Sultan Turkish Bath, Inc. v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 27 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 23122,23122
• Citation: 169 Cal.App.2d 188,337 P.2d 203
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SULTAN TURKISH BATH, INC., a California corporation, Petitioner and Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Civ.

Page 203

337 P.2d 203

169 Cal.App.2d 188

SULTAN TURKISH BATH, INC., a California corporation, Petitioner and Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. No. 23122.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

March 27, 1959.

Hearing Denied May 20, 1959.

Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Danning & Bartfield, and Irvin S. Bartfield, North Hollywood, for appellant.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Philip E. Grey, Asst. City Atty., and D. H. von Wittenburg, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

The Board of Police Commissioners of Los Angeles revoked the 1956 permit of Sultan Turkish Bath, Inc., to conduct a Turkish bath, and denied its application for a 1957 permit. The appeal is from a judgment denying a writ of mandate to compel the board to annul its order and to grant a permit for 1957.

Section 27.02 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides for the licensing of Turkish baths through an annual permit issued by the board. Section 27.02(c) provides:

'It shall be the duty of the Board, in addition to the other penalties provided by this Code, to revoke such permit whenever it shall appear to the Board that such business has been carried on under said permit in an unlawful, improper or irregular manner.'

A permit may be renewed on the filing of an affidavit by the permittee stating he has conducted the business in a proper, regular, and lawful manner. The board has the power to deny an application for renewal 'for any ground which would have justified a denial of the original application for a permit.'

The complaint against Sultan alleged:

'(a) Said business has been carried on under said permit in an unlawful, improper and irregular manner, to wit:

'(1) Said business has been carried on in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance;

'(2) Said business has been carried on in such a manner as to permit patrons to engage in conduct which is indecent, lewd, lascivious and prohibited by law. A list of such patrons, the date and nature of the conduct is attached hereto as 'Schedule A' and incorporated herein by reference.

'[Schedule A]

'(3) Permittees have knowingly refused and failed to take proper precautions to prevent the occur[r]ence of the acts complained of in said attached 'Schedule A';

'(b) The operation of said business under said permit does not comport with the public welfare, to wit:

'(1) Said business has been carried on in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance;

'(2) Said business establishment is a hangout for male degenerates of all types who have committed on the premises indecent, lewd, lascivious acts prohibited by law. A list of such male degenerates who have committed said acts together with the date and nature thereof is attached hereto as 'Schedule A' and incorporated herein by reference.'

The hearing examiner who heard the evidence reported to the board:

'A. The Department's exhibits as well a the testimony of the officers have proved by substantial evidence of numerous arrests and a number of convictions of patrons of the respondent bathhouse on charges, including vag. lewd (Penal Code 647 [subd.] 5), Sex perversion (Penal Code 288a), and Sodomy (Penal Code 286). The arrests referred to at Respondents premises covered a period from March, 1956, to and including May, 1957. They present a continuous pattern of lewd and immoral acts by patrons of Respondents during that period of time.

'The Respondents have, by evidence presented, shown that they employ watchmen to check the dressing rooms where most of the illegal acts occur, that they have peepholes in the dressing room doors and try to prevent loitering or more than one man in a room. Respondents further have presented evidence and testified that they do not knowingly allow any sexual perverts on the premises or permit the illegal and immoral activities referred to above. Further, that at the request of respondents, this Examiner in the presence of Respondents' counsel and Sergeant L. H. Reiner, visited Respondents' premises.

'B. It is the opinion of this Examiner that there is a continuous pattern of illegal sexual and immoral acts committed by some of the patrons of Respondents' bathhouse who use the bathhouse as a place to meet and congregate, and that although Respondents have attempted to prevent this illegal activity, they have not been successful.'

The hearing examiner found:

'A. That the arrests referred to in the complaint, particularly Paragraph III thereof, Department's Exhibit 1, occurred at Respondents' premises on the dates referred to and on charges, including vag. lewd (Penal Code 647 [subd.] 5), sex perversion (Penal Code 288a), and sodomy (Penal Code 286).

'B. That the convictions of some of the persons on the charges above referred to occurred as testified to by the Police Officers and as contained in Department's Exhibits 4 through 7.

'C. That Respondent corporation employs watchmen to prevent the occurrence of illegal activities on the premises and does not knowingly permit illegal, immoral acts but that such acts notwithstanding have continuously occurred.

'D. That Respondents' business as alleged in the complaint has been carried on in such a manner as to permit patrons to engage in conduct which is indecent, lewd, lascivious, and prohibited by law.

'E. That as alleged in the complaint, Paragraph III thereof, that Respondents' business has been carried on in an unlawful, improper and irregular manner, and that the operation of said business under Police permit does not comport with the public welfare.'

He recommended to the board that Sultan's permit for 1956 be revoked and that its application for a 1957 renewal be denied.

After notice to Sultan, the board conducted a hearing on the report and recommendations of the hearing examiner, at which written exceptions were presented; and counsel for Sultan, Louis Bartfield, its president, and the chief investigator of the board made statements. The findings and recommendations of the hearing examiner were adopted by the board as its decision. A request for reconsideration was denied. Thereafter the superior court denied a writ of mandate after reviewing the record before the board. Sultan appeals, contending first that the evidence does not support the order of the board.

The Board of Police Commissioners, acting as a quasi-judicial body, is empowered 'to make final adjudications of fact in connection with matters properly submitted to it.' English v. City of Long Beach, 35 Cal.2d 155, 158, 217 P.2d 22, 24, 18 A.L.R.2d 547. On review the 'court does not have a right to judge of the intrinsic value of the evidence nor to weigh it. The power of the court is confined to determining whether there was substantial evidence before the board to support its findings.' Odden v. County Foresters etc. Board, 108 Cal.App.2d 48, 49, 238 P.2d 23, 24. In reviewing proceedings before the board this court is bound to disregard all evidence contrary to that received in support of the findings of the board. Thompson v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.2d 235, 241, 259 P.2d 649; Chenoweth v. Office of City Clerk, 131 Cal.App.2d 498, 501, 280 P.2d 858.

Viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the board and disregarding conflicting evidence and inferences, the record shows these facts:

Sultan Turkish Bath is a corporation. Louis Bartfield is its president and owns half of the stock. Myron Glatt and his mother own the other half of the stock. Bartfield acquired his interests in December 1953; Glatt and his mother acquired theirs about 8 months later. Bartfield and Glatt were comanagers. The bath was located in the basement at 607 South Hill Street in Los Angeles. The establishment consisted of a gymnasium, steam room, hot room, showers, massage tables, swimming pool, and lounge. In addition there were 45 booths or 'cubicles.' Each cubicle contained a cot with a mattress on it, a table, and a chair. An electric light fixture was attached to the wall in each cubicle. The cubicles had plywood doors about 6 feet high, raised about 6 inches from the floor. Holes about an inch in diameter had been drilled into the doors at eye level; about three had half-inch holes; some had three holes in a triangular pattern. Springs had been installed on the doors so they would remain closed. A person inside a cubicle could lock the door. The diagram of the establishment used at the hearing is not in the record.

The Los Angeles Police Department received numerous complaints of homosexual and six perversion activities at Sultan. The vice squad of the police department went through the place three and four nights a week. Officer Blakley was there 35 or 40 times between March 1 and July 30, 1957. On about 'a fourth to a third of the number of times' he was there he made no arrests. On those occasions 'there was hardly no one in the place.' He and his partner made about 50 arrests 'for Vag Lewd or 288a or Sodomy' between February 1, 1957 and July 30, 1957. He testified that as to those arrested, a number were convicted and he could not recall the disposition of the cases of the others. On July 21, 1957, he made four arrests in the place and did not 'see any watchman at all that time.' He personally saw the arrestees in immoral acts.

Officer Blakley told the management to 'keep two men out of a booth, take the locks off the doors so there is no opportunity of hiding behind it or locking a door. Things like that. Keep the area well-lighted.' In one section the lighting was very poor, one needed a flashlight to get around and see in the cubicles. On Saturdays and Sundays most of the arrests were made in the dark section; during the week arrests 'were liable' to be made in any cubicle. Officer Blakley did not recall any time he was there when there were 15 or more registered when he was not ...