Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cabaret, Inc. v. Daley

OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 1978.

THE CABARET, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

RICHARD J. DALEY, MAYOR AND LOCAL LICENSE COMMISSIONER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. ARTHUR L. DUNNE, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE ROMITI DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied December 18, 1978.

Plaintiff, Cabaret, Inc., filed its action for a writ of certiorari to review the findings and order of defendant, Richard J. Daley, Mayor and Local License Commissioner of the City of Chicago (hereafter City), who revoked the municipal food dispenser and public place of amusement licenses issued to plaintiff. The circuit court affirmed the order of revocation and plaintiff appealed. The issues presented are whether plaintiff knowingly permitted an act of public indecency to be performed on its premises by its employee and whether plaintiff kept a disorderly house in violation of the Chicago Municipal Code (ch. 192, § 192-1).

The revocation order stated:

"1. That on October 22, 1974, the licensee corporation [plaintiff], by and through its agent, THOMAS NATALE, manager, knowingly permitted a violation of the laws of the State of Illinois to be committed on the licensed premises, to wit: Public Indecency, contrary to Chapter 38, § 11-9(d)(4), Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973. *fn1

2. That on October 22, 1974, the licensee corporation, by and through its employee, VIRGINIA ROKOSZ, knowingly violated the laws of the State of Illinois upon the licensed premises, to wit: Public Indecency, contrary to Chapter 38, § 11-9(a)(4), Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973.

3. That on October 22, 1974, the licensee corporation, by and through its agent, THOMAS NATALE, manager, knowingly violated the Ordinances of the City of Chicago, to wit: keeping a Disorderly House, contrary to Chapter 192, § 192-1 of the Municipal Code of Chicago."

At the commission hearing, Chicago police officer Kenneth R. Wallace, whose credibility is not challenged by plaintiff on appeal, testified that on October 22, 1974, at approximately 9:30 p.m., he and a male companion entered the plaintiff's licensed premises. They were seated at a table near the stage by the manager, Natale. Two women joined them at the table and began a conversation. Shortly thereafter, a waitress asked the officer and his friend if they would like to be alone with the ladies. When the officer replied "yes," she escorted them to a table in a darkened area at the rear of the room she called the "Love Nest." She then told the officer that with the drinks already consumed they could have two bottles of "fake champagne" and the two women at a cost of $177. Officer Wallace stated that all he had was $60. The waitress then went to the manager. He saw the waitress and manager talking but did not overhear the conversation. The waitress then returned to the table stating that he could have one bottle of champagne and the company of the two women for $60. Officer Wallace testified that while he was seated at the table, Virginia Rokosz, with whom he was conversing, began to fondle his genital organs through his pants. He then placed the two women at the table and the manager under arrest.

Plaintiff offered the testimony of Christine Wallace, one of its dancers. She testified that she worked for plaintiff and was present at the table on October 22, 1974, with Officer Wallace, his friend, and the woman who Wallace stated fondled him. She denied that she ever put her hands on the thigh of either of the two men or that she had fondled the private parts of either of the two men. She stated that she was seated across from Officer Wallace and his lady companion and could not see either of them below the waist because of the table. She denied that there was any conversation in which she participated wherein there was mention of being alone with the men in a back room. She did, however, admit that the table at which they were seated was in the back of the room.

Plaintiff contends that the administrative findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the conduct complained of was neither "public" nor "indecent." Public indecency is defined, in part, as an act of "[a] lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person of either sex" in a public place. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 11-9.) The statute further defines: "`Public place' for purposes of this Section means any place where the conduct may reasonably be [expected] to be viewed by others." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 11-9(b).

The Committee Comments to this statute state:

"The meaning which has been written into this section is one that is tailored specifically for the purposes of this section — protection of the public from shocking and embarrassing displays of sexual activities.

Generally speaking, the `reasonable expectation of public view' test adopted, is but a minute refinement of the publicity test employed in the 1953 exhibitionist statute. It is the probability of public view that is crucial rather than the ownership or use of the particular real estate upon which the act occurs." Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 11-9, Committee Comments, at 434 (Smith-Hurd 1972).

• 1 In People v. Legel (1974), 24 Ill. App.3d 554, 559, 321 N.E.2d 164, the court in construing the term "public place" stated: "Where the evidence shows that it was reasonably forseeable that the lewd conduct would be viewed by the casual public observer, there is a reasonable expectation of public view, and the acts can be held to have occurred in a `public place' by reason of the statutory definition." Officer Wallace, his friend and the two women were seated in plaintiff's club, open to the public for business, where there could be no expectancy of privacy. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.