Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 5, 1994 TAG: 9404050063
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The club's manager and a bikini-clad dancer face illegal exposure charges in what is believed to be the first test of a Roanoke ordinance passed four years ago.
Accused are Kathi B. Price, a 24-year-old dancer, and Billy Hooker Harbour, who as manager of Girls, Girls, Girls is charged with aiding and abetting the crime.
Price intends to challenge the law on the grounds that her dancing is a constitutionally protected form of free speech, according to defense attorney Lance Hale of Roanoke.
"She wants to bring her artistic delivery and her interpretation to the Roanoke Valley, and to meet the demand of the public," Hale said.
The charges stem from a Jan. 7 performance at the Franklin Road establishment. At the time, Price was wearing a french-cut bikini.
That alone would not be a violation of the city code. The illegal part was when the bottom of Price's outfit allegedly slipped as she danced in front of a table.
"If this were in People's Court, it would be called the case of the wayward wedgie," said Melissa Kane, a Roanoke lawyer who represents Harbour.
"She kicked, and it slipped up."
Whether or not that's a crime punishable by up to 12 months in jail was to have been decided Monday in General District Court. But the hearing was postponed to April 22, partly to give prosecutors additional time to review a case that seems less than ironclad.
"There's no indication that there was unlawful exposure" as it's defined in the ordinance, said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Dennis Nagel. "The question is whether or not she violated the ordinance by leaving the stage."
Specifically, Price is accused of failing to stay on an elevated stage and at least 6 feet away from the nearest spectator, as required by an ordinance passed in 1990 by Roanoke City Council.
The law states that "no entertainer shall appear in any public place unclothed or with any portion of the buttocks, genitals, pubic region, or female breasts exposed," unless on a stage with a 4-foot barrier to maintain the 6-foot distance between dancers and spectators.
There are, however, exemptions.
One is for "expressive dance," defined by the ordinance as having "an expression of theme, story or ideas, but excluding any dance such as, but not limited to, common barroom type topless dancing."
Price, a professional dancer, plans to rely on the expressive dance exemption when the case goes to court, Hale said.
But even without the exemption, a U.S. Supreme Court decision raises questions about whether Roanoke's ordinance is constitutional.
In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that nude dancing is expressive conduct covered by the First Amendment, Hale said, but that localities may pass laws requiring dancers to wear G-strings and "pasties."
The attire of Price and other dancers who perform at Girls, Girls, Girls, is far less revealing than that addressed by the Supreme Court, Hale said.
Nagel said he plans to study the high court's decision to see if it applies to the Roanoke case. "If the Supreme Court decision has eviscerated the ordinance, there may not be any reason to go forward with it," he said.
The charges are the second time that Harbour's nightclub has been embroiled in a high-profile court case since it opened in September.
Its original name - Hooters of Virginia Inc. - drew a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the national Hooters restaurant chain. The national chain accused the Roanoke restaurant of copying its name and reputation for buxom waitresses in revealing T-shirts and shorts.
A federal judge ordered Hooters of Virginia to change its name in November, hence the new Girls, Girls, Girls sign on Franklin Road.
The latest legal trouble came when a state Alcoholic Beverage Control agent attended the bar as part of a routine investigation and observed Price's dance, Nagel said.
Lawyers said that Price went to a table where a patron was celebrating a birthday and performed a dance she had prepared especially for the event.
Dancers like Price are a regular attraction at the establishment, but apparently none of the performances features nudity.
Still, the business is the closest thing Roanoke has to a strip joint, and it became a natural target for the city's new law dealing with nude dancing.
When council passed the ordinance, City Attorney Wilburn Dibling said it was in response to citizen complaints about male and female dance troupes that performed in the city.
The dancers wore G-strings in their acts, Dibling told council at the time, but sometimes exposed themselves briefly "to further excite the audience" and encourage tips.
Roanoke's law does not apply to operas, plays or other literary or artistic presentations - such as the Broadway production of "Oh, Calcutta," which featured full nudity by men and women when it came to the Roanoke Civic Center several years ago.
by CNB