slurp said:
This is an argument I'd make to the judge. By then, though, your name's all over because of the press, and the court of public opinion has already found you guilty.
However, I think that this was a licensed body-rub establishment. I, as a prospective customer, would think that I would be protected by a municipal license, given that the city that is supposed to periodically inspect them; they are supposed to pull their license if they don't abide by the terms laid out in the city body-rub by-law. Operating a brothel is contrary to the license.
Since a police investigation takes a while, there is every opportunity for the police to advise the by-law enforcement officers of what's suspected, so that the operating license be revoked; I believe that, unlike a criminal prosecution, the city can revoke a license on mere suspicion or complaint.
This would have protected me, a client entering this establishment, from being harmed by an illegal practice. In other words, I would sue the city for not keeping on top of the establishments they licence, especially since the police service is also a municipal department. Given that these two clients were found-ins in a common bawdy house, that the police, hence the city, would have known in advance that it was a bawdy house, and that the city did not revoke the license of this establishment knowing it was a bawdy house, I would say that there are grounds for suing for damages, especially if the clients were not engaged in anything illegal inside.
