Bookstore

[krod69guy]

I have someone who wants to meet in an adult bookstore for some playtime. This isn't pay for play. What are the legalities of this, specifically in Houston?

[ShysterJon]

I'm gonna guess that no one's answered your question because it's kinda stupid. This forum is devoted to providing information to hobbyists and providers to allow them to make reasoned choices and escape criminal liability. You come along and want to have sex in a public place and wonder if that'd be a crime.

Well, duh.

If a person "exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act," that's disorderly conduct under Texas Penal Code 42.01(a)(10). The offense is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine only (that is, the defendant, upon conviction, cannot be sentenced to jail) of up to $2,000.

The conduct may also violate the Houston city laws regulating sexually-oriented businesses (SOBs). You can search the City of Houston Code of Ordinances here:

https://library.municode.com/tx/hous..._of_ordinances

[Crock]

Sorry for prolonging the stupidity, but is it still a public place if it's in a private booth (behind a locked door)?

[ShysterJon]

Yes. A person doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a locked booth in a peepshow arcade. Example:

Cammack v. State, 641 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc).

I've changed my opinion regarding the offense. Rather than disorderly conduct, I think the OP would be charged with public lewdness:

TEXAS PENAL CODE SEC. 21.07. PUBLIC LEWDNESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly engages in any of the following acts in a public place or, if not in a public place, he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his:
(1) act of sexual intercourse;
(2) act of deviate sexual intercourse;
(3) act of sexual contact; or
(4) act involving contact between the person's mouth or genitals and the anus or genitals of an animal or fowl.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

See Texas Penal Code Sec. 21.07.

A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in county jail, a $4,000 fine, or both.

[Crock]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Yes. A person doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a locked booth in a peepshow arcade. Example:

Cammack v. State, 641 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc).

Dang, I like the dissenting opinion much better. That's ridiculous.

[beguilingvoice]

It seems to me that if you were in a private home " swing club " you would be ok.
Judges please wiegh in.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by beguilingvoice

It seems to me that if you were in a private home " swing club " you would be ok.
Judges please wiegh in.

That's not the topic of this thread. If you want members' views regarding possible criminal liability for attending a swingers' club, start a new thread. Let's discuss banging pussy in an orderly fashion, please.

[MyselfCCS]

Rather be stupid and ask than be stupid and caught by LE. Would you still not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you visit one of those ABS that sell "memberships" and you're at a "members only" section or something like that? Are you not supposed to be at a private club?

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by MyselfCCS

Rather be stupid and ask than be stupid and caught by LE. Would you still not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you visit one of those ABS that sell "memberships" and you're at a "members only" section or something like that? Are you not supposed to be at a private club?

If you can give us ONE EXAMPLE of an adult book store that requires a showing of proof of membership to ENTER the book store, I'd be happy to research the issue. But if you're just talking about having a membership card to buy products and get discounts, that doesn't affect my analysis that a customer would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I doubt you can give us one example because I think restricting access to members wouldn't comport with a city or county's SOB ordinances.

[MyselfCCS]

Thanks for replying SJ.
Discount 24Hr Video (Pink building) at Hwy6 don't ask proof of membership to enter the store, however they do have a members only section where, in order to go inside, you have to show your membership card.
And before the trolls start with it, yes this place is mostly full of gay men, but they do have days for couples who are into exhibitionism to go and play while others see or even get in on the action.
It is a public fact that they have a members only section as you can see on the following link http://www.houstonpress.com/best-of/...-store-6607666
Do you think this could affect your analysis?

[Crock]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

If you can give us ONE EXAMPLE of an adult book store that requires a showing of proof of membership to ENTER the book store, I'd be happy to research the issue. But if you're just talking about having a membership card to buy products and get discounts, that doesn't affect my analysis that a customer would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I doubt you can give us one example because I think restricting access to members wouldn't comport with a city or county's SOB ordinances.

Dallas has several places that have "members only" areas and there's some pretty crazy sex that takes place behind those doors regularly.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Crock

Dallas has several places that have "members only" areas and there's some pretty crazy sex that takes place behind those doors regularly.

I didn't say "members-only" areas. I said stores that require proof of membership to be admitted. How could you not catch that? There's a huge difference.

[MyselfCCS]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I didn't say "members-only" areas. I said stores that require proof of membership to be admitted. How could you not catch that? There's a huge difference.

Sure there's a difference but the question remains, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy at a members only section of an ABS? if so, what are the implication regarding the legalities of this?

[DocHolyday]

I would weigh in here and give you the authority on why you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a "members only" ABS but SJ is doing a fine job. Besides, I'm busy working on a suppression motion.

My question to the OP is why would you ever want to have sex in one of those nasty ass cubicles in an ABS?? I mean, they got some kind of ....something growing on the floors and walls. Geez!!!

[MyselfCCS]

Ok, just read the Cammack v. State, 641 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (en banc). link that SJ shared and my take is that because the members only area is part of a public place (ABS), which is open to the public, you wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I'm I right?

But there is also a dissenting opinion that I find very reasonable, even though the guy in the case was denied the appeal, and I'm just gonna copy the reasoning: "... the testimony was that the viewing booth was completely enclosed. It had solid walls, a solid door with a bolt, and a solid ceiling. The door had to be closed in order to view the movie inside the booth. The only light within the booth came from the movie projector. When the appellant entered the booth, his back was against the door. Although the police officer testified that he did not actually see the appellant lock the door, he acknowledged that the door was completely closed and that the appellant could have locked the door without his knowledge. The appellant testified that he locked the door.

Under these facts, I would hold that the booth, at the time the sexual contact took place, was not a public place. The area was completely closed to public view. The appellant's testimony that he locked the door was not contradicted by the State's only witness. Both witnesses testified that the door was completely closed. Therefore, at the time the act took place, the public's access to the booth had been eliminated.

Further, by the act of closing and locking the door, the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the booth."

So my final question is this, since there is a precedent of an appeal being denied, anyone in a similar situation has absolutely no chance of a different outcome even if the judge agrees with the dissenting opinion?