Policy upheld on prostitution cases

Kim Smith

Thursday, June 21, 2001 | 10:48 a.m.

A Clark County District Court judge Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling that District Attorney Stewart Bell's policy on prostitution cases does not violate either the U.S. Constitution or the Nevada Constitution.

District Judge Joseph Bonaventure found that "the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached collectively by Justice of the Peace Jennifer Togliatti and a group of other lower court judges were "adequate and amply supported by the record" of an evidentiary hearing held last fall.

In addition, Bonaventure stated in his ruling that the lower court's decision was "legally sound."

Defense attorney Bill Terry said he intends to appeal Bonaventure's decision to the Nevada Supreme Court after first asking Bonaventure to stay the proceedings in more than 80 ongoing prostitution cases. The stay would remain in effect until after the higher court issued its ruling.

Terry and a number of other defense attorneys say that Bell's prostitution policy is gender-biased and designed to prevent women from obtaining work cards for exotic dancing.

Under Bell's policy, prosecutors are not allowed to negotiate any prostitution cases except those involving first-time male customers who opt to take a diversion class.

Bell acknowledged that while there are no diversion programs for prostitutes (most of whom are female), the no-negotiation policy is not gender-biased because it applies to both male and female prostitutes.

The justices of the peace agreed and their ruling stated that there is a difference between a defendant who "was acting as a 'seller' of prostitution rather than a 'buyer.' "Terry said the justices of the peace relied upon three older cases that have been overruled instead of more recent cases that addressed the issue.

Bell could not be reached for comment about the decision.