Sheriff caught in brothel Around Town, posted by Camejo, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 24, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Channel 5 broke the story last night <Web Link... ; about Sheriff Munks and Undersheriff (and former Redwood City police chief) Bolanos who were caught in a Vegas brothel that was being raided by police for drugs.
Obviously, neither of these guys are in a position to enforce the law locally. They need to resign.
This also explains why several houses of prostitution fronting as aroma therapy or massage parlors continue to operate.
But what's really amazing is the stupidity of these guys on two levels -- don't they realize that if they get caught, they're risking their jobs? And don't they know that prostitution isn't legal in Vegas -- only northern Nevada. San Mateo County can do better than these two clowns.
Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
There is absolutely no reason this guy should resign. His statement that he believed this to be a lawful business is credible. He was charged with no crime.
Posted by I Agree With First Poster, a resident of another community, on Apr 24, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I live in SM Co. & this is just ridiculous. He & Bolanos, both police veterans, DID NOT know that an Asian massage parlor was a brothel? Puhlease. If they did, they should resign - more for getting caught than anything else, imo. Yes, in Vegas it's illegal, so they should've factored that in to their ill-conceived plan. If they didn't, they should resign - for being that naive! What's also troubling is the human trafficking aspect. I don't care about prostitution in & of itself. It's the trafficking issue that is so cruel & tawdry - & getting worse.
Posted by Rodham, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2007 at 2:02 am
Funny how the law does (or doesn't) get enforced when the violators are cops. Even if they weren't arrested, how do they explain the fact that they were at a brothel? If they don't quit, people in San Mateo County should recall them from office. No brainer!
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:59 am
This is just another one of the situations where we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. They did not break the law. We may not like what they did, but it was never proved that they did anything illegal. We may not like them smoking or drinking (if they do), or what they do on their weekends off, but as long as they are not breaking the law, it isn't our business.
Posted by well actually, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2007 at 9:04 am
it sounds like they were breaking the law. They were found in a brothel, which is an illegal place of business in Las Vegas. just because they were not caught in flagrante delicto with prostitutes doesn't mean they weren't breaking the law.
Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 25, 2007 at 9:43 am
So, they were breaking a low priority law, possibly unwittingly, possibly (probably) doing something that would be legal a short car trip away. WHO CARES?
Posted by We SHOULD Care, a resident of another community, on Apr 25, 2007 at 11:25 am
Not so much because they had an itch they wanted to illicitly scratch, but due to the human trafficking factor. Law enforcement in SM Co. is totally aware of this particular issue - and it's a nasty one. Ignoring that aspect is what I think it extra disturbing. That, and that they were dumb enough to get caught.
Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Apr 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm
We Should Care-- that is not a totally unreasonable point, but would you, then, also disqualify a sherrif from service that wore Nikes, made in sweatshops, or ate Chinese food at many of the establishments that exploit their workers? Got their car serviced at a body shop that is a front for drug smuggling? Where do you want the line to be drawn?
Posted by joe, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:42 pm
If you actually read the article (what a concept) you'd see that they were outside the "business" and claimed that they were leaving because it was apparent it was not a legitimate business.
Posted by family, a resident of Woodside, on Apr 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm
people need to get their facts straight! Reporters are going to fabricate and emphasize unimportant details. No one was arrested, there were no charges. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] These two men have families and friends.....who are we, or you to pass judgement???
Posted by Tonto, a resident of another community, on Apr 26, 2007 at 2:06 am
The question that needs to be addressed is what did they do wrong? No! Granted they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thats not a crime! Las Vegas Police has closed it's investigation with no charges pending, no harm no foul.
Think about it, if they had sex on the job in their office and denied that it happened to the media they would qualify to be a democrat presidential contender.
Posted by Rodham, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Tonto, Joe and Eric need to get their facts straight. By his own admission, Munks was INSIDE the bordello when federal agents broke down the door and began their raid. He was even handcuffed. He was let go later. By his own admission, Bolanos had gone inside but was outside when the feds moved in.
You all are missing the bigger issues here -- Munks and Bolanos head a department that investigates sex crimes, is supposed to enforce anti-prostitution laws and runs a women's jail. How can they continue to do any of those jobs when they have offered such a laughable story about their own conduct?
This editorial <Web Link> from a San Mateo newspaper pretty well sums it up.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
