State’s high court upholds policy on hookers

Friday, Nov. 16, 2001 | 10 a.m.

In other decisions Thursday the court:

CARSON CITY -- The issue of whether Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell is practicing sexual discrimination in prosecuting female prostitutes will probably end up in federal court.

The Nevada Supreme Court Thursday upheld the policy of Bell, who does not allow any plea negotiations with prostitutes but permits their customers a break to avoid prosecution.

William Terry, a Las Vegas attorney who represents a number of women charged with prostitution, said he will either ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision or file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.

Terry was disappointed with the ruling, but he said the decision will give him ammunition when he gets into federal court.

The Supreme Court ruling determined this was an issue dealing with equal protection, and it recognized the policy affects women more than men, Terry said.

Bell could not be reached for immediate comment.

The Supreme Court said the unrefuted evidence demonstrates that Bell's policy differentiates between buyers of sex and sellers of sex, not between males and females.

"We cannot say that a prosecutor intends to discriminate against females by allowing all buyers of sex, regardless of gender, to attend a successful diversion program, which is designed solely for buyers of sex."

The petition filed on behalf of Virginia Anchond Salaiscooper was denied by the court that found there was no "unconstitutional selective prosecution."

There are more than 50 cases in the justice courts in Las Vegas that were held in abeyance until the Supreme Court ruling.

The policy of the district attorney's office initially was not to negotiate a deal with the female prostitute but to allow the male customer, arrested for the first time, to enter a one-day counseling session on the dangers of prostitution. The session costs $400.

The policy was modified to talk about seller and buyer eliminating reference to male and females.

However, the modified policy is a distinction without a difference, Terry says.

Most sellers are women and most buyers are men. Of the 874 customers arrested, all but one were males, and they decided to take part in the diversion program. Upon completion, the arrest record was expunged.

During oral arguments, it was pointed out that there were male prostitutes, and they would be subject to the same treatment as females.

Bell said the policy was to dry up prostitution in Southern Nevada, not to discriminate against women. The big money for women is signing on with the outcall dance services that are fronts for prostitution. But the women must have a work card.

If convicted of prostitution, they lose their work cards and cannot be employed by the outcall services. But Bell said the women could still free-lance on the street, but the money would not be as lucrative.

The court, in its unanimous decision, said the Bell policy was started "due to the American Civil Liberties Union's objection to the fact that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was revoking adult entertainment industry employees' work cards based merely on an arrest for solicitation of prostitution."

The ACLU said revoking a work card without a conviction violated due process. Bell started the policy of no plea bargains for those arrested for solicitation of prostitution to gain convictions. The court noted that Justice of the Peace Jennifer Togliatti heard evidence from Dr. Roxanne Clark Murphy, a clinical psychologist and the program coordinator for the First Offender Program.

Murphy said the one-day diversion program for customers, who are almost exclusively male, has a low recidivism rate of less than 1 percent.

Murphy testified it would take a minimum of a year to successfully rehabilitate a seller of sex. She said a diversion program for sellers would need to house these women, protect them from their pimps, teach them job skills and provide drug abuse and psychological counseling.