THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 1994 TAG: 9412070444
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANGELITA PLEMMER, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: PORTSMOUTH LENGTH: Medium: 64 lines
The city lost round one Tuesday in its fight to shake its image as a haven for go-go bars and unruly nightspots.
Prosecutors decided not to pursue charges against five go-go dancers charged with indecent exposure after a General District Court judge determined that there was not enough evidence to convict them.
Judge James A. Cales Jr. ruled that Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kathleen Maynard failed to prove that the suggestive acts of one of the dancers, Kim Baker, violated the ``contemporary community standards'' of behavior.
``The only evidence I have here is the evidence of one ABC officer,'' which does not represent a cross-section of the community's feelings of what's acceptable behavior, Cales said.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control agent testified that Baker exposed herself several times during a performance July 23 at Mad Dogs on the 3600 block of George Washington Highway. The 20-year-old dancer, wearing a thong bikini and pasties, also used her shoe heel to perform a sex act, the agent testified.
Baker was charged with five counts of indecent exposure after performances at two other go-go bars, Lickity Splits and Sticky Fingers.
Dancers Laura J. Albee, Penny Angelo, Donna Black, Nancy D. Nichael and Hollie Gale Williams also were charged with similar incidents at the three clubs. All of the dancers faced a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and fines of up to $2,500.
One charge against Baker was dismissed and the remaining charges involving Baker and the other dancers were nolle prossed, which means prosecutors can reinstitute the charges at a later date.
Maynard, prosecuting Baker under the state obscenity law, proved that the dancer's performance was sexual and had no redeeming social value, Cales said. But he ruled that there was no one who could testify that the dancer violated community standards of acceptable behavior.
``Certainly, this evidence of nudity and dancing does meet the community standard of obscenity,'' said Morton V. Whitlow, who represented the dancers. ``If brief nudity during go-go dancing is obscene, then we're going to be re-entering a brief period of puritanical society.''
In an interview after court, Maynard said: ``The commonwealth was really in a quandary. How do you establish local community standards?
``The judge said you can't use a police officer to establish community standards, so what are we supposed to use - the other patrons of the bar who were there?''
Because the city has no public nudity ordinance, prosecutors are forced to rely on the state's obscenity code, Maynard said. The alternative, she said, is to use state ABC regulations to bring similar criminal charges against the dancers, which she said the commonwealth's attorney's office plans to do.
City Councilman Cameron C. Pitts said, ``I definitely feel that it is a pause in the attempt to clean our image up, but by the same token . . . it certainly gives us an opportunity to deal with the legal matter and get it adjusted so we can get accomplished what we need to accomplish.''
``We need to look at what we're missing, and then look at some other municipalities and see how they have arrived at coming up with a community standard, and then address it.'' by CNB