Blog

(Chuck Muth) – This is a long one, so grab a coffee refill before continuing.

There’s an obsessed man in Reno stalking legal sex workers – and the Nevada Legislature needs to stop him in his tracks…now.

ACR6 is a bill to study the “health and safety” of commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels over the next two years.

But the safety of these workers, as you’ll see detailed below, is at serious risk RIGHT NOW – and legislators shouldn’t wait two years to stop this man’s predatory behavior.

I’m talking about a creepy Reno lawyer named Jason Guinasso, who’s been on an 18-month religious crusade to shut down the brothels.

But it’s a particular legal tactic he’s using that jeopardizes the physical safety – and potentially the very lives – of these women that the Legislature needs to address before the end of the session next month.

And yes, it’s serious enough to warrant an “emergency” exemption to bring a short, new statute amendment forward.  Here’s what it’s all about…

For a year and half now Guinasso has been trying to force Lyon County to give him the full names and addresses of every legal sex worker in the county’s four brothels, as detailed in a public record request he submitted to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) on December 1, 2017…

“I write to request a copy of all applications for registration as a prostitute filed with the Lyon County Sheriff for the last 10 years.  Please include all information on the application, including the address of the prostitute (my emphasis) and all addresses of the prostitute for the preceding three (3) years.”

For what nefarious purpose he wants this information, we don’t know.

What we do know is what happened afterwards, thanks to a public records request of my own I filed a few weeks ago which turned up multiple, previously-unknown communications between Guinasso and the county.

In a letter of response dated December 15, 2017, Lyon County District Attorney Steve Rye denied Guinasso’s request.  Some pertinent excerpts…

“When there is no statutory provision that explicitly declares a record to be confidential, there still may be common law limitations that justify restricting disclosure based upon a balancing of the private and public interests involved. In this case the privacy and law enforcement concerns are significant.

“First, in order to work as prostitutes, persons are required to file the application.  It is not a voluntary application with Lyon County.  The Sheriff undergoes a criminal background check of applicants, and as a result, applicants provide social security numbers, aliases, addresses for the last three years, alien registration number or passport number and other personal information, including tattoos, piercings and major scars.

“The applicant is also required to provide emergency contact information, and the name and contact information is often provided without that person’s knowledge.  The applicant also lists the criminal history, information which is generally viewed as confidential.

“This is all private information that should not be shared with the public.  Similar information is provided by gaming employees and such information should also be kept confidential.

“Law enforcement reasons also justify keeping the applications confidential.  Legal prostitution is highly regulated in Lyon County.  The names and identities of the workers needs to be protected so that customers and others are not able to identify addresses and other information for the prostitutes without their consent or knowledge.

“Prostitutes are more likely to be victims of crime (my emphasis) in many instances.  People may look up names and seek to contact those applicants at their residence.  This could lead to an increase in crime and a threat to the workers.  Release of the applications would likely subject the applicants to an unreasonable risk of harm.  Confidentiality of the identity of these applicants is paramount.”

Bravo to Mr. Rye.  But Guinasso didn’t give up. As I said, he’s obsessed.

In a letter of response dated June 8, 2018, Guinasso wrote that “we believe your office has erred in denial of production of the requested records,” arguing that the DA’s concern for the safety of sex workers was “conjectural at best.”

But Mr. Rye stood by his decision and did not provide the records.  So Guinasso did what people like Guinasso do when they don’t get their way: He filed a lawsuit.

On August 9, 2018, Guinasso sued Lyon County, arguing that Mr. Rye and the county “have no basis…to withhold the requested records.”

In a follow-up letter dated August 16, 2018, Lyon County Administrative Director Michael Carlson provided a cost estimate for providing copies of the work applications with all personal, private information REDACTED (blacked out).

“(W)e estimate the cost to be not more than $3,777.00,” Mr. Carlson wrote.  “The final product will involve redacting the following information: social security number, passport number, and/or alien registration number, date of birth, and emergency contact number.”

Guinasso had a cow…and not just because he had only offered to pay up to $45 for the cost to provide the records.

In a letter to Mr. Carlson dated September 12, 2018, Guinasso again claimed the DA’s office had “erred,” arguing that the applications “cannot be reasonably construed to fit the definition of a confidential record.”

“This office again requests to inspect all applications for registration as a prostitute filed with the Lyon County Sheriff for the last ten years pursuant to Lyon County Code 5.03.14.  Please include all information on the application, including the name, date of birth, social security number, passport number, alien number, address, and all addresses of the applicant for the preceding three (3) years.”

In an email dated September 19, 2018, Mr. Rye gave Guinasso a short answer…

“Your assertion that social security numbers are not confidential is contrary to Nevada and federal law.”

I’m no lawyer, but even *I* know that.

However, like Captain Ahab obsessively pursuing Moby Dick, Guinasso continued his pursuit.

And then a strange and alarming thing happened…

On November 13, 2018 – just a week after an anti-brothel advisory question was crushed in Lyon County, 80-20 percent, and Lyon County Sheriff Al McNeil, who was a secret funder of Guinasso’s ballot question, was defeated for re-election – Mr. Carlson flip-flopped and sent the following email to Guinasso…

“Based on discussions with Sheriff McNeil, we want to offer this option for your records request.  Your request asked for 10 years’ worth of records; however, we would like for you to consider revisiting your request to records since 2012.  If this is agreeable, we will not only go ahead and process your request, but do it at no cost to you.”

What the…?

“This is a reasonable resolution,” Guinasso emailed back later that afternoon.  “We accept your proposal.”

To which Mr. Carlson replied…

“Thank you, sir.  We will begin the processing this week and will possibly have it to you by the end of the next week.”

In return, on December 6, 2018, Guinasso withdrew his lawsuit.

But in a letter dated December 20, 2018, Mr. Rye over-ruled Mr. Carlson’s offer to provide the records at no cost, arguing that certain personal and private information HAD to be redacted so that “the records will contain no information to identify the individual applicant.”

Mr. Rye then went to additional great lengths to explain WHY this information on brothel workers must be protected…

“Often times, these workers do not want others to know their identity for protection.  Prostitutes are more likely to be victims of crime (my emphasis), including sex trafficking, sexual assault and other serious crimes.

“Prostitution continues to have negative connotations in society. … Release of the names and contact information for the prostitutes would not only threaten their safety (my emphasis) because of the risk of Johns or others trying to track them down outside of the legal brothel, but it would also expose these women to shame, ridicule, stigma and backlash from the community from their employment as prostitutes.

“This is a nontrivial privacy interest that the County must consider.  For these reasons, the Sheriff has determined it is necessary to redact all information but the date of application.”

Threaten their safety.  Expose them to public shame and ridicule.  Nontrivial.  Strong, valid reasons, indeed.

What is unclear here, though, is whether or not the sheriff referenced by Mr. Rye was the old sheriff – McNeil, who lost his bid for re-election – or the new sheriff who was elected in November to replace him.

In any event, Guinasso was having none of it.

In a letter dated February 1, 2019, Guinasso wrote that “we believe your office has erred in its decision to renege the previously agreed upon terms of disclosure of the requested records.”

He continued…

“As you are already aware, this office has withdrawn a complaint filed in District Court based on representations by LCSO Administration Director, Michael Carlson, that the requested records would be produced.  Please provide the requested records, or the records offered by M. Carlson on November 13, 2018, WITHIN 5 DAYS (his emphasis) or this office will file for relief from the District Court.”

Responding to Guinasso’s latest threat, Mr. Rye fired back in a letter dated February 13, 2019…

“After careful review, our office has determined the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office is not obligated to release these records to you.  Pursuant to your public records request for the same information, the Sheriff’s office has mailed you a redacted report summarizing the past three years of work card applications, including the first name of the applicant, the date of the application, and the agency issuing the work card.”

While a redacted report is certainly better than providing full unredacted copies of the applications, this concession in releasing first names of brothel workers is still cause for concern.  It’s a potential “camel’s nose under the tent.”

Mr. Rye then proceeded to cite a 2016 “balancing test” court decision which determined that “exotic dancers could use pseudonyms (stage names) and granted a protective order regarding disclosure of their true identities.”

Mr. Rye…

“(The court) considered a balancing of interests of the dancers’ privacy and threatened harm, with the potential prejudice and public interest in open courts, in deciding whether pseudonymity could be granted.  The court concluded that ‘the dancers have expressed legitimate privacy and social stigma concerns, and reasonable concerns that disclosing their identities would expose them to harm.’

“Similarly, release of identifying information of brothel workers create the same if not more legitimate concerns of privacy, social stigma, and threats of harm.  The personal privacy interest in this public records request, therefore, is nontrivial and significant.”

Mr. Rye continued…

“Second, your public records (request) does not assert a public interest other than a ‘public right to access.’ … 

“The fact that you are seeking the records ‘pursuant to an investigation in anticipation of litigation’ does not provide any insight into the public interest you think is significant nor how release of the records would advance the interest.

“In this case, the nontrivial risk of an increase in crime or harm to the applicants greatly outweighs the public interest asserted.”

That’s the last communication I received as part of my public records request.  But based on past history and previous behavior, it’s reasonable to assume Guinasso has or will continue his obsessive pursuit.

And while Mr. Rye has been a mensch thus far in protecting the safety and privacy rights of brothel workers, that’s not to say another DA in another county would do the same under similar circumstances if Guinasso moves his “great white whale” pursuit outside Lyon County.

Nor does that mean a judge won’t interpret the situation differently from Mr. Rye should a Guinasso lawsuit reach his or her court.

Indeed, as Mr. Rye noted in his very first response to Guinasso’s request, “there is no statutory provision that explicitly declares” brothel worker applications “to be confidential.”

And that’s what legislators need to fix before adjourning.

All the Nevada Legislature needs to do is amend the current public record statute to explicitly declare that the work card applications for commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels are confidential, just like gaming employees.

That would put an immediate end to Guinasso’s crusade in Lyon County and prevent him from expanding it into other counties.  It would also remove a “gray area” in law that could potentially result in a court overruling District Attorney Rye.

Guinasso’s obsessive fishing expedition poses an immediate and ongoing danger to the health and safety of the women working in legal brothels.  It’s a threat that legislators should eliminate now – while they’re still in session – not wait for the completion of a two-year study.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization.

 

Sex Workers Call Out Media For Prurient Pursuit Of Robert Kraft Massage Sting Video; Applaud Florida Judge’s Decision To Block The Release Of Undercover Videos

(ESPLERP) – A sex worker activist group, the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP), today called out national media organizations, including the Associated Press, ESPN, ABC, and the New York Times, for their efforts to make public the video recordings of private massages obtained during the massage parlour sting that ensnared Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots.

“These media organisations claim a public interest in releasing these videos. In truth all they care about is their ratings – because ‘sex sells’. Shame on them,” said Maxine Doogan of ESPLERP. “They know that shaming a prominent businessman like Robert Kraft, will sell papers and draw in viewers. When ratings are at stake, they simply do not care about anyone’s constitutional right to privacy. I wonder how they’d feel if Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. (the owner of the New York Times) was caught up in something like this?”

“We applaud Judge Kathleen Roberts for seeing through the police mis-representations – and ruling that the videos are inadmissible,” said Claire Alwyne of ESPLERP. “The police obtained the ‘sneak and peek’ warrant (questionably authorized under the PATRIOT Act under the guise of stopping terrorism) to film surveillance videos, by claiming ‘trafficking’ was occurring when there was no such thing taking place. Detectives then spent more than six months getting massages from the alleged sex slaves before arresting them on prostitution charges – not trafficking. And now they are trying to cover their tracks by shaming Robert Kraft.”

“The public would probably be more interested in seeing videos of detectives getting tax payer funded massages (and who knows what else) filmed during the six month sting prior to arresting the massage parlor workers,” said Domina Elle of ESPLERP. “The public deserves to see how these stings are conducted, such as how often law enforcement engages in sexual contact as a means to investigate and arrest.”

Media organisations should not be arguing in court for improperly obtained private videos to be made public. They should instead put more effort into avoiding repeating false and misleading statistics, which fuel these stings in the first place. And law enforcement should not be wasting time arresting adults engaged in consensual activity. ESPLERP calls on legislators in all 50 states to decriminalize sex work immediately.

The Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) is a diverse community-based coalition advancing sexual privacy rights through litigation, education, and research. 

(Chuck Muth) – On April 3, 2019, the State of Nevada submitted its response to a frivolous lawsuit to overturn the state’s brothel law, filed earlier this year by Reno attorney and anti-brothel televangelist Jason Guinasso, asking the court to dismiss it outright.

And after reading the state’s smackdown of the lawsuit’s merits, you have to wonder how Guinasso ever received a license to practice law in the first place.

Some highlights and observations…

1.) The state starts right off the bat noting that the debate over the “merits of legalized prostitution” should be a policy debate, not a federal court action.

“If Congress desired to criminalize prostitution,” Gregory Zunino wrote on behalf of the Nevada Attorney General’s office, “it could easily do so.  But it has not.”

2.)  Mr. Zunino notes that the federal Mann Act, cited by Guinasso in his lawsuit, prohibits individuals from engaging in prostitution or any other sexual activity “for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”

But since no one working in one of Nevada’s legal brothels can be “charged with a criminal offense” for working there – providing they passed their FBI background check and obtained a sheriff’s work card – there can be no violation of the Mann Act.

3.) Mr. Zunino notes that the illegal conduct alleged by Guinasso’s clients is already illegal “under both Nevada and federal laws that criminalize sex trafficking,” and that Nevada’s law allowing legal brothels does not preempt those existing laws in this regard.

“In sum,” Mr. Zunino wrote, “Nevada outlaws the very activity that is the subject of Plaintiff’s amended complaint: sex trafficking.”

4.) The motion to dismiss notes that Guinasso claims “Nevada advertises as a sex tourism state.”  However, as Mr. Zunino points out, the examples Guinasso himself submitted “consist of advertisements by private entities, which have no nexus to the State.”

5.)  Guinasso also submitted “a number of articles exploring whether there is a connection between legalized prostitution wherever it is practiced and increases in sex trafficking.”

But as Mr. Zunino points out…

“Plaintiffs never allege factual allegations demonstrating a nexus between these articles and their allegations against the State.  The only relevance these articles could have is to an outright federal ban on legalized prostitution, which Plaintiffs concede is not federal law.”

6.) Mr. Zunino notes that a “motion to dismiss must be granted when a plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable legal theory, or fails to plead sufficient facts to support such a legal theory.”

He added that the Court “must ignore unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, and sweeping legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.”

As such, Guinasso’s lawsuit should be kicked to the curb.

7.) The State continued…

“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant (State of Nevada); and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”

As such, Mr. Zunino argues…

“Here, none of the Plaintiffs individual allegations meet the requirement that they are realistically threatened with a repetition of the conduct that they allege is the violation of federal law.  Ms. Charleston, Ms. Delgado-Williams, and Ms. Albright-Byrd all reside in Texas.  Each of the Plaintiffs allege they were victims in the past of sex trafficking, but no Plaintiff alleges that she is realistically threatened with an imminent harm as a result of Nevada law.”

He concludes that the Plaintiffs “were not injured by Nevada’s approach to prostitution, nor are their injuries from sex trafficking fairly traceable to Nevada’s laws.”

Further, “Nevada law did not injure Plaintiffs because the traffickers conduct that injured Plaintiffs was illegal in Nevada as well as federal law.”

8.)  The state notes that the 11^th Amendment “generally bars the federal courts from entertaining suits brought by a private party against a state” unless the state waives its sovereign immunity.

In this case, the motion notes, “the State of Nevada has not waived that immunity.”

“Accordingly,” the Mr. Zunino states, “there is no legal basis upon which Plaintiffs may sue the Governor, much less the state of Nevada, for damages in this Court.”

9.)  As for Guinasso’s demand that the Court force Nevada to “set aside not less than $2 million in a fund to assist victims of sex trafficking,” Mr. Zunino argues that the Tenth Amendment bars the federal government from compelling a state government “to expend funds from its treasury for a specific purpose.”

10.)  Continuing with the argument that Guinasso’s lawsuit against the state is wrong-directed…

“Plaintiffs failed to allege any affirmative conduct by the State that placed them in danger.  Plaintiffs allegations pertain to conduct by private individuals, sex traffickers, who violated federal law, and Nevada law, by using force or threats of force to coerce Plaintiffs into prostitution.  Plaintiffs do not allege any affirmative conduct by a state officer with a nexus to any particular instance of sex trafficking alleged by Plaintiffs.”

11.)  In his conclusion, Mr. Zunino wrote…

“People of good intentions can disagree as a policy matter whether prostitution should be criminalized; however, such policy debates are reserved for the legislative chamber rather than the courts.  There is no conflict between federal law and Nevada law here because federal law does not criminalize prostitution and both Nevada law and federal law criminalize sex trafficking wherever it occurs in Nevada.  To the extent that there may be tension between Nevada law and federal law, Plaintiffs improperly seek an advisory opinion from this Court and a judicial remedy for a policy dispute properly committed to the legislative branches of government.”

Of course, the reason Mr. Guinasso has run to the Court with this feeble lawsuit is that he’s thus far been thwarted at every turn in efforts to outlaw prostitution through ballot initiatives and legislation.

Hoping for a little judicial activism is nothing but a desperate Hail Mary.

Let’s hope the Court takes the Attorney General’s arguments to heart and tosses this lawsuit rather than waste any more of the Court’s time or the taxpayers’ money.

To read the full motion to dismiss, click here

(Chuck Muth) – In 1971 the Nevada Legislature passed legislation allowing the operation of legal brothels in any county other than those with populations over 700,000 – which means, Clark County.

On March 13, 2019 Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen (D-Clark) introduced an Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR6) calling for the creation of “an interim committee to study the working conditions at licensed brothels.”

ACR6 specifically stipulates that the Nevada Legislature “has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of all workers in the State, including sex workers in licensed brothels.”

At a committee hearing on ACR6 conducted in Carson City on March 28, 2019, the Nevada Brothel Association voiced general support for the study but called for amendments to the bill to expand the examination to ALL commercial sex workers, not just those in the licensed brothels.

Indeed, if the Legislature has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of ALL workers in the State – particularly as it relates to protecting the public from communicable diseases – that should, by definition, include commercial sex work in both licensed brothels AND the currently-unlawful and unregulated sex market, especially in Clark County.

With this in mind, I suggest that ACR6 be amended along the following lines…

WHEREAS, the Nevada Legislature has not undertaken a comprehensive study of the commercial sex industry in the 48 years since legal brothels were authorized in 1971, and

WHEREAS, there has never been a single case of AIDS/HIV or other sexually transmitted disease traced back to a Nevada legal brothel thanks to required health exams and mandatory condom use, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, commercial sex workers in Nevada’s legal brothels are subjected to an FBI background check, fingerprinting and the issuance of a work card from the local sheriff’s office, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, legal brothel operations are subject to inspection by law enforcement officials and government regulators at any time for any reason and without notice, which is not the case in the current unlawful and unregulated commercial sex market, and

WHEREAS, due to the illegality of commercial sex work in most Nevada counties, commercial sex workers there have no recourse in seeking aid from law enforcement when physically abused and/or forced into the business against their will, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that a special study commission be created by the Nevada Legislature consisting of thirteen (13) members, including…

• • Two (2) members of the State Assembly and two (2) members of the State Senate, one of each who must represent counties in which licensed brothels are operating at the time of passage.
  • The Director of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, the Director of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, and the Nevada Attorney General, or their designees.
  • Two (2) individuals who have engaged in commercial sex work; one representing commercial sex workers in licensed brothels and one representing commercial sex workers in the presently-illegal market.
  • One (1) representative of organizations focused on improving public health and supporting survivors of violence and sexual assault.
  • One (1) representative of Nevada’s currently-operating licensed brothels.
  • One (1) researcher of Nevada’s commercial sex industry from the University of Nevada Reno (UNR) and one (1) researcher of Nevada’s commercial sex industry from the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), and be it further

RESOLVED, that the study must include, without limitation, an examination of:

• • The health, safety and general welfare of all individuals engaged in commercial sex work in Nevada;
  • The impact of revising Nevada law as it relates to consensual commercial sex work in counties with populations greater than 700,000;
  • Advertising restrictions currently in place on legal brothels.

The Nevada Legislature does, indeed, have an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of all workers in the state, including ALL workers in the commercial sex industry.

The Legislature also has an inherent interest in the health, safety and general welfare of those adults consensually choosing to engage commercial sex services – including the millions of tourists who visit our state – to protect the public from communicable diseases.

Nevada’s licensed and highly-regulated brothels are a success story, and have been for 48 years.  They protect the public’s health as well as the safety of those who work there.

As such, if Nevada taxpayers are to fund a study of Nevada’s legal brothels, the scope of said study should be expanded as outlined in the above-mentioned amendment to do the job correctly, fully and responsibly.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Chuck Muth) – Nevada has a well-known reputation for often being at the top of an awful lot of “bad” lists.

Well, here we go again.

According to an article in this morning’s Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has determined that “Nevada leads the nation in…the rate of syphilis,” a potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted disease (STD).

“In Clark County,” the paper reports, “there were 1,006 reported cases of syphilis last year, a 153 percent increase from 2013.”

“This is totally unacceptable,” declared Dr. Joe Iser, the Southern Nevada Health District’s chief health officer, noting the disease is absolutely preventable.  “We should not receive one report of congenital syphilis.”

“Clark County has had comparatively high STD rates in recent years,” the RJ report continued, “leading the nation in primary and secondary syphilis in 2014.”

Individuals having sex with unfamiliar partners should use condoms, Marlo Tonge, office manager for the health district’s Office of Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance, told the RJ, noting that anyone who thinks they may have been exposed should “Go get tested.”

Now, here’s the thing…

Since commercial sex work was legalized in certain rural Nevada counties way back in 1971, not a single case of AIDS/HIV or other sexually transmitted disease, including syphilis, has been traced back to a legal Nevada brothel where the women are tested EVERY WEEK.

On the other hand, legal brothels continue to be banned in Clark County despite the fact that “Communicable diseases like syphilis are often brought to Las Vegas by tourists” – the engine driving the state’s economy.

“Condoms are required for sex in the state’s brothels,” Dr. Iser told the RJ, “but there’s no way to regulate unprotected sex among illicit sex workers.”

Exactly.

Fortunately, a bill to ban Nevada’s legal rural brothels has been killed in the Legislature this session, though there’s still a longshot possibility it could be brought back from the dead before the session ends.

On the other hand, a bill to create an interim legislative study committee (ACR6) to look into the business operations of Nevada’s legal brothels continues to work its way through the process.

Unfortunately, the proposed study does not include looking at the currently ILLEGAL commercial sex industry in Clark County where the serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases is so prevalent.

If the Legislature is going to spend time and tax dollars to do a study of commercial sex work and workers, it ought to do it right and look at the ENTIRE market, not just Nevada’s highly-successful and proven-safe legal brothels.

Then maybe we can get ourselves off at least one “bad” list. 

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association

(Chuck Muth) – As per the Nevada Legislature’s Standing Rule #14.3.1, Republican State Sen. Joe Hardy’s bill (SB413) to ban Nevada’s legal brothels statewide died on Friday after it failed to get a committee hearing by the midnight deadline.

Cause for optimism, but not celebration…yet.  As Yogi Berra famously put it, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.

And as longtime watchers of the Legislature know, “dead” bills can become “zombie” bills that come back to life as amendments to other bills right up until the time the Legislature officially comes to an end (“sine die”) several weeks from now.

The Associated Press reported this weekend that Hardy “had argued brothels had no place in the state” while “Brothel backers argue a ban would hurt struggling rural economies and push sex workers into dangerous street prostitution.”

Brothel supporters have won the argument…for now.  But we’ll remain vigilant and let you know if SB413 somehow joins the walking dead.

In the meantime, Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen’s bill (ACR6) to create a legislative study committee to look into the business operations of Nevada’s legal brothels successfully made it out of committee before the deadline and has moved into the next round – a vote on the floor of the state Assembly.

The bill itself doesn’t specifically outline exactly what Ms. Cohen wishes to study; however, in testimony during a hearing on ACR6 last month, the assemblywoman did reference, generally, certain business practices as outlined in a new book titled “Sex and Stigma” by a trio of UNR researchers.

So I picked up a copy and read it on the Lido Deck during my organization’s annual Mexican Riviera cruise last week.  And I think I now see where the assemblywoman is going.

The researchers note that some legally questionable “police rules” exist in some localities where brothels are legally allowed to operate.  And before commercial sex workers are issued a work permit, they are required to sign a document agreeing to follow a list of various “regulations for prostitutes.”

The authors cite, as an example, Rule #6 for the town of Carlin that only allows the ladies from the brothels “to dine in restaurants and to conduct personal business and shopping in Carlin between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.”

The rule goes on to say that “Prostitutes shall not be absent from their place of employment between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.”

These government-mandated restrictions are what those in the industry call “lockdown” rules.

Examples of other highly-questionable rules outlined in other regulations in other areas include…

“(L)ocal working women  are not allowed to go home at night; legal prostitutes are not allowed in town, bars, or casinos; legal prostitutes may not have family members reside in town; legal prostitutes must take days off in a different town; and, if traveling to another destination, legal prostitutes on vacation must take the most ‘expeditious transport’ out of town.”

Not exactly the definition of “freedom.”

The researchers also note that Nye County and the City of Elko “both mandate that any prostitute who leaves the premises for longer than twenty-four hours must undergo all medical testing before being allowed to work again.”

That government-imposed restriction is, indeed, a head-scratcher.

If a working girl is off the premises for 23 hours and 59 minutes…no problem.  But if she’s off property for one minute longer THAT somehow poses a public health risk?  How?  Especially since condom use is mandatory in all interactions.

Anyway, I’d venture to guess that such government-mandated restrictions on legal commercial sex workers working in a legal business that don’t apply to any other legal workers in any other legal businesses are understandably what have caught Assemblywoman Cohen’s attention.

However…

It seems to me that concerns over certain local and/or county rules and regulations could and should be better addressed directly by Ms. Cohen and local elected officials and county commissioners without a full-blown, two-year, taxpayer-funded legislative “study” committee.

On the other hand, if there is to be such a commission formed, it also seems to me the scope of the study should be expanded to include the working conditions for commercial sex workers in both the legal brothels AND the currently-illegal markets…as recommended in a statement by the Nevada Brothel Association presented by commercial sex worker Ruby Rae at the ACR6 hearing last month.

If we’re going to do this thing, let’s do it right.

There’s still time to amend Ms. Cohen’s bill to do a more thorough and comprehensive study of Nevada’s entire commercial sex industry – either as a floor amendment in the Assembly or once it reaches the state Senate.

More on this in the coming days.  In the meantime, we can at least be grateful that Sen. Hardy’s brothel-killer bill is dead…for now.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government grassroots advocacy organization, and government affairs counsel to the Nevada Brothel Association