What Imette St. Guillen’s Death Means to Nightlife

By Gamal Hennessy

On February 25, 2006, Imette St. Gullien left the Falls Bar with Darryl Littlejohn. Two days later her body was found. She had been beaten, raped, murdered and dumped on the side of a road in Brooklyn. Her killer was convicted late last week, but the shockwaves from her death are still being felt in the industry. The creation of the CEI and the passage of Imette’s Law are directly tied to Ms. St. Guillen’s death and have permanently altered the nightlife landscape in New York.

The Sean Bell Connection

The Club Enforcement Initiative (CEI) was set up by the New York City Police Department shortly after the Ms. St. Gullien was killed. Fourteen officers were recruited out of the vice and narcotics squads and sent into clubs undercover where they would investigate drug sales, prostitution and other alleged crimes. The officers were allowed a two drink minimum to help them blend into the venue and they would take deliberate steps not to reveal their identity once they were in the club.

Unfortunately, the police of the CEI were themselves accused of nightlife violence shortly after the unit was created. In November of 2006, Sean Bell and his friends left a strip club called Club Kalua in Queens after his bachelor party. Believing Mr. Bell to be armed and the suspect of a crime, the CEI proceeded to follow Bell’s car. Police reports indicate that after the car hit one of the officers and slammed into an unmarked police van, members of the CEI fired 50 rounds into Sean Bell’s car, killing him and wounding two of his friends. It was later discovered that Bell was not armed and was not guilty of any crime. This incident touched off heated debate within the city about police brutality and racism within the department.

The Best Practices Connection

On the other side of the coin, the murder of Imette also led to increased cooperation between operators and the NYPD. In 2007 a Nightlife Summit was held to discuss the issue of crime and violence within nightlife. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn organized the summit that brought together Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, David Rabin, the current president of New York Nightlife Association and other various club owners.

The result of that summit was the 58 measures of the Nightlife Best Practices which were supposed give club owners incentive to call the police if trouble occurs. In theory, the call would not raise the specter of disorderly premises citations that interfere with liquor licenses and the ability to stay open. Shortly after the summit, the New York State Assembly’s passed Imette’s Law which required video surveillance in clubs and stronger background checks for security staff

Unfortunately, not every measure discussed during the summit translated into policy. The operators at the Summit also called for finding ways to get more cops to patrol outside clubs and bars, increasing accountablility for teens that use fake IDs, targetting the makers and sellers of fake IDs, raising the admittance age for venues from 16 to 18 or 21, and fostering a better relationship among club owners, the NYPD and the SLA. Unfortunately, these measures have yet to be been implemented. Even though they could have improved safety from all types of crime and violence these recommendations were pushed aside for a quick fix at the operator’s expense. A chance to support nightlife was rejected for a one sided demand for operators to assist a police investigation after a crime as taken place.

A camera can record who goes into a club, who leaves, when they leave and who they leave with. If a person like Ms. St. Guillen leaves with a murder like Mr. Littlejohn, then the homicide division will be able to look at the tapes and compare them to criminal profiles once the body turns up bound and asphyxiated. But if there were police patrolling the club areas, criminals might decide to not commit their crimes at that point. If there were Paid Detail officers standing outside of The Falls then perhaps Ms. St. Guillen would have had other options on how to get home instead of walking away with someone she never met. Maybe nothing would have changed, but even the likelihood that nightlife could be safer should be enough of an incentive to take up the Summit’s recommendations.

Littlejohn has been convicted of murder, the lawsuits against the operators of the club are still pending and operators and patrons socialize under the new guidelines. Although violent death is extremely rare in New York nightlife, the steps left on the table during the Nightlife Summit could make nightlife even safer. Hopefully more political action on the nightlife issue will lead to more progress in the wake of Ms. St. Guillen’s death.

Gamal

A New Fight Over New Bars

By Gamal Hennessy

Hidden away from the major media outlets, a struggle is brewing over the nightlife industry in New York. The fight revolves around the laws that govern bars and the way nightlife is perceived. The latest battle in this conflict concerns the Beverage Control Law and how it is interpreted. Anti nightlife groups are planning to change current SLA law to serve their own interests and if their influence isn’t counterbalanced nightlife will suffer.

The current law requires a public hearing for any potential liquor license opening up within 500 feet of two other licenses. If you consider how dense New York is, you’ll quickly realize that almost every new venue requires a 500 foot hearing. Residents who oppose nightlife venues in general often use the 500 foot rule to protest the opening of new venues.

A judge in a recent court case involving Hudson Terrace held that a 500 foot hearing is only necessary for establishments of the same type, not for any liquor license. For example if a bar wants to open up within 500 feet of three other bars, then a hearing is required. But if a bar wants to open up within 500 feet of three clubs, or two clubs and a restaurant, or a club a restaurant and a cabaret, then no hearing is required.

Anti-nightlife elements within the city don’t plan to lose their main weapon without a fight. Daniel Squadron, a new State Senator who turned his back on nightlife before he was even elected, plans to re-write the law to tighten the restrictions and circumvent the judges ruling. He claims that “the decision undermines the spirit of the law”, so the law needs to be fixed.

There are at least three unspoken concepts that are flawed when it comes to the way anti nightlife elements deal with the 500 foot hearing process. First, they assume that more venues are automatically a problem. However, it is just as likely that more venues could reduce crowding and increase revenue for the city and the state. Second, there is an assumption that the community board is the best forum for making decisions about additional nightlife venues. But that body does not and cannot take in to account the cultural and financial impact of the venue on the city. Third, that the BCL needs to be changed to inhibit and restrict nightlife growth when in fact much of the law dates back to Prohibition and needs to be revised not to inhibit nightlife but to bring the law in line with the realities and needs of nightlife in the 21st century.

The BCL does need to be revised and the 500 foot rule needs to be examined but pro-nightlife and anti-nightlife groups need to weigh in on the subject. People concerned with the character of the individual neighborhoods and the viability of the city overall need to be heard. Hopefully organizations like the NYNA and the NPC will get involved with this issue and prevent further erosion of nightlife in New York.

Have fun.
Gamal