR WAS LOCKED. AND THERE WERE A LOT OF, LIKE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS THAT WERE -- KIND OF WEREN'T TYPICAL OF A BUSINESS, PEEKING THROUGH MINI BLINDS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. Q BUT IT WASN'T -- DIDN'T APPEAR TO YOU TO BE ANY -- WELL, LET ME STRIKE THAT. DID IT APPEAR TO YOU THAT IT WAS UNEXPECTED THAT CUSTOMERS WOULD COME TO THE BACK DOOR? A IT WAS STRANGE BECAUSE IT IDENTIFIED ITSELF EXTREMELY WELL AS A DOOR THAT WENT INTO THE BUSINESS, BUT THEN AGAIN, ALL THE MINI BLINDS WERE REAL TIGHT AND THE DOOR WAS LOCKED, SO - Q BUT DID THE REACTION OF THE PERSON INSIDE LEAVE YOU TO BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT A CUSTOMER COMING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR? A IT SEEMED UNUSUAL. THE OFFICER -- I'M SORRY. OFFICER CARTER, WHO HAD BEEN THERE PREVIOUSLY, THAT'S THE ENTRANCE HE HAD USED BEFORE, TOO. MR. STEELE: OKAY. THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER. MR. VODNOY: NOTHING FURTHER. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, OFFICER. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. MR. STEELE: AND MY LAST WITNESS, BRIEFLY, IS DETECTIVE BOB MULLINS. MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. STEELE, MR. LASZLO HAS A BLOOD SUGAR PROBLEM AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE BEING EXCUSED. HE ASKED ME IF HE COULD BE EXCUSED BY 9:15, SO HE COULD GO TO THE CAR TO HAVE SOMETHING. I HATE TO KEEP BREAKING IN, BUT IT'S A MEDICAL PROBLEM. MR. STEELE: I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I DON'T THINK I CAN DO THIS IN SEVEN MINUTES, SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO DO IT NOW AND COME BACK. MR. BARROW: SO ARE YOU TAKING A BREAK? MAYOR HASTINGS: YES. MR. BARROW: HOW LONG WILL THIS BREAK BE? MAYOR HASTINGS: FIVE MINUTES. (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR HASTINGS: WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE THIS HEARING. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE IN THEIR APPROPRIATE PLACES. AND SO IF WE COULD CONTINUE ON, SIR. MR. VODNOY: I WANT TO JUST ASK PERMISSION TO ASK A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS OF OFFICER BOWLES. AND WHEN I SAY A COUPLE, I MEAN ONE OR TWO. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODNOY: Q OFFICER, ON EITHER OCCASION, WERE YOU OFFERED TO HAVE A SHOWER? A YES, I WAS. Q AND DID YOU TAKE THAT ON EITHER OCCASION, AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE A SHOWER? A NO, I DECLINED. Q ON THE BACK OF THE DOOR, ARE THERE ROBES IN THE ROOMS - - WELL, STRIKE THAT. ON EITHER MAY 31ST OR JULY 7TH, WERE THERE ROBES IN THE ROOMS, ON THE DOORS? A THE SECOND DATE THAT I -- YES. Q AND DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO A I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE FOR US Q WHO DID YOU THINK THE ROBE WAS A I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. MR. VODNOY: NOTHING FURTHER. MAYOR HASTINGS: I'D LIKE TO CORRECT THE DATE. YOU SAID JULY 7TH, AND I STAND CORRECTED TO JULY 6TH, I BELIEVE. MR. VODNOY: JULY 6TH, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.. MAYOR HASTINGS: NO, NO, THAT'S FINE. . MR. BARROW: MAYOR, AT THIS POINT, OFFICER BOWLES HAS PUT THE ROBE ON? - FOR ME. FOR? 8-29-95 AN ENGAGEMENT AND WOULD LIKE TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE PROCEEDING. MR. VODNOY: NO OBJECTION. MR. STEELE: NO OBJECTION. MAYOR HASTINGS: YOU'RE EXCUSED. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. MR. STEELE: ACTUALLY, I THINK YOU'RE GOING BACK TO WORK ON PATROL, AREN'T YOU? THE WITNESS: YES, I AM. MAYOR HASTINGS: YOU KNOW, AT SOME PARTICULAR TIME I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE SOME CONFUSION AND I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE HAD MASSAGES BEFORE, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BED WITH A NIGHTSTAND AND THAT KIND OF THING. AND I THINK THERE WERE FOUR ROOMS, WEREN'T THERE, WITH BEDS AND NIGHTSTANDS, AND WERE THERE TWO ROOMS WITH MASSAGE TABLES? I JUST; YOU KNOW, JUST FOR A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION, IS THAT ALL RIGHT'THAT I ASK THAT? MR. BARROW: SURE. MAYOR HASTINGS: BECAUSE IT TALKED IN TERMS 0F MATTRESSES AND BEDS AND THIS TYPE OF THING. MR. STEELE: I COULD PROBABLY CLARIFY THIS WITH THE NEXT WITNESS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO SEE THE VIDEOTAPE BECAUSE IT SHOWS YOU WHAT THE INSIDE OF THE PLACE LOOKS LIKE. AND I REALIZE THERE ARE SOME CONFUSING ASPECTS TO THIS. MAYOR HASTINGS: YES, THERE ARE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. MR. BARROW: YES, YOU'RE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THAT, AND YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL THE END -- MAYOR HASTINGS: ALL RIGHT. MR. BARROW: -- OR YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS NOW, WHATEVER YOU PREFER. YOU CAN ASK EITHER COUNSEL. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, WHAT I MIGHT ASK IS, WHAT DOES OUR MUNICIPAL CODE STATE? I MEAN, DOES IT SPECIFY THAT IT HAS TO BE MATTRESSES AND ACTUAL BEDS OR DOES IT SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE A MASSAGE TABLE OR -- MR. STEELE: THE CODE ONLY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, REFERS TO MASSAGE TABLES AND IT DOESN'T REALLY DEFINE THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN CHARGED. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, I'M CONFUSED. IF OUR CODE STATES MASSAGE TABLES, ONE WOULD THINK THAT BEDS IN THESE ROOMS WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. I'M SORRY. I JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST SITTING HERE AND I'M LISTENING TO ALL THIS TESTIMONY AND I -- YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY, I KNOW. MS. FORSYTHE: IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS THERE A STANDARD FURNITURE THAT ONE WOULD UTILIZE IN LIEU OF A MATTRESS ON A FLOOR? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EVERY MASSAGE I'VE EVER HAD, IT HASN'T BEEN LIKE A DOCTOR TABLE, A PHYSICIAN TABLE, BUT IT HAS BY NO MEANS BEEN A MATTRESS. I THINK MORE A TABLE. MR. STEELE: I THINK, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT YOU'RE CORRECT, AND THAT GOES TO THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT, THAT THIS IS A MASSAGE BUSINESS. THERE ARE MATTRESSES ON THE FLOOR. AND THE VIDEO WILL SHOW YOU THAT. I WILL DEFER TO MR. VODNOY AND HIS CLIENT TO TELL YOU IF THERE'S SOME INDUSTRY STANDARD OR SOMETHING. I'VE NEVER HAD A MASSAGE ON A MATTRESS LAYING ON THE FLOOR, BUT I CAN'T REALLY COMMENT PAST THAT. MR. VODNOY: WELL, LET ME CLARIFY. IN LOS ANGELES, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD, THEY HAVE -- MANY MASSAGE PARLORS HAVE TABLES AND OTHERS HAVE MATTRESSES ON THE FLOOR. THIS BUSINESS DID NOT HAVE ANY MATTRESSES ON THE FLOOR IN WHICH ANYONE GOT A MASSAGE. ALL THE THINGS ARE RAISED. THEY ARE MORE COMFORTABLE, SHALL WE SAY, THAN THE DOCTOR'S EXAMINING TABLE. IT'S MORE COMFORTABLE THAN A CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENT TABLE WHERE YOU CAN GET AN ADJUSTMENT FROM A CHIROPRACTOR ON A RATHER HARD LEATHER. BUT THESE ARE ALL RAISED OFF THE GROUND AND THEY ARE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FEET WIDE. . IT WAS MY INTENTION -- AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GOT -- I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT A CONTINUANCE OR THE LATE HOUR OR .1 I I I I I .... ....... 8-29-95 ANYTHING ELSE. I ASSUME THEY WANT TO FINISH THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE. I HAVE NOT HAD DINNER YET. MAYOR HASTINGS: NOR HAVE I. MR. VODNOY: NOR ANYBODY ELSE, I'M SURE. BUT IT WOULD BE MY INTENTION TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VARIOUS ROOMS AND SHOW WHAT THE MATTRESS -- WELL, THE MASSAGE TABLES, BEDS, YOU CAN CALL THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT THEY ARE NOT MATTRESSES ON THE FLOOR. IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO SLEEP IN, FOR EXAMPLE. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, SIR, IT JUST SEEMS AS IF THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE THE VIDEO HERE. AND I REALLY SINCERELY FEEL THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE THIS VIDEO TO MAKE A DETERMINATION FOR MYSELF IF IT'S THE APPROPRIATE FACILITY FOR MASSAGES. MS. FORSYTHE: WELL, AS AN EXAMPLE -- AND STEVE'S JUST LEFT, WHEN HE RECEIVED A LEGITIMATE MASSAGE FROM THE OLDER INDIVIDUAL -- MAYOR HASTINGS: THE LADY IN RED. MS. FORSYTHE: I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT WAS A DIFFICULT ONE. MR. VODNOY: THE LADY IN RED. MS. FORSYTHE: WHAT ROOM WAS USED AND WHAT TABLE WAS HE ON AT THAT POINT, DO WE KNOW? MR. VODNOY: HE DIDN'T SPECIFY. MR. STEELE: HE DID NOT SPECIFY. WE CAN, AGAIN, TELL YOU THE MAY 31ST INCIDENT WHERE HE WAS. WE'LL SHOW THAT TO YOU ON THE VIDEO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT FOR JULY 6TH. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, I JUST -- I JUST REALLY -- MS. FORSYTHE: I'D BE INTERESTED TO FIND OUT. MAYOR HASTINGS: I WOULD BE ALMOST COMPELLED TO ASK FOR THIS VIDEO, SO WE COULD DETERMINE FOR OUR CLARIFICATION AND FOR OUR EDIFICATION EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN MATTRESSES AND MASSAGE TABLES AND THIS TYPE OF THING. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO -- SIR, I'M NOT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PUSH FOR THE VIDEO OUT OF CURIOSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST THAT IT LEADS ME TO REALLY WONDER EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT . MR. VODNOY: IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE POLICE COMING OUT TOMORROW AND DOING A VIDEO OF THE ROOMS AND TAKE A VIDEO OF THE VARIOUS MASSAGE ROOMS FOR YOUR EDIFICATION AT SOME FUTURE TIME BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ASK WHEN WE GET TO MY CASE, WHENEVER THAT IS, BECAUSE I'M ALREADY WORKING ON MY FIRST HEADACHE IN A FEW YEARS BECAUSE I'M USED TO EATING -- BAD HABIT I DEVELOPED. AND I DON'T HAVE A BLOOD SUGAR PROBLEM, BUT I DO HAVE A HUNGER PROBLEM. BUT NEVER THE LESS, I HAVE NO OBJECTION IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE ROOMS LOOK LIKE TO HAVING THE OFFICER COME THROUGH AND TAKE A PICTURE OF THE ROOMS. AND THEN WE CAN CALL THE LIEUTENANT BACK IN, IF HE THINKS THE ROOMS -- YOU KNOW, YOU WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE ROOMS LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE MASSAGE TABLE LOOKED LIKE. MAYOR HASTINGS: IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT'S KIND OF LIKE A CHINESE FIRE DRILL WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE THE THING RIGHT HERE. AND THE THING IS, THAT IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOW, THAT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT WAS THEN. AND I THINK THAT PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT WAS THEN. THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE WASHING MACHINE AND A PICTURE OF THE WASHING MACHINE, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS TAKEN TONIGHT. BUT THEN AGAIN, ON THE 31ST OF MAY IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN T~ERE. IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THERE ON JULY 6TH. MR. VODNOY: WELL, MAYOR, WHY DON'T WE HOLD THAT THOUGHT? ON MR. MAYOR HASTINGS: TO THE VERY END. MR. VODNOY: AND IF YOU'RE NOT SATISFIED BY MY PUTTING MAYOR HASTINGS: MR. VODNOY: MAYOR HASTINGS: YES, YES. MY CLIENT. WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE, CITY 8-29-95 ATTORNEY? MR. BARROW: CERTAINLY, WE CAN PROCEED WITH DETECTIVE MULLINS AND THEN WE CAN -- YOU CAN DEFER YOUR DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE TAPE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR PRESENTATION. MAYOR HASTINGS: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. VODNOY: THANK YOU. I MAYOR HASTINGS: I DON'T MEAN TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. PLEASE UNDERSTAND. ROBERT MULLINS, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN BY THE CLERK, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEELE: Q DETECTIVE MULLINS, WOULD YOU STEP FORWARD PLEASE? HAVE A SEAT AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE COURT REPORTER. A ROBERT MULLINS, M-U-L-L-I-N-S. Q DETECTIVE, WHAT IS YOUR ASSIGNMENT AND DUTIES WITH THE DEPARTMENT? A CURRENTLY AM ASSIGNED TO THE DETECTIVE BUREAU IN WHICH I INVESTIGATE JUVENILE CRIME AND CHILD ABUSE AND SEX CRIMES. Q AND WERE YOU THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I WAS. Q AND CAN YOU GIVE US SOME IDEA AS TO HOW THAT INVESTIGATION STARTED; WHAT INSTIGATED THAT INVESTIGATION? A INITIALLY I WAS TOLD BY OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN AS TO STRANGE ACTIVITIES AT THE LOCATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, I RECEIVED TWO PHONE CALLS FROM CITIZENS WHO FELT THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF PROSTITUTION ACTIVITY GOING ON. Q AND DID THOSE CITIZENS THAT YOU TALKED TO EXPRESS AN UNWILLINGNESS TO BE IDENTIFIED? A YES, THEY REQUESTED THAT THEY REMAIN ANONYMOUS. Q AND DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY WANTED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS? A THEY FELT THAT THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS IS PRONE TO HAVING ORGANIZED CRIME TIES, WHICH WOULD ENDANGER THEIR SAFETY. MR. VODNOY: I'M GOING TO MOVE TO STRIKE ALL OF THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR ANY OF THIS. THIS IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL. THERE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME. SUDDENLY I HAVE, INSTEAD OF TWO GIRLS IN A MASSAGE PARLOR, I HAVE AN ORGANIZED CRIME CASE. AND I MOVE TO STRIKE ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE INFORMATION FROM THE CITIZENS. I'VE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH ANY DISCOVERY ABOUT ANY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. AND I OBJECT TO THE STATEMENTS ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME -- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY ORGANIZED CRIME STATEMENTS IN ANY OF THE REPORTS THAT I'VE EVER BEEN GIVEN. MR. STEELE: DETECTIVE MULLINS MADE ONE -- SAID ONE SENTENCE ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME. AND I WOULD NOTE, MR. VODNOY, IN THE REPORTS WHICH WERE SUPPLIED TO YOU AT LEAST A WEEK AGO, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE REPORT INDICATES THAT THIS INVESTIGATION WAS INSTIGATED BECAUSE OF REPORTS FROM INFORMANTS WHO DECLINED TO IDENTIFY HIM- OR HERSELF OUT OF CONCERN FOR HIS OR HER SAFETY. SO AS TO THE OBJECTION AS TO ALL OF THIS, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ALL OF THIS IS. THERE WAS ONLY ONE SENTENCE ABOUT THE REASON THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT I I I I I "' . 'I .'III':~ 8-29-95 THEIR SAFETY. MAYOR HASTINGS: WOULD YOU PLEASE, MS. COURT REPORTER, REVIEW HIS TESTIMONY VERY BRIEFLY, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER HAVING TO DO WITH WHY -- WHAT HIS JOB WAS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? AND I BELIEVE HE RECEIVED SOME CALLS. AND AFTER HE RECEIVED THE PHONE CALLS, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THAT FROM THEN ON FOR US? (RECORD READ) MAYOR HASTINGS: AND, SIR, YOU OBJECTED TO THAT QUESTION: IS THAT CORRECT? AND YOU OBJECTED TO -- YOU DIDN'T OBJECT TO THE QUESTION, BUT YOU OBJECTED TO HIS ANSWER? MR. VODNOY: YES. I HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT ANY ORGANIZED CRIME. AND I WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS KIND OF STATEMENT IN THIS KIND OF PROCEEDING. MR. LASZLO: I'D LIKE TO SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, WAIT. A MINUTE, FRANK. WAIT A MINUTE, BECAUSE THE THING IS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, DETECTIVE MULLINS IS REPEATING WHAT THE COMPLAINANTS HAD TOLD HIM AND THE REASONS FOR THEIR CONCERNS. AND HE IS MAKING A REPORT TO US. AND MR. STEELE IS ASKING WHY. AND THEN MR. MULLINS -- PARDON ME, DETECTIVE MULLINS IN RETURN IS ANSWERI~G THIS QUESTION. HE IS NOT SAYING THAT HE THOUGHT THERE WAS ANY TIE TO -- WHAT DO YOU CALL -- MR. VODNOY: ORGANIZED CRIME. MAYOR HASTINGS: -- ORGANIZED CRIME, HE IS JUST ONLY SAYING WHAT THESE PEOPLE TOLD HIM THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED. SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION BECAUSE TO ME IT WASN'T OBJECTIONABLE. BUT THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, FRANK HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION. MR. DOANE: I AGREE WITH YOU. MR. LASZLO: I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE -- I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORGANIZED CRIME. MAYOR HASTINGS: I AGREE WITH YOU, FRANK, BUT -- MR. LASZLO: I WANT IT ALMOST STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD, IF I CAN GET THAT. MR. BROWN: WHY DON'T WE ASK OUR ATTORNEY? MR. LASZLO: ANYWAY, AS I SAY, I JUST DIDN'T WANT THIS -- I DON'T THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORGANIZED CRIME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING FOR IT TO BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THE PERSON -- MR. BARROW: IS THAT A MOTION? MAYOR HASTINGS: IS THAT A MOTION? MR. BROWN: I'LL MOVE THAT THAT ONE STATEMENT, ORGANIZED CRIME, BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD. MR. LASZLO: I'LL -- AND I'LL SECOND IT. MAYOR HASTINGS: ALL RIGHT. WE CALL FOR THE VOTE. I'M SORRY. I KEEP FORGETTING TO PUSH. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS)- MR. BROWN: IT FAILS TO PASS, 3 TO 3. 3 IS PASSING. OBJECTION SUSTAINED. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. BY MR. STEELE: Q DETECTIVE MULLINS, ONCE YOU BECAME AWARE OF THESE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF PACIFIC PAIN.CONTROL, WHAT DID YOU DO TO START THE INVESTIGATION? A I SHORTLY THEREAFTER CALLED THE BUSINESS. I DROVE BY THE BUSINESS, GOT THE PHONE NUMBER FROM A BIG BILLBOARD THAT THEY HAVE, BILLBOARD TYPE OF ARTICLE AND -- IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS, GOT THE PHONE NUMBER AND WENT BACK TO THE STATION, AND IN TURN CALLED, CLAIMING TO BE A PERSON WHO WAS. IN NEED OF A MASSAGE. AND THE PERSON ANSWERING THE PHONE ADVISED ME THAT THEY HAD .PRETTY -- A PRETTY GIRL OR PRETTY GIRLS THERE. AND I INQUIRED ABOUT ACCEPTING MY INSURANCE AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO GIVE ME A DEFINITIVE ANSWER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY TOOK INSURANCE. AND ULTIMATELY, I GOT A NEGATIVE ANSWER AS TO 8-29-95 WHETHER THEY ACCEPTED INSURANCE. FROM THAT POINT ON I STARTED A SURVEILLANCE OF THE BUSINESS TO WATCH CUSTOMERS COMING IN AND OUT AND SEE WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY WAS GOING ON. I NOTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT ALL OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT I OBSERVED WERE MALES, STAYING BETWEEN 30 TO 60 MINUTES. a AND THIS SURVEILLANCE OF THE LOCATION, WHEN DID I THAT TAKE PLACE? A BETWEEN THE EARLY PART OF MAY THROUGH TH'E END OF MAY. a NOW, DOES THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS KEEP FILES, OFFICIAL RE~ORDS, ON THE MATERIALS THAT ARE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE -- BOTH THE MASSAGE -- AS THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT PROCESS? A YES. a AND DOES THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ALSO KEEP IN THE EVERYDAY COURSE OF BUSINESS OFFICIAL RECORDS WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS FOR MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PE~ITS? A YES, THEY DO. a AND ARE SUCH RECORDS KEPT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY? A YES, AT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WITHIN CITY HALL. a OKAY. AND DID YOU, AS PART OF THE INVES~IGATION OF THIS CASE, REVIEW THE FILES KEPT AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? A YES, I DID. a AND DID YOU REVIEW THE FILES KEPT AT THE BUSINESS LICENSE -- THE FINANCES DEPARTMENT HERE IN CITY HALL? A YES, I DID. a YOU REVIEWED ALL THOSE RECORDS? A YES, I DID. a CAN YOU TELL THE COUNCIL WHEN PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL FIRST APPLIED FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT? A ON NOVEMBER 14TH OF 1994, WE RECEIVED TWO APPLICATIONS TO OPEN A MASSAGE TYPE OF BUSINESS. ADDITIONALLY, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED TO BE LICENSED AS A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN. a WHO WERE THE TWO APPLICANTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT I' PERMIT? A MR. CONRAD YOUNGERMAN AND MS. KI SUN GRAHAM. a AND WHICH OF THOSE TWO APPLIED FOR THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT? A KI SUN GRAHAM. a AND LOOKING FIRST AT THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT THAT WAS APPLIED FOR BY KI SUN GRAHAM, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PERMIT APPLICATION? , A THE APPLICATION TO BE A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN WAS DENIED DUE TO A LACK OF NOT MEETING THE EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AS SET FOR THE -- IN THE CODE. a AND WHAT ABOUT THE APPLICATION FOR THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT? A THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED, AND THE DATE OF THAT -- THE LICENSE BEING ISSUED WAS MARCH 14TH, 1995. Q AND ARE THERE ANY VALID -- OR STRIKE THAT. AS OF EARLY MAY 1995, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION, WERE THERE ANY VALID MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS IN EFFECT FOR PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? I A YES, THERE WERE TWO. Q AND TO WHOM WERE THOSE PERMITS ISSUED? A THE FIRST WAS TO A KWANG, K-W-A-N-G, CLOOTEN, C-L-O-O-T-E-N. THE OTHER WAS TO A YON, Y-O-N, CHOI, C-H-O-I. a MOVING TO MAY 31ST OF 1995, DID YOU DIRECT THAT AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION TAKE PLACE AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL THATRDAY? A YES. I ASSIGNED OFFICER CARTER AND OFFICER BOWLES TO ENTER THE ESTABLISHMENT FOR A MASSAGE. a AND WAS THERE A BRIEFING HELD BEFORE THAT OPERATION TOOK PLACE? I I I " ,. ~~.. '.:I.'~ 8-29-95 A YES, THERE WAS, IN THE DETECTIVE BUREAU OF THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. a AND GENERALLY, WHAT DID YOU TELL THE UNDERCOVER OFFICERS TO LOOK FOR SO -- AS THEY WENT INTO THE BUSINESS? A WITH OFFICER BOWLES, HE WAS A NEW OFFICER AND VERY NERVOUS, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO OVERWHELM HIM WITH TOO MUCH INFORMATION TO OVERLOAD HIM, SO I JUST ADVISED HIM OF A FEW THINGS, SUCH AS LOOKING FOR LOCKING MECHANISMS ON THE INTERIOR DOORS TO CHECK TO SEE IF THEY WERE LOCKING, IF THE DOORS WERE LOCKED ON THE EXTERIOR, AND ALSO TO SEE WHAT TYPE OF CLOTHING THAT THE MASSEUSE WORE AND ALSO WHAT HE WAS DIRECTED TO WEAR. FROM THERE THEY WERE -- OFFICER CARTER CALLED AND MADE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A MASSAGE, TO BRING IN HIS YOUNGER BROTHER, OFFICER BOWLES. a DID THEY THEN GO TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, THEY DID. AND I ALSO DID FROM A DISTANCE. a YOU SAY YOU DID FROM A DISTANCE? A YES. I WAS ABOUT 50 FEET TO THE SOUTH. I SAT AND WATCHED IN THE AREA OF 6TH AND ELECTRIC AND WATCHED THEIR ENTRANCE AND EXIT FROM THE BUILDING. Q AND WERE YOU SITTING IN THE -- IN A CAR OF SOME SORT? A YES, I WAS IN AN UNDERCOVER VEHICLE. a AND COULD YOU SEE FROM WHERE YOU WERE SITTING? DID YOU HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE BACK DOOR OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. a AND DID YOU KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT OFFICERS CARTER AND BOWLES WERE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE BUILDING -- THE BUSINESS FROM THAT DOOR? A YES. a AND AS YOU WATCHED THEM APPROACH THAT DOOR, WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE? A I OBSERVED OFFICER CARTER GRAB THE REAR DOOR OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL AND TWIST IT TO OPEN IT. IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. AND I OBSERVED HIM KNOCK ON THE DOOR. A FEW SECONDS LATER I OBSERVED THE SHADES PULLED OPEN AND EYES APPEAR THROUGH THE SHADES. SECONDS THEREAFTER, THE DOOR WAS OPENED AND THEY ENTERED THE BUSINESS. a OKAY. AND THEN DID YOU AGAIN SEE THEM EXIT THE BUSINESS AT SOME POINT LATER? A YES, I DID. Q NOW, OFFICER BOWLES TESTIFIED HE WENT BACK TO THE POLICE STATION. AT THAT POINT DID YOU GO BACK THERE AS WELL? A YES. Q AND WAS THERE SOME SORT OF DEBRIEFING HELD AT THAT POINT? A YES. WE ASKED HIM TO RELATE WHAT HAD OCCURRED. ADDITIONALLY, I TOOK A COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND QUIZZED HIM THROUGH SECTION 12-9 AND ALSO 12-18 TO SEE IF HE HAD NOTED ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS LISTED. Q LET ME GET THAT STRAIGHT IN MY MIND. YOU TOOK A COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE? A THAT I S CORRECT. Q AND THAT WOULD BE ALL THE SUBSECTIONS UNDER 12-9 AND 12-18? A YES. a DID YOU SPECIFICALLY ASK HIM, "DID YOU SEE A SIGN; DID YOU SEE RECORDS; DID YOU SEE LOCKED DOORS", THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS? A YES, SIR, I DID. Q AND ON THE 31ST WHEN YOU WERE ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HE OBSERVED WITH REGARD TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS; DID YOU ASK OFFICER BOWLES WHETHER HE SAW A SIGN WITH THE SERVICES AND PRICES? . A YES, I DID. Q AND WHAT WAS HIS REPLY? 8-29-95 A HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT SEE SUCH A SIGN. Q DID YOU ASK HIM IF ON MAY 31ST THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN REMOVED ANY OF HER CLOTHING WHILE SHE WAS WITH HIM? A YES, I DID. Q AND WHAT WAS HIS REPLY? A HE STATED THAT SHE HAD PULLED HER SHIRT UP TO HER NECK EXPOSING HER BREASTS. Q AND ON MAY 31ST OF '95, DID YOU ASK HIM REGARDING -- ASK HIM WHETHER THE DOOR IN THE MASSAGE ROOM WAS CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED? A YES, I DID. Q AND WHAT DID HE REPLY? A HE SAID THAT IT HAD A LOCKING MECHANISM :ON IT AND HE HAD OBSERVED THE MASSEUSE LOCK THE DOOR WHEN SHE ENTERED IT. Q AND DID YOU ASK HIM ON MAY 31ST -- THAT',S REFERRING OF COURSE TO OFFICER BOWLES -- DID YOU ASK HIM WHETHER THE EXTERIOR DOORS OR EITHER ONE OF THEM WAS LOCKED? A I CONFIRMED WITH OFFICERS CARTER AND BOWLES AS TO WHAT I HAD SEEN; THAT THE REAR DOOR WAS IN FACT LOCKED. Q AND THEN ON -- ALSO ON MAY 31 ST, DID YOU ASK OFFICER BOWLES WHETHER HE HAD BEEN ADMINISTERED A MASSAGE -- OR STRIKE THAT -- WHETHER AT THE TIME HE HAD BEEN ADMINISTERED A MASSAGE, HE WAS WEARING CLOTHES WHICH COVERED HIS GENITAL AREA? A YES, I DID. Q AND WHAT DID HE REPLY? A HE STATED THAT THE MASSEUSE HAD REMOVED HIS CLOTHING AND THAT HE WAS COMPLETELY NUDE -- I'M SORRY. NOT HIS CLOTHING, HOWEVER, HIS UNDERGARMENTS. Q THEN, AFTER THAT DEBRIEFING SESSION, DID YOU PASS THAT INFORMATION ON TO LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN? A YES. AND IN FACT HE WAS THERE FOR THE DEBRIEFING. HE WITNESSED IT. Q HE WITNESSED THAT CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH OFFICER BOWLES. AND DID YOU -- IN SUPPLYING THAT INFORMATION TO LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND INCLUDING HIM IN THE PROCESS OF THE DEBRIEFING, DID YOU INTEND THAT THAT INFORMATION THAT 'YOU HAD GAINED FROM OFFICER BOWLES WOULD BE PASSED ON TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE? A YES. Q AND DID YOU AT ANY POINT ON MAY 31ST OR UP UNTIL THE POINT OF JULY 6TH, I BELIEVE, WHEN THE REVOCATION LETTER WAS WRITTEN, DID YOU ACTUALLY EVER TALK TO CHIEF STEARNS PERSONALLY ABOUT THESE VIOLATIONS? A YES. Q WERE YOU EVER IN A ROOM WHEN LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN TALKED TO CHIEF STEARNS ABOUT THESE VIOLATIONS? A A VERY BRIEF -- I HEARD A VERY BRIEF PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE LIEUTENANT AND THE CHIEF. I DIPN'T HEAR THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION. Q BUT IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT AS OF JULY 6TH, 1995, CHIEF STEARNS HAD BEEN MADE AWARE, EITHER THROUG~ YOU OR LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN, OF THE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS THAT WERE DISCOVERED BY OFFICER BOWLES ON MAY 31ST? A YES, BOTH. Q MOVING ON TO JULY 6TH, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO RESPOND TO PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON JULY 6TH? A YES, I DID. Q AND AS OFFICERS CARTER AND BOWLES ENTERED THE BUILDING, WHERE WERE YOU? A I WAS PARKED ON THE NORTH SIDE, JUST TO THE REAR OF THE RED LOBSTER. Q AND YOU WATCHED -- DID YOU WATCH THOSE TWO OFFICERS ENTER THE BUILDING? A YES. Q WHAT DOOR DID THEY GO IN? A THEY ENTERED THE NORTH FACING DOOR. Q SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN CALLING THAT THE FRONT DOOR I' I I I I I ~ .~ ~ " ... 8-29-95 TONIGHT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q DID YOU THEN SEE THE OFFICERS COME OUT? A YES. Q WHAT HAPPENED, THEN, AFTER THE OFFICERS CAME OUT? A AS -- PRIOR TO THEIR EXITING, I'D DIRECTED LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND DETECTIVE BOWLES TO WATCH THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. AS THEY EXITED, I CONTACTED OFFICERS BOWLES AND CARTER TO DETERMINE WHAT HAD HAPPENED. AND IF THERE WERE GIRLS INSIDE THE BUSINESS WHO HAD COMMITTED PREVIOUS ACTS OF PROSTITUTION THAT WE HAD INTENDED TO ARREST THEM FOR. Q AND SO WHAT DID YOU DO AS THE INCIDENT WENT ON? A THEY GAVE ME A BRIEF RUNDOWN ON WHAT HAD OCCURRED. THEY BOTH STATED THAT -- MR. VODNOY: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE "THEY" IN THE SENSE THAT THAT'S -- USUALLY PEOPLE DON'T TALK IN UNISON. AND WE HAVE EXCLUDED CARTER FROM THIS PROCEEDING, AND I WOULD OBJECT TO ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO CARTER. BY MR. STEELE: Q DID OFFICER BOWLES -- STRIKE THAT. DID YOU SPEAK WITH OFFICER BOWLES AS HE CAME OUT OF PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES, I DID. Q DID OFFICER BOWLES 'TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE ABOUT RECEIVING A MASSAGE THAT DAY? A HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD IN FACT RECEIVED A LEGITIMATE MASSAGE. HE ADVISED ME THAT HE DIDN'T NOTE THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS, SUCH AS NO SIGNS, NO RECORDS OF THEY TOOK NO RECORD OF HIS NAME, ET CETERA, AND THAT THERE WERE LOCKING MECHANISMS -- I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THIS -- ON THE INTERIOR DOOR OF THE MASSAGE ROOM, AND IT WAS IN FACT LOCKED. HE ALSO ST~TED THAT THE GIRL HE HAD BEEN WITH THE WEEK PRIOR, WHO WE HAD INTENDED TO ARREST FOR PROSTITUTION, WAS IN FACT INSIDE THE BUILDING. Q SO AFTER OFFICER BOWLES GAVE YOU THIS INFORMATION REGARDING MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS THAT HE OBSERVED ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU THEN ENTER PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL? A YES. Q AND DID YOU GO IN THE FRONT DOOR? A YES, WE DID. Q AND DID YOU ANNOUNCE YOUR PRESENCE TO SOMEONE OR WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A I OPENED THE FRONT DOOR AND THERE WAS -- ENTERED INTO THE WAITING ROOM. THERE WAS NO ONE INSIDE THE WAITING ROOM NOR WAS THERE ANYONE INSIDE THE RECEPTION ROOM -- OR THE RECEPTIONIST AREA. I ATTEMPTED TO OPEN THE DOOR, WHICH LEADS FROM THE WAITING AREA INTO THE HALLWAY AND MASSAGE AREA, AND IT WAS LOCKED. SO I WENT BACK OUTSIDE, SENT OFFICER CARTER BACK IN, TOLD HIM TO GET THEM TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR US, THAT HE HAD LEFT HIS WALLET INSIDE. SO HE DID. HE HOLLERED THAT THE DOOR WAS OPEN. WE THEN WENT INSIDE THE BUSINESS. Q AND WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE THE BUSINESS, WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT? A I CHECKED THE DOORS ON THE EAST SIDE TO SEE IF THEY WERE OCCUPIED. THE DOOR ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE WAS LOCKED. Q NOW, WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE DOOR ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THE MASSAGE ROOMS- A THAT'S CORRECT. Q OFF THE HALLWAY THAT WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT? A YES. Q HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT ,DOOR WAS LOCKED? A I GRABBED THE DOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR -- TRIED TO TWIST THE HANDLE AND DETERMINED IT WAS LOCKED. Q NOW, SO THE DOOR TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE ONE OF THE MASSAGE ROOMS WAS LOCKED; WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT? A I ANNOUNCED THAT THE ROOM WAS POSSIBLY OCCUPIED TO THE OFFICERS TO MY REAR. I THEN WENT TO THE FURTHER REAR DOOR, THE BACK DOOR, AND OPENED THAT FOR LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN AND 8-29-95 DETECTIVE BOWLES. Q DID YOU HAVE TO UNLOCK THAT DOOR? A YES. Q THE EXTERIOR DOOR? A YES. FROM THERE I WENT BACK TO THE DOOR THAT WAS LOCKED, KNOCKED ON THE DOOR, AND WAS MET BY A GENTLEMAN WEARING A TOWEL AROUND HIS WAIST. NOTHING FURTHER. Q DID THIS GENTLEMAN TELL YOU WHY HE WAS IN THAT ROOM? I A Q A MONTH AGO. MR. VODNOY: I OBJECT TO HIS STATEMENTS UNLESS WE HAVE A NAME. THESE NAMES OF CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AND I HAVE NO DISCOVERY ON THAT. AND I OBJECT TO ANY STATEMENTS ~ROM THE CUSTOMERS WHICH I HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS. MR. STEELE: THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN WITHHELD BECAUSE NO ARRESTS WERE MADE. IT'S TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THESE PERSONS IN THIS PROCEEDING. AND THEY MAY BE RELEVANT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. AND MR. VODNOY OR WHOEVER DEFENDS THAT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH THOSE PROCEEDINGS. I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION RATHER THAN TAKE UP MORE TIME ARGUING ABOUT IT. BY MR. STEELE: Q ONCE THE DOOR WAS OPENED AND YOU FOUND A MAN IN THERE WITH A TOWEL WRAPPED AROUND HIM, WHAT -- AND EXCI:.UDING WHAT WAS SAID, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT; DID YOU GO ON TO THE OTHER ROOMS OR -- A I DIRECTED HIM TO GET DRESSED. AND I CONFIRMED WITH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO START VIDEOTAPING THE INTERIOR OF THE BUSINESS. Q AND THEN DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO ASSIST WITH THE INSPECTION OF THE BUSINESS? A YES, I DID. Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE COUNCIL WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE VARIOUS MASSAGE ROOMS? WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT BEDS AND TABLES AND NIGHT STANDS -- WELL, WHY DON'T I ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS? IN THE MASSAGE ROOMS, ARE THEY ALL FURNISHED EXACTLY THE SAME? A NO. SIMILAR, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. Q DO SOME OF THE MASSAGE ROOMS HAVE WHAT WE WOULD SORT OF KNOW FROM COMMON EXPERIENCE AS A MASSAGE TABLE? A YES. Q AND DOES MORE THAN ONE OF THE ROOMS HAVE THAT OR DID IT ON JULY 6TH? A I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO. Q OKAY. AND ON JULY 6TH, WHEN YOU MADE THIS INSPECTION, DID SOME OF THE ROOMS HAVE WHAT WE WOULD SORT OF COMMONLY KNOW AS A MATTRESS? A YES. Q AND WAS THAT MATTRESS PLACED ON THE FLOOR, WAS IT PLACED ON SOME SORT OF FRAME? A IT WAS LYING FLAT ON THE FLOOR. IT WAS LIKE TAKING A TOP MATTRESS OFF THE BED AND LAYING IT ON THE FLOOR. IT WAS ON THE FLOOR IN A CORNER AND COVERED WITH SHEETS, NOT THE NORMAL DISPOSABLE PAPER THAT YOU WOULD FIND IN A DOCTOR'S OFFICE THAT COVERS A TABLE. ALSO, THE MASSAGE TABLES WERE COVERED WITH SHEETS. THERE WERE NIGHTSTANDS INSIDE ALL OF THE MASSAGE ROOMS, WHICH CONTAINED VARIOUS ASSORTMENTS OF OILS AND CREAMS. Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAY A NIGHT STAND , ARE WE TALKING -- CAN YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY NIGHT STAND? A THIS IS A SMALL TABLE ABOUT TWO FEET HIGH, FOOT AND A HALF WIDE BY A FOOT AND A HALF DEEP. A SHELF ON',THE YES, HE DID. WHAT DID HE SAY? HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD STARTED GOING THERE ABOUT A I I I I I r~'''' ~_" , 8-29-95 BOTTOM AREA AND PERHAPS A DRAWER -- PULL-OUT DRAWER ON THE TOP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q AND THESE NIGHTSTANDS, DID THEY APPEAR TO BE PLACED THERE FOR STORAGE PURPOSES? A EXACTLY. Q FOR THE CREAMS AND OILS AND WHATEVER ELSE WAS IN THERE? A YES. Q ARE THERE CABINETS OR CUPBOARDS OF ANY KIND IN THE ROOM? A YES, THERE ARE. MOST OF THE -- OR A COUPLE OF THE ROOMS HAD A SINK WITH CABINETS AND STORAGE COMPARTMENTS LOCATED UP AND AROUND THE SINK. Q DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INSPECTION, WAS ANY EVIDENCE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY? A YES. Q AND WHAT EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY? MR. VODNOY: AGAIN, OBJECTION. MOVE TO STRIKE THE ANSWER. NO EVIDENCE THEY FOUND, NO OTHER COUNTS THAT ARE ALLEGED HERE, HAVE ANYTHING TO DEAL WITH CONDOMS, WHICH YOU JUST STATED. AND I OBJECT TO THIS AS PREJUDICIAL AND BEYOND. WE ALREADY HAD A RULING RELATING TO PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL. AND I THINK THAT THERE'S MISCONDUCT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY IN DELIBERATELY ELICITING THIS STATEMENT AND HAVING THEIR OFFICER STATE THIS WHEN WE'VE GONE THROUGH A WHOLE PROCEDURE HERE TO TRY AND KEEP THIS TO THE CHARGES THAT WERE PRESENT AND WHAT I 'M SUPPOSED TO BE MEETING IN THE WAY OF CHARGES. MAYOR HASTINGS: COULD YOU HELP US OUT ON THIS? IS THIS A MOTION TO SUSTAIN HIS OBJECTION OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT MR. STEELE CAN WORK OUT WITH THE OTHER ATTORNEY? MR. BARROW: WELL, CERTAINLY THE QUESTION WAS APPROPRIATE. THE QUESTION WAS SOMETHING LIKE, WHAT DID YOU SEE? WE CAN HAVE THE REPORTER -- LET ME TALK AND THEN ONE AT A TIME FOR THE REPORTER. THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT DID YOU SEIZE AS EVIDENCE, AND SO THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION. SO I TAKE IT THAT COUNSEL IS OBJECTING TO THE ANSWER. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION? WHY DON'T YOU RESTATE THAT FOR THE RECORD, MR. VODNOY? MR. VODNOY: THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION IS THAT THERE ARE NO CHARGES HERE IN ANY OF THE COUNTS THAT ARE PRESENTED ON EITHER DATE RELATING TO CONDOMS, AND THAT'S A NEW ELEMENT THAT'S BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THIS RECORD. THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE -- ANY STATEMENT WAS MADE TO THE -- STRIKE THAT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE COUNTS THAT ARE BEING ALLEGED ON EITHER THE MAY 31ST OR JULY 2ND (SIC) THAT RELATE TO CONDOMS. I'VE OBJECTED TO THE SHOWING OF THE TAPE BECAUSE IT CONTAINS PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL. THIS OFFICER WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING TO ALL OF THAT. NOBODY WAS EXCLUDED. AND SO THAT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE OFFICER -- FOR THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER, WHICH I THINK WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO PREJUDICE THIS COUNCIL IN BRINGING EXTRANEOUS AND IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, NONE OF WHICH IS LISTED AS ANY OF THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE. AND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH YOUR NUMBERS, YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY CONDOMS ON ANY NUMBERS. MAYOR HASTINGS: WOULD THAT INCLUDE -- WOULD THAT BE INCLUDED UNDER SEXUAL PARAPHERNALIA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I DON'T KNOW. IS THAT IN OUR CODE? . I HAVE NO IDEA. MR. STEELE: I HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENT BEFORE, THAT THE CHIEF SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED IMMORAL, IMPROPER AND OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT. AND I QUITE FRANKLY THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS SEIZED IS EVIDENCE OF THAT CONDUCT. IT'S RELEVANT IN THAT CONTEXT. AND FRANKLY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE OFFICER'S ANSWER THAT, I GUESS MR. VODNOY HEARD. AND I DIDN'T ASK HIM WHETHER ANY CONDOMS HAD BEEN SEIZED. MR. BARROW: ONCE AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO THAT SECTION THAT I READ TO YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCEEDING, SECTION 8-29-95 352. AND FOR THE RECORD, I'LL STATE THAT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AND SO THIS SECTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY APPLY TO YOUR DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ISSUE, BUT IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA WHAT A COURT WOULD DO. AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER -- WHATEVER PROBATIVE VALUE OF THIS EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT'S OUTWEIGHED BY ANY PREJUDICIAL -- WELL, I'LL JUST READ IT, "WOULD CREATE SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF UNDUE PREJUDICE OF CONFUSING I THE ISSUES OR OF MISLEADING THE JURY." . MR. BROWN: OKAY. IF I MAY, JUST LISTENING TO WHAT HE'S SAYING, HE SAID THAT WE'VE GOT SOMETHING LIKE 43, 42 DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HE HAS BEEN CITED ON. AND I CAN'T SEE THAT THIS HAS ANY BEARING ON ANY OF THOSE 43. I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR IMMORAL STUFF, BUT IT I S NOT IN ANY OF THE j::ITATIONS THAT I SEE. I WOULD MOVE TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION ON THAT ANSWER. MR. LASZLO: I'LL SECOND IT. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, I THINK -- AND THIS -- AS I RECALL SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE CITED, I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE THINGS THAT WERE CITED. THERE WAS IMMORAL, THERE WAS -- UNDER WHAT WAS IT -- SECTION 12-18, IT WAS 25, 26, 28. I KNOW I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT MY NOTES AGAIN. I'M SORRY. HERE WE ARE. MR. BROWN: WE HAVE A -- MAYOR HASTINGS: IMMORAL ONES ARE 22, 25, 26, 28 AND 29. MR. BROWN: IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CONDOMS. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THE WHOLE POINT IS, IT TALKS IN TERMS OF -- MR. BROWN: THE IMMORAL PART IS THE -- MAYOR HASTINGS: THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN -- MASSAGE PATRON'S GENITAL AREA. MR. BROWN: THAT'S RIGHT. IT DOESN'T SAY -- I MAYOR HASTINGS: AND THE POINT IS, I DON'T THINK THAT THE WORD "CONDOMS" WERE RAISED UNTIL YOU SAID THAT. AND I THINK WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK OVER THE TAPE AND SEE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. AND I DON'T RECALL HIM EVEN MENTIONING THE WORD "CONDOMS" UNTIL YOU CAME UP AND MENTIONED IT. MR. BROWN: THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING WE STRI~E IT. MR. BARROW: LIKE I SAID, MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER. MR. BROWN: RIGHT, AND THERE WAS A SECOND. MR. BARROW: AND THERE WAS A SECOND. MR. BROWN: AND I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION. LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON IT. MAYOR HASTINGS: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS CARRIED) MR. BARROW: SO THAT OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. MAYOR HASTINGS: OKAY. MR. STEELE: THANK you. BY MR. STEELE: Q DETECTIVE, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INSPECTION, THE INSPECTION THAT YOU AND OTHER OFFICERS CONDUCTED ON JULY 6TH, DID YOU SEE POSTED A SIGN LISTING AVAILABLE SERVICES AND THE COSTS OF THOSE SERVICES? A NO, I DID NOT. Q AT THE TIME YOU MADE THAT INSPECTION, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CODE? I A YES, I WAS. Q SO WERE YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR SUCH A SIGN? A YES, SIR. Q AT THE TIME YOU MADE THAT INSPECTION, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT THE DOORS TO THE MASSAGE ROOMS WERE CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED? A YES, I DID NOTICE THAT THEY WERE. Q AGAIN, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE? -.' A YES, I WAS. Q WERE YOU LOOKING FOR THAT VIOLATION? I I I - .n ....1' v.l ...... 8-29-95 A YES, SIR. Q ON JULY 6TH, DURING THAT INSPECTION, WERE YOU ABLE TO LOCATE ANY TYPE OF RECORDS ON PATIENTS AND TYPES OF TREATMENT AND DATES AND THAT KIND OF THING? A NO, I COULD NOT. Q WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE CODE REQUIRED THAT THOSE BE KEPT? A YES, SIR. Q SO WERE YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR THOSE RECORDS? A YES, I WAS. Q I HAVE TWO REPORTS T~T HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. VODNOY, BOTH YOUR INVESTIGATOR'S REPORTS. I'LL JUST SHOW THEM TO YOU FOR IDENTIFICATION. (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) BY MR. STEELE: Q THE FIRST REPORT IS HEADED, "INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT, DR95-1243, 1244, 1245, 1369, A950334, A950335, CONSISTS OF ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE PAGES. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT REPORT? A YES, I AM. Q DID YOU PREPARE THAT REPORT? A YES, I DID. MR. STEELE: I WOULD NOTE, AGAIN, THAT THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CIVILIAN WITNESSES HAVE BEEN REDACTED FROM THAT REPORT TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY IN THIS PROCEEDING. AND I WOULD ASK THAT THIS REPORT BE MARKED AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT IN ORDER. AND IT'S ADMITTED FOR THE RECORD. MR. VODNOY: I WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS REPORT. IT CONTAINS MATERIAL RELATING TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN FURNISHED WITH INFORMATION ABOUT, CONTAINS THE INTERVIEWS OF PEOPLE. ONE OF THESE REPORTS IS UNDATED ALTOGETHER. AND I WAS GIVEN IT TODAY. AND SO I WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE REPORTS. WE HAVE THE OFFICER HERE. HE CAN TESTIFY ABOUT WHATEVER HE DID. AND I THINK THESE ARE NOT ONLY CUMULATIVE, BUT PREJUDICIAL. MR. STEELE: THESE ARE THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY WERE PREPARED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS INVESTIGATION. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN SUBMITTED TO COUNSEL. AND YES, I DO REALIZE ONE WAS SUBMITTED TO HIM TODAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO HIM AS SOON AS WE BECAME AWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE. AND I SENT IT TO HIM BY FAX TODAY. IT'S NOTHING SURPRISING. IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM BASICALLY BY LETTER ON AUGUST 22ND. AND THAT'S ONE REPORT. THE ONE THAT I'M SEEKING TO INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD NOW WAS SUBMITTED TO HIM O~IGINALLY, I THINK, AUGUST 21ST OR 22ND, AND IT'S AN OFFICIAL POLICE REPORT. IT'S THE REPORT THAT THIS DETECTIVE PREPARED. AND IT'S PERFECTLY RELEVANT. AND PROPER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD AT THIS HEARING. MAYOR HASTING~: DO WE HAVE COPIES? MR. BARROW: YES. YOU HAVE THE FIRST REPORT, I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THE SECOND REPORT. THE FIRST ONE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IS DR95-1243. MR. LASZLO: WHERE DO I FIND THAT? MR. STEELE: IT SHOULD BE THE FIRST PAGE OF THE REPORT. MR. BARROW: AT THE BOTTOM THERE IS A "1" IN PARENS. MR. BROWN: I MOVE WE ACCEPT THAT ONE. AND THE ONE JUST GIVEN TO HIM TODAY DOESN'T GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT, THAT'S MY MOTION. MAYOR HASTINGS: I THINK SO, TOO, SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD ACCESS TO THAT. DO WE -- MR. BROWN: WE DON'T HAVE IT AND HE JUST GOT IT TODAY. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S -- THAT'S MY MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND ON THAT? MR. DOANE: SECOND. MAYOR HASTINGS: I'LL SECOND. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT PASSES 5-0. 8-29-95 MR. STEELE: OKAY. MR. BROWN: I THINK THE ATTORNEY SAID WE HAVE; OUR GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE. WE CAN ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS T~T WE WANT TO FOR THE RECORD, AND THAT'S WHY -- THE WAY WE OUGHT TO PROCEED. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU. BY MR. STEELE: Q DETECTIVE MULLINS, WHEN YOU ENTERED PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ON JULY 6TH, WAS IT OPEN FOR BUSINESS? A YES. Q IN FACT, SOMEBODY WAS IN THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A MASSAGE OF SOME KIND; RIGHT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q IN FACT, TWO OFFICERS HAD JUST BEEN IN AND PAID FOR MASSAGES IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU ENTERED THE BUSINESS? A YES. Q AND I THINK YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, DID YOU NOT, THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE TWO PERSONS WHO HELD VALID MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS FOR THAT ESTABLISHMENT? A YES. Q WAS EITHER OF THOSE TWO PERSONS ON THE PREMISES ON JULY 6TH, 1995, WHEN YOU WERE THERE WHEN THE PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL WAS OPEN FOR BUSINESS? A NO, THEY WERE NOT. Q WHO WAS THERE OUTSIDE OF THE PERSON YOU TOLD US ABOUT IN THE MASSAGE ROOM AND THE POLICE OFFICERS? A THERE WAS KI SUN GRAHAM, A. K. A. ANNA; THERE WAS ALSO SUNGHI, S-U-N-G-H-I, LAST NAME JO, J-O; THIRDLY WAS CHONG, C-H-O-N-G, ANDERSON, COMMON SPELLING. Q NOW, KI SUN GRAHAM, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF' THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND MS. GRAHAM IS ALSO THE PERSON WHOSE APPLICATION FOR A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT HAD BEEN DENIED? A CORRECT. Q AND YOU SAID.A.K.A. ANNA, WHAT DOES THAT; MEAN? A EARLIER OFFICER BOWLES HAD TESTIFIED TO HAVING BEEN GREETED AT THE DOOR BY ANNA. AND HE ADVISED ME THAT ANNA WAS IN FACT KI SUN GRAHAM. ALSO, UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF HER BUSINESS LICENSE OR SOME TYPE OF DOCUMENTATION SHE HAS, WITH US, IT LISTS ANNA AS AN A.K.A. Q OKAY. SO ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINIllSS WAS ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME YOU ENTERED ON JULY 6TH, 1995, IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q OKAY. MR. BROWN: COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION? IS ANNA THE ONE IN THE RED DRESS? THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, THAT'S CHONG ANDERSON. BY MR. STEELE: Q NOW, CHONG ANDERSON, IS THAT THE PERSON ~HAT OFFICER BOWLES IDENTIFIED AS BEING THE WOMAN IN THE RED DRESS? A YES, SIR. Q AND SHE WAS ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME YOU ENTERED THE BUILDING? A YES. Q AND HOW DID YOU KNOW WHO SHE WAS? A WELL, OFFICER BOWLES HAD TOLD ME THAT SHill WAS THE ONE WHO HAD IN FACT GIVEN HIM THE LEGITIMATE MASSAGE ~IER. AND I HAD MET HER AT THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE SHE WAS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN LICENSE. Q SHE HAD NEVER RECEIVED A MASSAGE TECHNIcIAN LICENSE AT THIS TIME? A NO. Q BUT SHE NEVERTHELESS GAVE A MASSAGE TO OFFICER I I I I I I .' . ~ I " " 8-29-95 BOWLES THAT DAY ON JULY 6TH? A CORRECT. Q DID YOU MAKE ANY ARRESTS ON JULY 6TH? A YES. Q AND WHO WAS ARRESTED? MR. VODNOY: I OBJECT. I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING ALL THESE OTHER THINGS IN THE CRIMINAL COURT BUILDING, BUT WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF WHO GOT ARRESTED? I OBJECT. MR. STEELE: I'M GOING TO NEXT ASK DETECTIVE MULLINS ABOUT STATEMENTS AND ADMISSIONS MADE BY MS. GRAHAM AFTER SHE WAS ARRESTED. AND I'M ESTABLISHING FOUNDATION FOR THOSE STATEMENTS. MR. BARROW: SO THE COUNCIL -- THERE IS AN OBJECTION ON THE FLOOR AND THERE IS AN EXPLANATION BY COUNSEL AS TO WHY HE WOULD LIKE TO -- MR. BROWN: WHAT I SUGGEST IS, WE HEAR THE NEXT QUESTION. IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE STRIKE THOSE TWO. MR. BARROW: IS THAT A MOTION? MR. BROWN: SO MOVED. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: I'LL SECOND IT. THAT'S 5-0. BY MR. STEELE: Q WHEN MS. GRAHAM A.K.A. ANNA, WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, WAS SHE TRANSPORTED TO THE SEAL BEACH POLICE STATION? A YES, SHE WAS. Q DID YOU ADVISE HER OF HER RIGHTS UNDER MIRANDA AT THAT POINT? A YES, I DID. Q AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH HER AT THE SEAL BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT? A YES. Q WHAT DID SHE SAY? A SHE ASKED ME THE REASON FOR THE ARREST. I TOLD HER THAT SHE HAD COMMITTED AN ACT OF PROSTITUTION WITH AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER. SHE STATED THAT THE OFFICER WAS LYING. MOMENTS LATER OUT OF THE BLUE SHE SAID, "HE TRIED TO RAPE ME. ALL CUSTOMERS TRY "TO RAPE ME, I ONLY GIVE MASSAGES." Q SO AT THAT POINT WHILE SHE WAS IN THE SEAL BEACH POLICE STATION, SHE ADMITTED TO GIVING MASSAGES? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q AND JUST TO CLARIFY, SHE IS ALSO THE PERSON AN APPLICATION FOR A MASSAGE TECHNICIAN LICENSE DENIED? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q OKAY. AND DID YOU WRITE UP THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MS. GRAHAM AT ANY OF YOUR REPORTS? A IT'S IN MY REPORT. Q WOULD THAT BE IN YOUR INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT THE DR95-1243? A Q MEET OR SPEAK BUSINESS? A Q A Q A Q A Q YES. ON JULY 6TH, 1995, TO MR. YOUNGERMAN, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE OTHER OWNER OF THE TIME? YES, I DID. AND WHERE DID THAT TAKE PLACE? IN THE REAR PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND AT ABOUT WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS THAT? AFTER 5:00 O'CLOCK. WHY WERE YOU IN THE PARKING LOT? I WAS GETTING READY TO GO HOME. AND DID MR. YOUNGERMAN SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AT THAT A HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME POLICE ACTIVITY AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL, I TOLD HIM THAT WE HAD-ARRESTED TWO OF THE GIRLS THERE FOR PROSTITUTION. AND HE BECAME UPSET AND SAID THAT HE HAD WARNED THE GIRLS ABOUT THAT. AND IT HAD JUST BEEN OVERTAKEN BY THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE WORDS. AND I TOLD HIM THAT THE CHIEF HAD 8-29-95 BEEN BRIEFED ON THE OCCURRENCES INSIDE PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL AND THAT HE WOULD BE REVOKING THE BUSINESS LICENSE. Q AND DID HE REPLY ANYTHING TO THAT? A YES. Q WHAT DID HE REPLY? A HE SAID, OF COURSE, WHAT ELSE WOULD HE DO, WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO? Q AND THAT, AGAIN, WAS ON JULY 6TH AS YOU WERE GOING HOME FOR THE EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q FINALLY, THEN, ON JULY 6TH AS YOU RETURNED TO THE STATION, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF ST~S WITH REGARD TO WHAT HAD OCCURRED AT PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL THAT DAY? A YES. Q AND WAS ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT AT THE TIME YOU WERE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION? A LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN. Q AND DID YOU MAKE CHIEF STEARNS AWARE OF THE VARIOUS MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO TONIGHT? A YES. Q AND WAS IT AT THAT POINT THAT -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. DID YOU PERSONALLY MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT THE CHIEF OUGHT TO DO IN THIS CASE? A NOT AT THAT TIME, I DID LATER IN MY REPORT. Q OKAY. WAS IT YOUR INTENT TO CONVEY ALL OF THIS INFORMATION TO CHIEF STEARNS WITH REGARD TO POSSIBLY REVOKING THIS ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT? A THAT'S CORRECT. MR. STEELE: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER. (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR HASTINGS: I THINK WE'RE ALL BACK AND READY TO GO. (CITY'S EXHIBIT 5 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION BY THE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND IS ATTACHED HERETO.) MR. BARROW: BEFORE MR. VODNOY BEGINS, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT, DR95. AS UNDERSTAND IT, THE COUNCIL ALLOWED THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS REPORT, BUT NOT THE REPORT THAT WAS DATED THE 12TH. THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE AWARE THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE DR95-1243 HAVE PREVIOUSLY -- WELL, THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF CERTAIN PORTIONS -- THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF DR95-1243 HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN EXqLUDED, AND SO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD WILL HAVE INFORMATION CROSSED OUT AND REDACTED. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MR. STEELE DELETE THE THINGS, THEN THAT COpy WILL BE THE OFFICIAL COPY THAT IS INTRODUCED, THAT IS ACTUALLY ACCEPTED INTO THE RECORD. MR. VODNOY: I'D ALSO IN -- WITH RESPECT TO THAT DOCUMENT, IT CONTAINS MATERIALS FROM MR. CARTER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT MR. BARROW WAS REFERRING TO BESIDES SOME OTHER MATERIALS. AND SINCE OFFICER CARTER'S TESTIMONY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, I WOULD ASK THAT ALL OF THAT BE REDACTED AS WELL. IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. I'M READY TO CROSS-EXAMINE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT IT IS NOW 10: 30 IN THE EvENING. THAT OTHER THAN A FEW -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF C~CKERS THEY WERE, BUT I HAD SOME CRACKERS AND WATER. AND I AM READY TO CONTINUE ON ON CROSS -- MAYOR HASTINGS: GOOD. MR. VODNOY: -- AND FINISH UP ON MY CASE. BUT I AM NOT READY TO PUT ON MY DEFENSE, SO I'LL TELL YOU THAT NOW. I'M JUST TOO TIRED. BUT I WILL FINISH AT LEAST THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE CASE ON CROSS. I'VE BEEN IN COURT AT 9:00 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING. IT IS NOW 10:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT -- 10:30, SO I'M READY TO PROCEED. I I I "'"\ ) I I I .. . I . ~. 8-29-95 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODNOY: Q DETECTIVE MULLINS, THERE WAS A REPORT FAXED TO ME AUGUST 29TH AT 1320, WHICH I GUESS IS 1:20 IN THE AFTERNOON; IS THAT RIGHT, THAT'S TODAY? MAYOR HASTINGS: TODAY IS WHAT? MR. VODNOY: AUGUST 29TH. THE WITNESS: IT'S DATED AUGUST 29THl THAT IS WHAT IS LISTED HERE. BY MR. VODNOY: Q THERE IS NO DATE ON THIS REPORT, IS THAT CORRECT TWO-PAGE REPORT. I DON'T SEE A DATE? A IT WAS PREPARED ON OR ABOUT JULY 6TH. Q JULY 6TH? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q IS THERE SOME REASON WHY THIS REPORT WAS NOT GIVEN TO MR. STEELE PRIOR TO TODAY? A I ONLY WRITE THE REPORTS. I DON'T PROCESS THEM, FAX THEM, OR ANYTHING. THAT'S RECORDS, CLERKS AND CLERICAL SUPPORT'S JOB. Q DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY MR. STEELE GOT IT TODAY AS OPPOSED TO DIDN'T GET IT AT ALL? MR. STEELE: I OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION AS CALLS FOR SPECULATION, BUT ALSO, YOU'VE ASKED THAT THIS REPORT BE EXCLUDED. YOU'VE OBJECTED TO ITS INTRODUCTION. I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT WHEN YOU DIDN'T WANT ME TO, SO I OBJECT TO ANY TESTIMONY OR INTRODUCTION OF THIS REPORT AT ALL BASED ON Nq2. VODNOY'S OBJECTION TO IT. MR. VODNOY: I'M ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCOVERY WAS NOT TIMELY; THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I SAID WHEN I STARTED THIS ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF HOURS AGO. AND THE THING CONTINUES AT 10:30 AT NIGHT. AND I'M GIVING A SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATION OF NOT GETTING TIMELY DISCOVERY BY THIS REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME THIS AFTERNOON AT 1:20 IN THE AFTERNOON ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING. MR. BARROW: YOU'VE MADE YOUR ARGUMENT, AND THAT ARGUMENT IS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD. AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS DOCUMENT, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OHJECTING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT, SO THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT RELEVANT. YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, YOU CAN CONTINUE AND MR. STEELE CAN OBJECT, BUT -- BY MR. VODNOY: Q ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE MULLINS, WASN'T IT A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT THAT GAVE YOU THE INFORMATION ABOUT PROSTITUTION? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT IS NOT THE SAME AS A NONCITIZEN, IS IT? A WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PLAY WORD GAMES HERE, BUT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT PHRASES FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS WAS A PERSON WHO REQUESTED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL, ANONYMOUS OR WHATEVER. Q WELL, YOU'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR HOW MANY YEARS? A SIX YEARS. Q AND DURING THE SIX YEARS YOU'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, HAVE YOU DONE ANY NARCOTIC CASES? A YES. Q HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE WORD "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT" IN RELATION TO A NARCOTIC CASE? A YES. Q IS IT COMMONLY REFERRED TO SOMEONE WHO IS LOANED TO THE DEPARTMENT, BUT FOR VARIOUS REASONS YOU'RE KEEPING HIS IDENTITY SECRET? A THAT'S PART OF IT. Q IS THAT A FAIR DEFINITION? A PART OF IT. 8-29-95 Q WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO GAVE YOU THIS INFORMATION, WERE YOU INTENDING TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT IT WAS SOMEONE YOU KNEW BUT DIDN I T WANT TO DISCLOSE? A I KNOW THE IDENTITY OF ONE PERSON. I DO NOT KNOW THE IDENTITY OF ANOTHER. Q NOW, WERE ANY OF THESE CONVERSATIONS TAPE-RECORDED? I A NO. Q AND IS THERE ANYTHING IN ANY OF YOUR REPORTS THAT SUGGESTED SOMETHING ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME? A NO. Q WHY DID YOU LEAVE THAT OUT OF THE REPORT IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO MENTION IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL? A COUNCIL ASKED FOR THE ANSWER TO THAT. HE ASKED A QUESTION, AND THE ANSWER TO THAT WAS THE ORGANIZED CRIME STATEMENT. IF I PUT EVERY SINGLE THING DOWN IN A REPORT, I WILL NEVER GET A REPORT WRITTEN AND I'LL SPEND MY WHOLE TIME WRITING REPORTS AND NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. Q SO YOU ONLY PUT DOWN WHAT YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT? A PARTLY, YES. Q WELL, WHAT OTHER -- WHAT IS YOUR TRAINING IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU PUT INTO A REPORT? A A REPORT IS TO ESTABLISH CRIMES, TO RECOLLECT OR REFRESH MY MEMORY, AND ADDITIONALLY TO MAKE STATEMENTS AND PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE PROSECUTORS, TO COURTS, TO GOVERNMENT BODIES AND SO FORTH. Q DID YOU EVER GO INTO THE LOCATION ON MAY 31ST? A NO, I DID NOT. Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHERE YOU WERE LOCATED IN TERMS OF VISUAL OBSERVATIONS? I A APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET TO THE SOUTH OF THE LOCATION IN THE AREA OF 6TH AND ELECTRIC. Q AND IN TERMS OF THE CORNER OF 6TH AND ELECTRIC, HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM THE CORNER OF 6TH AND ELECTRIC? A I WAS AT THE CORNER. Q RIGHT AT THE CORNER? A YES. Q WERE YOU USING BINOCULARS? A YES. Q AND IS THERE A WOODEN RAILING IN FRONT OF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING? A YES, THERE IS. Q DID THAT BLOCK YOUR VIEW IN ANY WAY? A NO. Q ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WERE AT THE EXACT CORNER OF 6TH AND ELECTRIC WHEN YOU MADE THE OBSERVATION WHEN YOU TESTIFIED; IS THAT RIGHT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU DIDN'T GO INTO THE LOCATION THAT DAY; IS THAT RIGHT? A I DON'T UNDERSTAND. Q YOU DIDN'T GO INTO THE LOCATION ON MAY 31ST? A NO, I DID NOT. Q WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE, IF YOU WERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, TO HAVE A TAPE RECORDING OR TO IN ANY WAY I RECORD THE INFORMATION THAT WAS COMING OUT OF THE LOCATION, THAT IS, TO TRANSCRIBE BY SITTING OUTSIDE LISTENING OR GIVING HIM A TAPE RECORDER SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, FOR OUR PURPOSES, AN EXACT WORD-FOR-WORD DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE ROOM? A IT WAS DISCUSSED, HOWEVER, DECLINED TO USE FOR TWO REASONS. Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE THE TWO REASONS? A NUMBER ONE, WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. NUMBER TWO IS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONCEAL BODY WIRE ON A PERSON WITH NO CLOTHING. Q WELL, LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU TWO THINGS, ONE, YOU I I I 8-29-95 DON'T HAVE A TAPE RECORDER? A NO, I DO NOT HAVE A BODY WIRE TO RECORD THESE ACTIVITIES. Q HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DEVICE THAT LOOKS LIKE A BEEPER THAT IS A MICROPHONE? A YES. Q NOW, THAT MICROPHONE WHICH LOOKS LIKE A BEEPER, TRANSCRIBES OUT TO THE OFFICERS OUTSIDE, DOES IT NOT? A YES, IT DOES. Q AND THAT'S NOT A BODY WIRE; AM I RIGHT? A WELL, IT'S OF THE SAME NATURE. Q WELL, BODY WIRE WOULD BE IF YOU'RE GETTING UNDRESSED, YOU'D SEE WIRES ALL OVER SOMEBODY; IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVEY TO THE COUNCIL? A YES. Q BUT A BEEPER THAT'S A MICROPHONE WOULD NOT DISCLOSE TO ANYONE INSIDE THE LOCATION THAT THE PERSON IS AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER; IS THAT CORRECT? A IF I COULD EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU, MAYBE I COULD CLEAR IT UP. Q EXPLAIN TO ME. A WE DO NOT HAVE NOR DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE TYPE OF DEVICE WHICH YOU'RE DISCUSSING. THE ACCESS WHICH WE DO HAVE IS A BODY WIRE THAT WE CAN BORROW FROM SIGNAL HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT. BY USE OF THE BODY WIRE, WOULD ALL BUT WIPE OUT OUR CHANCE OF BEING UNDERCOVER INSIDE THAT TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT. Q ALL RIGHT. OBVIOUSLY A BODY WIRE WOULD BE DISCLOSED AND SOMEONE WOULD SEE IT IF YOU ARE GETTING A MASSAGE; CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY DEPARTMENT THAT HAS THIS DEVICE THAT'S A RECORDING DEVICE, I MEAN, THE MICROPHONE WITH A RESULTANT RECORDING DEVICE AT THE OTHER END? A I'VE SEEN THEM ADVERTISED, BUT AS TO WHO HAS THEM, I HAVE NO IDEA. Q HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO BUY IT FOR YOU? A WE ASKED OUR LAST LIEUTENANT OF DETECTIVES, BUT NOT THE CHIEF. Q LIEUTENANT MALONEY (SIC)? A NO. Q BEFORE HIM? A YES. Q AND HE SAID "NO"? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID HE TELL YOU A REASON WHY HE SAID NO? MR. STEELE: OBJECTION. THIS IS ALL IRRELEVANT. MR. VODNOY: LAST QUESTION ON THAT; THAT'S THE LAST QUESTION I'M GOING TO ASK ON THAT ISSUE. MR. STEELE: I'LL WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION IF THAT'S THE LAST QUESTION. THE WITNESS: WE COULDN'T AFFORD IT. BY MR. VODNOY: Q HOW MUCH WAS IT? A I HAVE NO IDEA. I DON'T REMEMBER. Q DID YOU ASK THIS LIEUTENANT? MR. STEELE: THAT'S THE THIRD QUESTION. MR. VODNOY: I SAID I WOULDN'T ASK MORE QUESTIONS. I WON'T ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. BY MR. VODNOY: Q ON JULY 6TH, YOU WENT INTO THE LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q WILL YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE -- YOU SAID THERE WAS ONE ROOM IN WHICH A MATTRESS WAS ON THE FLOOR COVERED BY SHEETS, AND I GUESS, WAS THERE A TOWEL ON THAT? MR. STEELE: I OBJECT. I 8-29-95 THINK THAT MISSTATES HIS TESTIMONY. I DON'T THINK HE SAID IT WAS ONE ROOM. BY MR. VODNOY: Q WAS THERE MORE THAN ONE ROOM IN WHICH A MATTRESS WAS ON THE FLOOR? A YES. Q ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE AS YOU ARE WALKING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR, ALL RIGHT, WALKING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR, AND THERE'S, I GUESS, MASSAGE ROOMS ON THE LEFT AND MASSAGE ROOMS ON THE RIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU TELL ME IN RELATION TO AS YOU'RE WALKING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR AND YOU'VE GONE INTO THE SECOND DOOR, WHICH IS THE INTERIOR DOOR, WHERE THE FIRST ROOM ON THE LEFT, IF THERE IS ONE, THAT HAS THIS MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR? A THERE'S A MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR IN THE RECEPTION AREA, WHICH IS THE FIRST DOOR ON THE LEFT. ARE YOU WITH ME? Q THAT'S WHERE THE - A THERE IS A RECEPTION AREA AND ADDITIONALLY A STORAGE CLOSET. THERE IS A MATTRESS WITH SHEETS AND A BLANKET ON THE FLOOR IN THERE. Q IS THAT A MASSAGE ROOM? A I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY USE IT FOR. IT'S. NOT INTENDED FOR MASSAGES, I'M SURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S USED FOR. Q SO THAT'S NOT A MASSAGE ROOM? A I DON'T KNOW. Q DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THESE ROOMS THAT HAVE THE DOORS CLOSED, WITH THE LOCKS ON THE DOORS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, WHAT ROOM WAS IT, IF IT WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE AS YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE HALL FROM FRONT TO BACK THAT HAD THIS MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR? A FRANKLY, I DO NOT RECALL EXACTLY WHICH ROOMS HAD WHICH, A TABLE OR A MATTRESS. I JUST RECALL SEEING MATTRESSES IN DIFFERENT ROOMS AND TABLES IN DIFFERENT ROOMS. Q ALL RIGHT. OTHER THAN THE VIDEOTAPE, WERE THERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? A NO. Q BUT IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT OTHER THAN THIS ONE ROOM THAT SEEMS TO BE A RECEPTION ROOM AND MAYBE A REST AREA FOR THE MASSAGE TECHNICIANS, THERE ARE TWO MORE ROOMS ON THE 6TH THAT HAD MATTRESSES ON THE FLOOR? A YES. AND I SPECIFICALLY RECALL THAT THE ROOM ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER HAD A MATTRESS; THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER ONE I CAN SPECIFICALLY TELL YOU HAD A MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR. Q WELL, NOW, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS FACING WHAT, NORTH? A Q A Q A ON THE FRONT. Q THAT'S A MASSAGE ROOM? A SO IT APPEARS. Q ISN'T THAT A LADIES' ROOM? A THERE IS A RESTROOM OFF OF THAT ROOM. HOWEVER, THERE IS A REGULAR ROOM SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHERS. Q THERE IS NO SIGN ON THE DOOR THAT SAYS "LADIES'" OR "WOMEN'S"? A Q A Q. A NORTH, YES. ALL RIGHT. SO THE LAST ROOM ON THE LEFT? NO, THE LAST ROOM ON THE RIGHT. LAST ROOM ON THE - - AS YOU'RE WALKING FROM THE REAR TO THE REAR DOOR NOT THAT I RECALL. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A TYPICAL MASSAGE ROOM? IT'S JUST LIKE THE MASSAGE ROOM EXCEPT ~- ALL RIGHT. ~ IT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD A BATHROOM OFF OF IT. I I I I I I .. 8-29-95 Q DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE WOMEN'S ROOM IS - THE LADIES' BATHROOM WAS? A I DON'T RECALL THERE EVEN BEING DESIGNATED BATHROOMS THERE. Q MEN'S OR WOMEN'S? A NO. Q YOU DON'T REMEMBER OR THERE WASN'T? A I DON'T HONESTLY THINK THAT THERE WAS A DESIGNATION BETWEEN THE BATHROOMS. I CAN'T REMEMBER POSITIVELY. Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE SECOND TIME YOU WATCHED FROM THE FRONT DOOR, OUTSIDE THE FRONT BY THE RED LOBSTER; IS THAT CORRECT? A CORRECT. Q AND AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T HEAR WHAT WENT ON INSIDE THE ROOM? A Q INSIDE THE RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. DIDN'T MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS AS TO WHAT OCCURRED ESTABLISHMENT WHILE THE OFFICERS WERE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT. BUT THEN YOU SPOKE TO BOWLES AND CARTER WHEN THEY A Q CAME OUT? A Q THAT'S RIGHT. AND WAS -- THE LIEUTENANT WAS THERE AS WELL THIS TIME? A NOT AT THE FRONT, HE WAS IN THE BACK. Q BUT THE LIEUTENANT WAS AT THE SITE? A YES, HE WAS. Q NOW, HE WAS NOT THERE ON MAY 31ST; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST TALK TO THE LIEUTENANT ON MAY 31ST? A RIGHT AFTER WE LEFT THE BUILDING, WE WENT DIRECTLY FROM THE AREA OF THE MARINA AND WENT STRAIGHT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE INCIDENT WITH LIEUTENANT MOLLOHAN . Q OKAY. NOW, THE STATEMENT -- WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO SAY OR INTENDING TO SAY THAT YOU TALKED TO MS. GRAHAM AND GAVE HER HER RIGHTS AND SHE UNDERSTOOD HER RIGHTS? A NO. SHE SAID SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND HER RIGHTS. Q NOW, YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT ON THE DIRECT TESTIMONY; RIGHT? A I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T THINK SO. Q YOU WERE ASKED IF YOU GAVE MIRANDA. YOU SAID YOU GAVE MIRANDA, AND THEN SHE MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS; IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? A I BELIEVE SO. Q I WOULD MOVE AT THIS TIME TO STRIKE YOUR STATEMENTS AS BEING IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA. AND I THINK THAT THE MIRANDA, BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE NOW, THAT THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT COME IN FOR MS. GRAHAM BECAUSE SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND HER MIRANDA RIGHTS. SO ANY STATEMENTS TAKEN WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA, I THINK, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AS SUCH. NEVERTHELESS, I THINK THAT THE MIRANDA RULING WOULD APPLY HERE. THIS IS NOT REBUTTAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THIS IS -- AND BASED ON THE RECORD WE HAVE HERE, WE HAVE A STATEMENT OF MIRANDA. I'LL TAKE HIS WORD THAT WE ALL .UNDERSTAND WHAT MIRANDA IS RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF IT. BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT SHE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, IS WHAT HIS TESTIMONY ALSO IS, THAT HER STATEMENT SHOULD BE STRICKEN. MAYOR HASTINGS: IS SHE ASIAN? MR. VODNOY: YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: AND SHE CONDUCTS BUSINESS AND THAT TYPE OF THING AND SHE WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND MIRANDA? 8-29-95 MR. VODNOY: WELL, I -- MAYOR HASTINGS: I'M-- MR. VODNOY: I ASKED HIM MAYOR HASTINGS: I'M CONFUSED. THEN, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED OFFICER MULLINS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME TESTIMONY HERE -- YOU KIND OF -- YOU ALMOST I HAVE TO REFRESH OUR MEMORIES ON IT. MR. STEELE: FIRST OF ALL, MIRANDA DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING IN THIS CONTEXT. MIRANDA IS A CASE THAT APPLIES TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. THESE STATEMENTS MAY OR MAY NOT COME IN IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN IT ON TELEVISION WHERE THE OFFICER READS THE CARD THAT SAYS, "ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW." THIS ISN'T A COURT OF LAW. AND WHILE I WOULDN'T HAVE THIS ARGUMENT WITH MR. VODNOY IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, IT'S CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. IF IT IS APPLICABLE, THEN WE'VE GOT TO GET MS. GRAHAM IN HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER SHE DID OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT OR WHAT WAS REALLY SAID TO HER. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST AS A MATTER OF FACT, MIRANDA DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CONTEXT. MAYOR HASTINGS: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. MR. VODNOY: JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR. WHAT I READ AND WHAT I STATED WAS THAT I ASKED HIM IF HE ADVISED HER OF HER MIRANDA RIGHTS AND DID SHE SAY SHE UNDERSTOOD. AND HE SAID, SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT. THIS IS TESTIMONY OF THIS OFFICER, NOT MY OWN INTERPRETATION OF SOMETHING. MR. STEELE: JUST SO I CAN MAKE MY RECORD CLEAR -- AND I'M SORRY TO TAKE UP THE TIME -- WHEN MS. GRAHAM MADE THE STATEMENT ABOUT GIVING MASSAGES AND ADMITTED TO GIVING MASSAGES, THAT WASN'T IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM YOU, THAT WAS A STATEMENT THAT WAS OFFERED OF HER OWN VOLITION. I THE WITNESS: WHEN WE HAVE MIRANDA ISSUES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO THINGS: YOU HAVE TO HAVE CUSTODY AND INTERROGATION. WE, IN FACT, HAD THE CUSTODY BY HAVING HER JAILED. HOWEVER, WE DID NOT HAVE INTERROGATION BECAUSE I WASN'T QUESTIONING HER. MR. VODNOY: I'LL STAND BY THE STATEMENT I READ FROM HIS REPORT. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANY OBJECTION. WAS THERE AN OBJECTION TO THIS OR -- MR. VODNOY: YES. I'M MOVING TO STRIKE THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE EARLIER BECAUSE AT THE TIME HE GAVE IT ON DIRECT IT WAS, "I GAVE HER HER MIRANDA AND HERE IS WHAT SHE SAID," AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT. MAYOR HASTINGS: I UNDERSTAND. AND MR. STEELE SAYS THAT THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. MR. VODNOY: YES -- WELL, IF HE'S RIGHT AND I'M WRONG, THEN - - MR. LASZLO: I MOVE WE DO NOT SUSTAIN THIS AND WE ABIDE BY -- MR. DOANE: SECOND. MAYOR HASTINGS: OKAY. MR. LASZLO: MR. STEELE'S MR. BARROW: FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU ARE OVERRULING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY MR. VODNOY? MR. LASZLO: RIGHT. MAYOR HASTINGS: CALL FOR THE ROLL, PLEASE. I (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT'S 5-0, MR. VODNOY. MR. VODNOY: OKAY. CAN'T WIN THEM ALL. MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT'S TRUE. WE'LL JUST DO THE BEST WE CAN. BY MR. VODNOY: Q NOW, MR. YOUNGERMAN, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM, DID YOU ENUMERATE FOR HIM THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF SECTION 'AND ADVISE HIM ON JULY 6TH AS TO WHAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE; DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? .. A YEAH, I DO. I'M TRYING TO RECALL. I DON'T KNOW I I I ",01.1', 8-29-95 IF I SAID ANY SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED AS DISCUSSED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. NO, I DON'T RECALL. Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT -- AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. YOUNGERMAN SAID WAS, IF IN FACT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE ABOUT THE PROSTITUTION ACTIVITIES, WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THEN HE UNDERSTOOD WHY THE POLICE CHIEF WOULD REVOKE THE LICENSE; IS THAT RIGHT? A NO, YOU MISSTATED HIS STATEMENT. Q WELL, DIDN'T YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TWO OTHER GIRLS WERE ARRESTED FOR PROSTITUTION? A YES.. Q AND THAT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE ABOUT REVOCATION? A IT WAS LATER ON IN THE DISCUSSION THAT I TOLD HIM THAT THE CHIEF WOULD BE REVOKING HIS LICENSE. Q AND DID YOU STATE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE CHIEF WOULD BE REVOKING HIS LICENSE OTHER THAN THE PROSTITUTION THAT YOU RAISED EARLIER? A I DO RECALL MENTIONING THE MUNICIPAL CODE. HOWEVER, I DON'T REMEMBER IF I LISTED 12-9A THROUGH R OR WHAT. I DON'T RECALL IF I SPECIFICALLY LISTED ONE OR ANY OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS. Q AND IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE TWO THINGS YOU DID SAY -- THAT ONE THING YOU DID SAY THAT YOU DO RECALL IS,' TWO OF THE GIRLS WERE ARRESTED FOR PROSTITUTION? A THAT'S CORRECT. Q YOU REMEMBER THAT? A YES. Q BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT ELSE YOU TOLD HIM IN RELATION TO WHY THE LICENSE WAS BEING REVOKED? A AS I SAID, I REMEMBER BRINGING UP THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I ENUMERATED VIOLATIONS OR NOT. Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU ENUMERATED THE VIOLATIONS IN TERMS OF THE CODE SECTIONS TO MR. YOUNGERMAN? A I DON'T KNOW THAT I EVER DID. Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU ENUMERATED THE MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS TO MYSELF? . A I DON'T RECALL EVER HAVING SPOKEN TO YOU BEFORE. MR. VODNOY: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. MR. STEELE: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, THEN, THIS WITNESS IS EXCUSED. AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU MADE A REQUEST, THAT AT THE END OF QUESTIONING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO REST THIS HEARING UNTIL WE CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER DATE AND YOU COULD GIVE YOUR DEFENSE AND WE COULD CROSS-EXAMINE AND THEN - - MR. VODNOY: YES. MAYOR HASTINGS: -- GO INTO YOUR DELIBERATIONS? MR. VODNOY: I'M INTENDING TO PUT ON A DEFENSE, BUT I'M VERY TIRED. . MAYOR HASTINGS: I KNOW. MR. VODNOY: IT'S NOW EIGHT MINUTES TO 11:00.- MR. BROWN: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AFTER TAKING TESTIMONY FROM THE -- AND MY P.B.C., WE CONTINUE THE HEARING TO ANOTHER DATE, THAT DATE TO BE ESTABLISHED. MAYOR HASTINGS: I WOULD CERTAINLY SECOND THAT. MR. BARROW: YOU SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR CALENDARS AND GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS IT. MR. LASZLO: WAIT, WAIT. BEFORE WE DO THIS, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS PLANNED; WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? MR. VODNOY: WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO DO IS THIS: MR. YOUNGERMAN IS HERE, BUT HE'S 70 YEARS OLD AND HE'S DOING BETTER THAN I AM, BUT I'M TIRED. AND FOR MR. YOUNGERMAN, WE CAN PUT IT ON WHATEVER DATE YOU WANT. MR. LASZLO: WE'RE ALL TIRED, BUT WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING -- MR. VODNOY: WELL, WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS A MONTH'S CONTINUANCE. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT ON THE 31 ST, 8-29-95 WHICH IS THURSDAY, SUPPOSEDLY WE WILL KNOW WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A CRIMINAL FILING ON THE TWO MASSAGE TECHNICIANS. IF THERE IS ONE, I'LL TRY TO DISPOSE OF THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THERE WON'T BE ANY FIFTH AMENDMENT PROBLEM, AND WE CAN HEAR FROM THE MASSAGE TECHNICIANS. IF THERE'S NO FILING -- THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY FILING, THEN WE HAVE THAT SITUATION WHERE HOPEFULLY I CAN CALL THEM. I'LL HAVE TO BRING AN INTERPRETER FOR THAT. IF THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, THE ONLY TWO -- I GUESS THIS IS A TUESDAY, THE ONLY TUESDAY I'M NOT AVAILABLE IS THE 12TH OF SEPTEMBER. I'M GOING TO BE IN WICHITA, KANSAS. OTHER THAN THAT -- I CAN'T SAY I'VE GOT MY CALENDAR FULL BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE COURT AT 6:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. MR. LASZLO: WHAT ABOUT THURSDAYS, WHAT ABOUT WEDNESDAYS, WHAT ABOUT MONDAYS, WHAT ABOUT SUNDAYS, WHAT ABOUT SATURDAYS -- WAIT. I WANT TO KNOW WHY IT HAS TO BE TUESDAYS. MAYOR HASTINGS: WE HAVE HEARINGS, TOO. MR. LASZLO: I KNOW. WHAT I REALLY WANT TO KNOW IS, WHY WE CAN'T DO IT TONIGHT? MAYOR HASTINGS: HE JUST SAID HE'S EXHAUSTED. MR. LASZLO: SO WE ALL ARE, BUT IT'S -- I WAN1l' TO KNOW WHY WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT? MR. VODNOY: DECISION ABOUT WHAT, ABOUT THE CASE? MR. LASZLO: RIGHT. MR. VODNOY: BECAUSE I'M TIRED. MR. LASZLO: BECAUSE YOU'RE TIRED -- WELL, YOU'RE THROUGH NOW, THEN? MR. VODNOY: I'M NOT THROUGH. MAYOR HASTINGS: NO. HE HAS TO PREPARE A DEFENSE. MR. LASZLO: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS COMING UP IN THE CITY. AND THE POINT OF IT IS THAT -- AND I'M JUST BRINGING THESE THINGS UP -- THE POINT OF IT IS THAT THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT THERE IS PENALTIES INVOLVED IF THE COUNCIL UP HERE GOES ALONG. AND IT'S -- I'M JUST PUTTING IT STRAIGHT OUT. IT LEAVES YOU OPEN AN EXTRA MONTH OR TWO. MR. VODNOY: YOU KNOW, I'M HERE. I CAME HERE AT 6:00 O'CLOCK. I DON'T THINK I'VE DELAYED ANY PROCEEDING. I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE CROSS-EXAMINED IN AN EXTENSIVE MANNER" WHICH WAS SIMPLY FROM A POINT OF DELAYING. I THINK I HAVE BEHAVED IN A NORMAL AND RESPECTFUL MANNER. AND I'M TIRED. I'M TIRED. IT'S 11:00 O'CLOCK. I'VE BEEN GOING SINCE 9:00 O'CLOCK THIS MORNING. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TENSION INVOLVED IN DOING THESE KIND OF THINGS WHERE YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO EVERY WORD, YOU HAVE TO BE READY TO OBJECT TO EVERYTHING. AND THIS IS VERY TIRING FOR ME TO DO THIS. MAYOR HASTINGS: YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STOP FURTHER DISCUSSION. AND WE ALL HAVE OUR LIVES. I KNOW, I GET UP AT 6:00 TOMORROW MORNING AND I'M BUSY ALL DAY. AND I THINK A LOT OF US ARE. AND PERHAPS IT WOULD BE WISE, WE'D ALL BE FRESHER, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IN THE DEFENSE AND PERHAPS EVALUATE AND WEIGH THINGS -- MR. DOANE: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE STIPULATION, IF I MAY. HE'S ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE AND GIVING US JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK CHIEF STEARNS IF MR. CARTER WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME SO THAT WE COULD ENTER HIS TESTIMONY INTO THIS HEARING? AS LONG AS WE'RE HAVING A DELAY, MAYBE WE COULD TAKE CARE OF ANOTHER THING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY TONIGHT. WHY IT TOOK SO LONG IS BECAUSE WE HAD TO KEEP LOOKING AT THE THINGS THAT WERE REFERRED TO MR. CARTER, AND' REMOVING THEM. IF WE COULD GET MR. CARTER TO TESTIFY, IF HIS OTHER UNDERCOVER OPERATION WOULD BE COMPLETED IN A MONTH FROM NOW, PERHAPS WE COULD KEEP THE - - MAYOR HASTINGS: WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, BILL, IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A REVOCATION OF A LICENSE. AND CHIEF STEARNS BASED -- OR STARTED HIS REVOCATION AFTER JULY 6TH, JULY 6TH. AND EVERYTHING MR. CARTER DID THAT WAS PERTINENT, I I I I I I . ";. .~"i... " -; 8-29-95 WASN'T THAT AFTER; WASN'T THAT THE 12TH? MR. DOANE: NO, NO, NO, NO. MAYOR HASTINGS: I'M CONFUSED. HELP ME HERE. MR. BARROW: ACTUALLY, IF I COULD INTERJECT, THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CONTINUE. THERE WAS A SECOND, AND THEN WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. AT THAT TIME WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR A DATE. MAYOR HASTINGS: YES, LET I S GET BACK TO THAT. MR. BROWN: LET'S CALL AND WE'LL FIND A DATE. MR. STEELE: I WOULD, JUST ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUST OBJECT TO A ONE-MONTH DELAY IN THIS PROCEEDING. MR. BROWN: I OBJECT TO A ONE-MONTH DELAY, TOO. MR. STEELE: WE'VE DELAYED FOR TWO WEEKS BASED ON MR. VODNOY'S EUROPEAN TRAVEL. WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF DELAY. AND I AGREE WITH WHOEVER COMMENTED THAT A MONTH DELAY BUYS AT LEAST ANOTHER MONTH OF BUSINESS. MR. BROWN: WE'RE NOT AGREEING TO A MONTH AWAY. WE'RE TRYING TO GET A CONTINUANCE, AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A DATE. HE WAS ONLY SAYING A MONTH BECAUSE HE WAS PICKING TUESDAYS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE TIME WE MEET. AND HE SAID CERTAINLY, SO ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS GET A CALENDAR DATE. MR. DOANE: WHAT'S THE QUESTION? MR. BROWN: CONTINUANCE. (WHEREUPON THE MOTION WAS CARRIED) MAYOR HASTINGS: THAT PASSES 4-1, MR. LASZLO OBJECTING. MR. BROWN: OKAY. NOW, WE NEED TO GET A DATE. MR. SHELVER JUST WENT TO GET THE CALENDAR, I THINK. MR. BARROW: YES. EXCUSE ME. UNTIL HE RETURNS, ORIGINALLY THE COUNCIL HAD CONSIDERED THIS THURSDAY AS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL DATES. MR. BROWN: HOW DOES THURSDAY LOOK TO YOU, TWO DAYS FROM NOW? MR. VODNOY: LET ME JUST SAY WHAT I DO ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ISSUES I RAISED ABOUT THE TUESDAY. I HAVE A CARDIAC REHAB. I HAD A TRIPLE BYPASS. I GO TO CLASS TUESDAYS AND THURSDAY EVENINGS AT 4:30. I DID NOT RAISE THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO ALLOW ME TO GO TO ITALY AND SO I WASN'T GOING TO GILD THE LILY AND START TALKING ABOUT TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS. I CAN MEET AGAIN ON A TUESDAY, IF I HAVE TO. I'D LIKE TO GET AT LEAST ONE OF MY CLASSES IN THIS WEEK. IT'S TUESDAY, THURSDAY, SATURDAY. MR. BROWN: WHAT TIME IS YOUR CLASS OVER? MR. VODNOY: IT'S FROM 5:00 TO 6:00. IT'S OVER AT 6:00. I COULD BE HERE, I GUESS, AT 7:00, 7:30. MR. BROWN: SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT LONG, WHY DON'T WE DO IT AT 7:00 O'CLOCK? MAYOR HASTINGS: NO, THAT'S PUSHING IT FOR HIM TO DRIVE DOWN HERE. MR. VODNOY: I'M COMING FROM WEST LOS ANGELES. MAYOR HASTINGS: YOU KNOW, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DINNER AGAIN. MR. VODNOY: AGAIN. MAYOR HASTINGS: AND SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH 7:30? WOULD IT BE MORE AMENABLE? MR. BROWN: YEAH. YOU COULD SWING BY MC DONALD'S. MR. BARROW: OKAY. JACK, THEY'RE CONSIDERING THIS THURSDAY AT 7:30. AND, MR. STEELE, AT THIS POINT SINCE ALL THE WITNESSES FOR THE CITY HAVE BEEN EXCUSED, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. STEELE WOULD WANT ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY? MR. BROWN: JUST BRING YOUR VIDEO BACK IN CASE. MR. STEELE: I DON'T PLAN TO CALL ANY OTHER WITNESSES AT THIS TIME. MR. BARROW: OKAY. SO WE JUST HAVE THE ISSUE ON THE VIDEO, WHICH HAS STILL BEEN DEFERRED? MR. BROWN: YEAH. 8-29-95 MR. BARROW: THIS THURSDAY IS THE 31ST, 7:30. MR. VODNOY: COULD WE MAKE IT 8:00 O'CLOCK? I MEAN, I'M LEAVING A CLASS AT 7:00. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CLASS IS FROM 5:30 TO -- MAYOR HASTINGS: I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO 8:00 O'CLOCK. I MR. BROWN: I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO 8:00 O'CLOCK. MR. DOANE: YEAH. MR. LASZLO: NO, THE ONLY THING IS I JUST WAS WONDERING IF WE DO THIS WHETHER WE'LL FINISH OR WHETHER WE'LL IT WILL BE SO LATE IF WE START AT 8:00, THAT -- MR. BROWN: WE'LL FINISH, WON'T WE? MR. LASZLO: OKAY. THAT WAS MY ONLY WORRY AND CONCERN. MR. BROWN: SO BE IT. MR. VODNOY: OKAY. MR. BARROW: SO 8:00 O'CLOCK THIS THURSDAY. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, AUGUST 31ST, AT 8:00 O'CLOCK P.M." (THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 P.M.) . COUNTY BANKRUPTCY UPDATE As requested by the city Council at their regular meeting of August 29th, Councilman Brown reported that the Orange County Bankruptcy issue is basically out of the hands of the pool participants and has gone to the state, the State and County have been negotiating, paying very little attention to the cities. Assemblyman pringle and others are preparing a bill they will try to pass, which will be fought vigorously, an excerpt of which states that "a trustee can assume all of the specific powers of the County of Orange special district as I defined and all of the specific powers of any city in the County of Orange, the powers assumed by the trustee include but are not limited to consolidation of the districts, to accept or decline any plan of adjustment filed by the Orange, to cancel obligations owed to a district or city by the County, to loan district or city reserves to the County of Orange", etc. He stated this is a call for the League of cities, the cities, the administrators, districts, etc. to work to get this changed. He reported that a consensus plan was tentatively approved this date while recognizing outstanding issues such as no diversion of any city sales or property tax, or reserves, the $18 million of general fund revenue will be shared by the various pool cities from future proceeds, the three member advisory committee will include one city representative, any trustee would have only the authority of the Board of Supervisors and will not have the ability to divert revenues or reserves from any agency or city, and any litigation proceeds that the County receives has to be used to pay others back before money can be spent for anything else. He noted that Assemblyman Pringle is unhappy that the Transportation Authority would not give up their money to the County and as an act of revenge wants to impose a trustee to divert monies from the cities, etc. Councilman Brown said there is need to support the efforts of the League in this matter, there needs to be contact with Assemblywoman Allen and other legislators urging that a trustee should have no more I authority than the County, especially with regard to the diversion of monies from cities. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting ~ntil Thursday, August 31st at 8:00 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m. 8-29-95 I 8-31-95 I Approved: of the Attest: Seal Beach, California August 31, 1995 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 8:00 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hastings Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Shelver, Interim city Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Steele, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved by consensus of the Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. The following is a transcript of the proceedings relating to the appeal of Pacific Pain Control in the matter of the revocation of a massage establishment permit by the Chief of Police. " BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SEAL BEACH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA I IN RE: ) ) PACIFIC PAIN CONTROL ) VOLUME I I APPEAL OF REVOCATION ) OF CITY MASSAGE ) ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT. )