Court Opinion

ID: 9516481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:43:14.608467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:21.138267
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
(concurring). I agree with the result of the per curiam opinion remanding this matter to the trial court for possible padlocking of the Dizzy Duck establishment under the abatement of nuisance statute. MCL 600.3801; MSA 27A.3801. I write separately because I believe the majority fails to properly define the boundaries of what conduct constitutes prostitution.
Even assuming the facts were as presented by the majority, I find its conclusions lack the direction needed in this case. Furthermore, the majority failed to address one critical fact: the dancers received no compensation other than the tips paid to them by the patrons.1
Defendant was prosecuted pursuant to the nuisance abatement statute, MCL 600.3801 et seq.; MSA 27A.3801 et seq., which provides in pertinent part:
Any building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or *367prostitution or gambling, or used by, or kept for the use of prostitutes or other disorderly persons ... is declared a nuisance,' and . . . shall be enjoined and abated as provided ....
I find the dissenting judge’s analysis highly persuasive. She has thoroughly and correctly summarized Michigan law regarding public nuisances of this sort. Of particular importance are the following excerpts from her dissenting opinion, which I adopt:
A public nuisance is a condition or use of property that greatly offends or interferes with public health, morals, or decency. Bloss v Paris Twp, 380 Mich 466; 157 NW2d 260 (1968); Garfield Twp v Young, 348 Mich 337; 82 NW2d 876 (1957). Statutes and ordinances regulating prostitution, a species of laws regulating public morals, are within the police powers. Michigan’s interest in protecting societal order, health, safety, and morality in places of public accommodation would be furthered by padlocking this proven nuisance.
The testimony of the various undercover Detroit police officers, together with the physical evidence seized from the premises, established that the Dizzy Duck was a "house of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation” under the act. Certain sexual activities on the premises reflect a 1990s-style commitment to "safe sex.” For example, male customers who engaged in sexual activity remained clothed. Further, sexual behavior in the presence of others was usually autoerotic — albeit for hire. This 1990s version of debased, degrading, and licentious conduct is nonetheless the type of conduct that the people historically have chosen to abate as acts of prostitution or lewdness. In my view, prostitution is the conduct of all persons, male and female, who engage in sexual activity as a business.
*368We do not need to draw a bright line distinction between the terms "prostitution” and "lewdness” in order to resolve this case. Our former cases have never done so. The terms "prostitution” and "lewdness” certainly historically have had overlapping elements and will continue to do so.
i
ASSIGNATION AND NUDE DANCING'
Nude dancing at the Dizzy Duck frequently involved lewd live stage exhibitions outside the First Amendment’s ambit. For example, some nude dancers openly masturbated on stage. One dancer bent over and separated her buttocks to let a customer blow into her anus; another dancer sprayed breast milk on the assembled crowd.
. . . Nude dancing is not beyond regulation. The complaints in Bobenal[2] and Northcrest[3] were ruled defective because they failed to connect the nude dancing to prostitution, lewdness or assignation. These defects are not present here, because the complaint alleged and the proofs established that nude dancing was substantially connected to and related to prostitution. For example, testimony revealed that one dancer lay on the stage, spread her legs, and displayed her genitals to excite the customers and encourage the purchase of lap dances.
ii
LAP DANCING
For prices of $20 or $30, depending on whether a customer purchased one or two songs, a dancer clad in a G-string would straddle a clothed customer’s lap and thrust back and forth._
*369Lap dancing is sexual stimulation of another for hire and involves actual physical contact.
I do endorse the definition of prostitution in State ex rel Gilchrist v Hurley, 48 NC App 433, 443; 269 SE2d 646 (1980), cited but not adopted in Mesk:[4]
"We hold that prostitution plainly includes the oifering or receiving of the body, in return for a fee, for acts of vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, or physical contact with a person’s genitals, pubic area, buttocks or breasts. We hasten to add that our cataloguing of these acts of sexual behavior is not intended to exclude other acts of sexual conduct offered or received for pay.” [Emphasis added.]
hi
FANTASY ROOM
For prices ranging from $65 to $125, a customer could purchase a trip to the Fantasy Room. ... A dancer would enter one side of the room; the customer entered the other. The dancer would then remove her clothing and masturbate in the customer’s presence. She would also invite the customer to join her if he chose, by masturbating on the other side of the partition. . . .
The majority concludes, in reliance on Mesk, supra, that masturbation of oneself in the presence of another for hire is not prostitution or lewdness. In Mesk, this Court opined that the term "prostitution” includes manual stimulation of another person for the payment of money. The issue presented here was not before the Mesk Court. The Mesk decision does not foreclose automasturbatory acts for hire from the definition of prostitution or lewdness. . . .
*370The activities in the Fantasy Room amounted to lewd live conduct associated with prostitution. Manual stimulation of oneself in the presence of another for hire is proscribed activity, because, under [State ex rel Wayne Co Prosecutor v] Diversified [Theatrical Corp][5] and [Chicago v] Geraci,[6] it is a sex act of "whatever nature” performed for money. Nothing in our precedents requires that participants must engage in actual physical contact. [203 Mich App 250, 264-276; 511 NW2d 907 (1994).]
CONCLUSION
The conduct challenged in the instant case is clearly a nuisance and as such should be abated through the padlocking of the establishment. All persons, male or female, who engage in sexual activity as a business are engaging in prostitution and should be treated under the law accordingly.
Riley, J., concurred with Weaver, j.

 The following testimony was taken at trial, offered by a female employee of defendants:
Q. How did you know what to do when [you] started working?
A. The girls told me.
Q. The other girls?
A. Uh-hum.
Q. What did they tell you?
A. Basically to do lap dances and make your money.
Q. When you say make your money, weren’t you paid for working there?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t get any wages from anybody?
A. No.
Q. So how did you make your money?
A. Lap dancing, table dancing.

 State ex rel Saginaw Co Prosecutor v Bobenal Investments, Inc, 111 Mich App 16; 314 NW2d 512 (1981).

 State ex rel Oakland Co Prosecutor v Alray Northcrest Plaza, 146 Mich App 595; 381 NW2d 731 (1985).

 State ex rel Macomb Co Prosecutor v Mesk, 123 Mich App 111; 333 NW2d 184 (1983).

 396 Mich 244; 240 NW2d 460 (1976).

 30 Ill App 3d 699; 332 NE2d 487 (1975).