The Statesboro City Council voted Tuesday to temporarily suspend the business license of a local massage parlor, citing a need for time to gather additional information. The vote, however, was 3-2 with the mayor and council divided on how to move forward.
Background
In November, officers with the Statesboro Police Department’s Impact Team conducted an undercover operation at a local massage parlor on Brannen Street in Statesboro. The agency said it was acting on citizen complaints alleging that staff members at Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage were performing sexual acts in exchange for money under the guise of conducting massages.
59-year-old Jiaxiang Li of Ridgeland, SC was arrested on a single count of performing a sexual act for money and the manager of the establishment, 59-year-old Chunying Hou of Statesboro, was arrested as well on a single count of Keeping a Place of Prostitution. Both were booked into the Bulloch County Jail and released. Both cases are pending and have yet to be adjudicated in Bulloch County State Court.
City staff subsequently recommended that the city council revoke the business license, citing the arrests on “prostitution related charges.” A revocation of a business license requires a public hearing, which was slated for the second January meeting, but was delayed due to the snow storm.
Presentation from SPD
On Tuesday, Captain Jared Akins of the Statesboro Police Department shared that the department had received a number of complaints regarding sexual activity over the last several years, but had been unable to substantiate the claims due to witnesses who did not wish to testify or be involved in the investigation in any way.
In 2023, a report was taken regarding allegations of a sexual battery in which a customer reported that he was harmed during the course of a massage and when he attempted to call 911, staff prevented him from doing so, Akins said.
In 2024, additional reports regarding sexual activity were made to SPD which involved audio recordings. It prompted the response of an officer who visited the location and, was placed with a masseuse. During the course of a massage, the masseuse “conducted a sexual act on the officer.” Akins said the officer made an excuse to leave and notified the remaining members of the SPD Impact Team. All of this, Akins said, is on audio recording and prompted the arrest of the masseuse involved.
Business Responds
Statesboro attorney Michael Classens represented Chunying Hou, owner of Lisa’s Therapeutic Massage, in the hearing.
Classens referenced comments online and anonymity with “no reliability” that could not be verified by anyone. He said the owner, was not there at the time of the incident or when the arrest occurred. He said the following day, she was notified of the information, was ‘genuinely shocked’ by the information, and told police she would fire the employee that day – which she did. He emphasized that the business has not had any complaints since the arrests.
“There is an allegation against [the owner] based on the activity of the other woman,” he said. “It isn’t that Mrs. Hou was directly involved. As soon as she was informed, she fired the woman, she fired her that day. She has met the requirements…She has done nothing to lose the right to pursue the profession…There is no evidence that [the owner] encouraged the behavior.”
Classens also emphasized that while the public hearing was not a court proceeding, some burden of proof was still required before council takes away someone’s right to operate a business.
“Maintaining a place of prostitution requires money be exchanged for those activities,” Classens said. There was no extra money exchanged beyond what was on the massage services menu.
He asked that council vote to take no action, as both a suspension and a revocation would have a negative impact on the business owner.
Council Discussion
Councilwoman Shari Barr asked City Attorney Cain Smith to advise council of the options. Smith said the council could suspend the license, revoke the license, or take no action.
Barr said she had questions about due process and revoking the license before the case is adjudicated in court. She said she was leaning toward suspension, as opposed to revocation, and asked to hear other council input.
Councilman John Riggs clarified that the employee charged had been fired, which Classens affirmed. Captain Akins was asked as well, but noted the agency had not been back in the business since the arrests.
Mayor Jonathan McCollar said his opinion was that it was a ‘red flag’ that the owner was unaware of what was happening inside the business. “I’m very concerned. There’s not too much that’s gonna go on in my house that I don’t know about,” he said. “But I would be open to a motion from council on a suspension of the license pending the outcome of the judicial process. That way, we can get the definitive answer to what the judicial process answer is.”
“My concern is innocent until proven guilty and that we’re taking away someone’s livelihood,” Barr said. “I’m concerned that we want folks to stand innocent until they go before the court and if we go ahead and suspend or revoke their license, that’s not in keeping with that.”
Councilwoman Tangie Johnson said the city would be liable if more acts occur while they wait for court adjudication. “We’ll be liable if we let them keep the business open,” she said.
Councilman John Riggs replied that he agreed with both Johnson and Barr. “Can we suspend them for two weeks? I do have questions that I would like to ask Captain and Mr. Classens…I have questions I would like to ask and I want to write them out first…til the next meeting. Or table it until then.”
McCollar asked about the docket timeline, but no one was able to provide that information.
City Attorney Cain Smith said the concern about ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is not the same here as the hearing was a ‘quasi-judicial hearing’ with different standards, citing the city’s ability to suspend or revoke alcohol licenses under similar ordinances. City Manager Charles Penny asked if the city could impose a fine, to which Smith replied was not permitted under the ordinance.
Councilwoman Ginny Hendley said they were not trying to take away anyone’s right to earn a living, but that she believed they should either table the matter or suspend the license to gather more information. “Nobody’s guilty until proven, so, again it’s somebody’s livelihood.”
McCollar was not convinced. “To me, this is a no brainer. We had an arrest made at the location, that is fact. There are listed charges in the arrest report. For us to allow it to remain open, that is highly irresponsible especially when something else could occur there. There’s so many red flags going off for me – not just prostitution, human trafficking, there’s so many things associated with this. For us to walk away, and for them to still be open, for me, I don’t want to revoke the license. Let’s get to the end of the judicial process and allow the decision to be made there, but to, knowing what’s been presented and to allow the doors to remain open, that’s irresponsible.”
Councilwoman Chavers asked for clarification about the difference between a suspension and a revocation and then said council should move forward with a suspension. She referenced another business that had supposed illegal activity and the city shut the business down.
“So if we’re going to be, to operate in the spirit of fairness, and pretty much how the licenses is set up, if you do something illegal, the process is we are going suspend or revoke you. And we’ve done that before so I just think that with this situation, based upon what was taking place, we follow the trend that we’ve been doing so far,” Chavers said. She noted that she did not support a two week suspension, noting that i needed to be until the council can find out information on “how to move forward.”
“I’m not trying to put anyone out of business, but based on how we operate before, this is no different,” Chavers said.
There was already a motion from Riggs on the floor, but Mayor McCollar again asked for a motion from council members, to which Riggs again moved to suspend the license for two weeks, pending the gathering of additional information. Barr seconded the motion.
The motion was approved in a vote of 3-2 with Chavers and Johnson voting against. Johnson said she would suspend until the court process plays out.
Council is set to meet again on Tuesday, February 18, 2025.