Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Wooten v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County

93 Cal. App. 4th 422, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 (2001)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,500+ case briefs...

Wooten v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County

California Court of Appeal

93 Cal. App. 4th 422, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 (2001)

Facts

Officer Valdivia and Officer Aranda conducted an undercover operation at a strip club known as The Flesh Club (the club). In addition to a main stage where nude dancers performed, the club also had a number of semi-private booths where customers could pay to watch dancers perform sexual acts on each other. The dancers did not perform sexual acts with the customers. During their visits to the club, the officers went into the semi-private booths. The booth experience cost $120 per dancer, with $75 going to the dancer and $45 to management. On one occasion, Officer Aranda was offered a hand job by one of the dancers. There was no evidence that management of the club was aware of this offer or that offers of that kind were common practice. After the officers visited the club five times, police executed a search warrant. Brent Wooten and Daniel Mendoza (defendants), both managers at the club, were charged with pimping and pandering. After an information, or formal criminal charge, containing the charges was filed, the defendants moved to set aside the information on the ground that there was no underlying prostitution to support pimping and pandering charges. The defendants relied on the fact that the dancers never had sexual contact with the club’s customers. The trial court declined to set aside the information, and the defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)

Dissent (Richli, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,500 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership