St. Landry Parish ex rel. Goudeau v. Veillon

• Decision Date: 12 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 4869,4869
• Citation: 308 So.2d 830
• Parties: PARISH OF ST. LANDRY ex rel. Morgan J. GOUDEAU, III, District Attorney, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joseph VEILLON, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 830

308 So.2d 830

PARISH OF ST. LANDRY ex rel. Morgan J. GOUDEAU, III, District Attorney, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joseph VEILLON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 4869.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 12, 1975.

DeJean & DeJean by Robert F. DeJean, Sr., Opelousas, for defendant-appellant.

Morgan J. Goudeau, III, Dist. Atty., Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGE , CULPEPPER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

In accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4711 et seq., Morgan J. Goudeau, III, District Attorney, filed this suit on behalf of the Parish of St. Landry to abate and enjoin the public nuisance of prostitution allegedly conducted on the premises owned by the defendant, Joseph Veillon.

On May 22, 1974, the trial judge issued an ex parte temporary restraining order against the practice of prostitution on defendant's premises and the removal of any movable property from the premises. The court also ordered defendant to show cause at a hearing to be held on May 27 why he should not be enjoined from using the premises for any purpose for one year.

The defendant filed an exception urging the unconstitutionality of the abatement statute, LSA-R.S. 13:4711--4717 (as amended, 1970). He also answered, alleging that if the acts of prostitution actually occurred on its premises, they occurred without his knowledge or consent. After a hearing on May 27, 1974, the district judge held (1) the statutes are constitutional as regards prostitution, (2) the alleged acts of prostitution were committed, and (3) they were committed with defendant's knowledge and consent. The judge issued an order declaring the 'Old Turf Lounge' a public nuisance due to the existence of prostitution on the premises, enjoined the practice of prostitution on the premises, and closed the lounge for one year for any purpose. Defendant appealed.

The substantial issues are: (1) Did the alleged acts of prostitution occur? (2) Did the acts occur with defendant's knowledge and consent? (3) Is the statute unconstitutional?

The 'Old Turf Lounge' is a bar and nightclub on U.S. Highway 167 in St. Landry Parish. The defendant purchased the land and the lounge from Clifton Thibodeaux on May 17, 1973. South of defendant's land is other property owned by Thibodeaux upon which Thibodeaux operates the 'Gunfighter' lounge, or 'New Turf Lounge'. To the rear of both 'Turf' lounges, behind a fence located on the Thibodeaux property, is a group of trailers known as 'D-Lodge'.

Three undercover state police agents testified they had been solicited by a black female employee of the 'Old Turf Lounge' to engage in acts of sexual intercourse with her for an agreed price.

State Trooper Harry L. Courville testified that he and two other agents entered the 'Old Turf Lounge' about 11:00 p.m. on May 2, 1974 and sat at a table in the rear of the lounge. Courville then moved to the front of the lounge and sat at a table near the jukebox. While seated at this table, he observed a black female serving drinks and 'go-go' dancing on a stage. Thereafter, he was approached by this girl who identified herself as 'Sammie Girard'. She then asked him if he wanted a date with her. He asked her what she meant, and the girl said that she would have sexual intercourse with him at a price of $50 for four hours if he would get a room.

Courville also testified that the 'Old Turf Lounge' had the reputation of being a place where prostitution was solicited. However, he stated that he knew of no acts of sexual intercourse which occurred on the premises; that there were no accommodations, such as beds, to commit intercourse on the prmeises; and that he did not know if the owner of the lounge had any knowledge of his solicitation by 'Sammie'. His testimony also reflects that he has known the owner of the lounge since October, 1973, but does not remember seeing him in the lounge that night. Leroy Dugas, a state police narcotics agent, testified he had been in the 'Old Turf Lounge' on four or five occasions. On the night of May 10 he arrived at the lounge about 1:00 a.m. Upon entering, he sat at the bar and drank a couple of beers. While seated at the bar, he was approached by a black female who gave her name as 'Sammie Nelson'. She asked him to buy her a drink and he did. Sammie then asked Agent Dugas if he was interested in having a sex party at his place with her for a price of $100 an hour. He told her that he did not have that much money and she walked away. Thereafter, Agent Dugas left the lounge.

Dugas does not know the owner of the 'Old Turf Lounge', and therefore testified that he would not have known of the owner's presence in the lounge that night. Nor could he testify that the owner knew he had been solicited by 'Sammie'.

State Trooper Nolton Wilson was working with Agent Dugas on the night of May 10. When he sat down at the bar he was served a drink by the bartender. Thereafter, he was approached by the same black female who first asked him to buy her a drink. After he did so, she asked if he wanted to go to bed with her for $50. Sammie also said she would french date for $100. However, he admits that she did not propose where the act of intercourse was to take place. Wilson left the lounge after he told her he did not have the money.

Wilson also testified that he had no knowledge of any beds in the 'Old Turf Lounge'. He testified that Veillon was sitting at a card table near the restroom a good distance from the bar where he had been approached. He did not know if the defendant was aware of him being approached by Sammie, nor did he inform the defendant afterward about the solicitation.

Both Agent Dugas and Trooper Wilson went to 'D-Lodge' which is located about 75 or 100 feet to the rear of the 'Old Turf Lounge' across a high fence. Officer Wilson said there were beds in the lodge and they found prostitution being conducted on the premises. Agent Dugas said he had been solicited there. Neither had any idea who owned the D-Lodge, but Wilson said he arrested a white female for prostitution at this place.

Lt. Louis M. Ackel, regional supervisor of detectives for the State Police, also testified. He says that he has been in the 'Old Turf Lounge', knows its owner, and is familiar with the investigation of the lounge since October, 1973.

The first investigation was a narcotics raid on the 'hill', referring to the two 'Turf' lounges and the trailers and apartments.

On November 2nd or 3rd, 1973, a vice raid was conducted. The officers conducting the raid had search warrants for 'B-drinking and prostitution' violations, i.e., in the vernacular, 'Trick books'. On that raid they seized several spiral notebooks in the 'Old Turf Lounge'. Lt. Ackel said that many times when the police had gone into the lounge Veillon was not there and was later called. However, Lt. Ackel has seen Veillon seated in the back card room near the restrooms and has also seen the defendant behind the bar near the cash register.

The notebooks were taken from behind the bar after the defendant told Lt. Ackel where they were located. Upon examination, Lt. Ackel found they contained the names of certain females.

Joyce Ruth Hearne and Marie Dawn Gurdurt, two of the girls listed in the book, explained to the police what was in the books. They said there are certain markings therein representing the drinks customers buy the girls after being solicited to do so. This solicitation of drinks by barmaids in a lounge is known as 'B-drinking'.

Ackel claims that the books were supposed to have 'Tricks', i.e., acts of prostitution in them as well. However, he could not tell from the notebooks alone which of the notations represented solicited drinks or if any of the notations represented tricks.

Lt. Ackel testified that Veillon had once been charged for soliciting minors into prostitution based upon information furnished the police by Joyce Ruth Hearne and Marie Dawn Gurdurt, both of whom were minors while they worked for Veillon at the 'Old Turf Lounge'. He says that Joyce Hearne worked for Veillon as late as October, 1973. He also testified that he tried to serve a subpoena on Joyce Ruth Hearne for the present hearing at a house in Lafayette which he believed was owned by the defendant, but she was not there. Ackel further testified that he had never been approached by Sammie, that there are no beds in the 'Old Turf Lounge', but that there are beds in an adjoining building, the owner's quarters.

Nolan G. Savoie, a local resident, testified that he passed the lounge every day. On the way back from Lafayette one evening, Savoie and two of his fellow employees stopped at the 'Old Turf Lounge'. After some persuasion by the driver of their car, Mr. Savoie consented to go in the lounge. All three ordered drinks. A young white girl came by and asked if they would buy her a drink. Savoice gave her $10 to pay for all of the drinks.

Savoie's friend, Buddy, dared him to ask the girl if he could 'shack up with her'. Savoie asked her, 'Babe, I say how much?' She said, '$50'. He replied, 'Go play with chickens.' After she left, the three men finished their drinks and left the bar.

Mr. Savoie said he jokingly asked the girl if she wanted to have sexual intercourse. He testified that he was quite happy with his wife and children at home and had absolutely no intention of having intercourse with the girl.

Robert DeJean, attorney for the defendant, testified that an instanter subpoena had been issued by the State of Louisiana for 'Sammie' to appear at the hearing. However, she could not be located. The parties stipulated that if she were present she would testify as follows: (1) She began working for the defendant about March, 1974 and (2) When initially employed, she was admonished 'not to discuss anything personal with . . . any customers and that her sole duties were those of a waitress and a dancer.'

Finally, the defendant himself testified. He testified that he owns the lounge...