Bill 2849 and Constitutional Liability
Sparks’ Legislative Chamber on March 9th, 2026. Sparks, Nev.
A few weeks ago I saw Bill 2849 submitted for a first reading at the Sparks City Council, and it stood out to me. I had recently seen headlines regarding illegal brothels posing as massage parlors being closed down via business license revocations by the City of Sparks, so an Ordinance more strictly regulating massage parlors in Sparks was proposed, and I wasn’t surprised.
Many of these illegal brothels involve illegal human trafficking, victims being worked 6-7 days a week, for up to 16 hours, or longer each day - against their wills.
The spirit of the ordinance is great - I am NOT AGAINST shutting down illegal brothels and I am NOT AGAINST rescuing victims from human trafficking - but there are a few components that stood out to me, and a few things that were left out by City Attorney during his presentation.
You can click here to read the full bill as passed.
Most of the bill is reasonable, and realistic; some elements of the bill can already be found in other parts of the Sparks Municipal Code - i.e. not being allowed to reside in commercial buildings. But there are a few items that stand out to me as potentially creating liability for the City - and being taken advantage of by someone wanting to make a quick buck off of a constitutional lawsuit, or someone legitimately deprived of their rights by this ordinance in an unintended way.
Section 1, H, paragraph 6 and 9 are the major contributors to my concern.
1-H-6 states:
“The spouse of the applicant or partner or stockholder or officer or director or shareholder or resident agent or managing agent has had a massage establishment license previously revoked or denied for any ground set out in this chapter; or”
So if a spouse, partner, stockholder, officer, director, shareholder, resident agent, or managing agent has had their massage establishment business licensed revoked by the City of Sparks, “The director shall deny the license…”. If someone had a material part in human trafficking, or running an illegal brothel, my personal opinion is that they should be in jail. As far as business licenses go, if someone is profiting off of an illegal brothel while holding a massage establishment license that is revoked, and they then join or create another business entity, that business entity should also be denied a license.
So why do I take issue with 1-H-6? I primarily take issue with the part about denying the applicant a license if a spouse has had a license revoked under this section - and I’ll come back to revocations. There is no provisions for time. It doesn’t specify if it only applied if the revocation happened while the marriage was in affect. It doesn’t specify if the revocation was in the last 20-30 years, or yesterday. If you’re married to someone who had a license for a massage establishment revoked in the City of Sparks your application for an Establishment License will be denied.
During his presentation the City Attorney spoke of a spouse of one of the business owners coming in to the business licensing division attempting to reapply for that license that had been revoked for running an illegal brothel just a week prior. I agree that, that specific license should have been denied.
But what if that licensed had been revoked for their spouse 40 years ago, 30 years ago, or before they were married? What then? There are no provisions for appeals. There is no chance at rehabilitation. What if the revocation was for something else in this section? (I’ll come back to this, I promise.)
And what about loopholes? Divorce is easy in Nevada, and frankly uncontested divorces are cheap - I’ve served as a witness for a few. For illegal brothel operators bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or more, would it not be an easy business decision for them to simply get divorced and then have the former spouse who didn’t have their license revoked apply for a new one?
My next issue with this section is the word, “partner.” Now, normally in the SMC, I would assume it was talking about a business partner, but with the previous class of person being referenced being a spouse, could it mean romantic partner? It’s unclear, and a good attorney could argue against this part of the ordinance referring to a romantic partner because it does lack clarity and specificity.
Why don’t we punish some employees while we’re at it!
Jumping down to 1-H-9:
“The applicant has previously been employed by a massage establishment or massage establishment licensee that has had its license previously revoked or denied for any ground set out in this chapter; or”
“The director shall deny the license if:”…”The applicant has previously been employed by a massage establishment or massage establishment licensee that has had its license previously revoked or denied for any ground set out in this chapter…”
I can understand that license being denied if that massage therapist that is applying for a license was also disciplined by the State Massage Board, but that isn’t included. That isn’t what’s happening. This is employees, who are possibly survivors of human trafficking, or had no knowledge of the activities of their boss, being denied a license because they worked somewhere that had their license revoked.
I look at the employees of Corwin Ford in Reno, some of which hold privileged licenses from the State of Nevada and the DMV, who worked there when it was still Jones West Ford and Richie West Jr., the dealership manager, was dealing drugs and guns out of the back of the dealership. The number of employees that still work for that car dealership that were there when this was happening is astounding. And unless they were directly helping Richie West Jr. deal drugs, they kept their jobs and weren’t held responsible.
A note, Dr. Robert Rand was involved in this case, writing millions of dollars in prescriptions. I have no familial relation to Dr. Robert Rand.
More ways to lose your license!
So I kept saying I would come back to this and talk more about license revocations. With some of the changes in this law, there is an additional way to easily get your massage establishment license revoked - delaying an inspection.
5.65.100 was amended to read:
“A licensee or employee shall not refuse to permit any police officer or member of the building department, health department, code enforcement, finance department or fire department to inspect the business premises or operations at any time it is occupied or open for business.”
What was changed? Previously, it seems, a licensee had to be present for an inspection to occur, but now the city can force an inspection without the licensee present.
Later on it states:
“Refusal to allow an inspection will result in a revocation of the business license.”
So, here is a hypothetical situation. You have a legitimate massage establishment and your 16-year-old son or daughter - your kid - is working the front desk. You step out to grab some food. While you’re gone someone from the City of Sparks stops in and demands an inspection and your 16-year-old kid says no because they want to wait for their parent to return. What if there is a language barrier? What if the employee thinks they’re doing the right thing by waiting for their supervisor to come and then allow the police officer or other city employee to conduct an inspection?
This potentially gives the City of Sparks the option to revoke the Establishment License for something that isn’t related to running a illegal brothel. We’re outside of the spirit of the law, but this is what the law says.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Look, it’s a well intention law, and it passed unanimously. No one from the City Council or City Attorney’s office addressed my comments or concerns. So, I called the Massage Board of the State of Nevada which reiterated NRS 640C and NAC 640C, and confirmed that the City has concurrent jurisdiction, but someone in a leadership role confirmed that my phone call was the first that their office had heard of this ordinance.
I hope that the passage of Bill 2849 leads to more illegal brothels being shut down, I hope it leads to citations being issued, I hope it leads to victims of human trafficking being rescued, and I hope it does not lead to another lawsuit for the City of Sparks.
it’s a complicated issue, and in discussing this ordinance with the staff member from the Massage Board they pointed me in the direction of The Network; “…a data-driven counter-human trafficking organization.”
Leading up to the passage of this law there was something notable missing. I did not see any news about arrests. I did not see any victims saved. I did not read any stories about citations and upcoming court dates. That is what was most disappointing to me. This law is about revoking Business and Establishment Licenses, and maybe that is the change that we need, but we can still have a discussion on ambiguity and potential constitutional issues that I believe opens the City of Sparks up to future litigation. That said, no one except the Massage Board seemed to want to have any discussion.
I will be going down the rabbit hole on some of the articles on The Network’s website, as suggested by the Massage Board staff member I spoke with. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Below you will find the public comment I delivered on Item 10.1 at the March 9th meeting of the Sparks City Council:
Mr. Mayor, Council, Hunter Rand, Ward 2 resident.
This ordinance is mostly reasonable, and frankly needed.
But as it's currently written, I believe it places the City of Sparks in legal jeopardy. I am not an attorney, so before coming here today to share information I consulted with a constitutional law attorney who works in D.C.. After reviewing the language, he confirmed my concerns.
Even if a city ultimately prevails in constitutional litigation, the process itself is costly. Sparks has already spent significant amounts of money defending and settling lawsuits in recent years. We should be extremely cautious about passing language that could invite another one.
My primary concerns are in Section 1, H, paragraphs 6 and 9.
Paragraph 6 allows the city to deny a license if the applicant’s spouse has had a license revoked. The other categories listed in that section - stockholders, officers, directors - all involve people who have a direct ownership or operational role in the business. A spouse does not necessarily have any role in the business at all. It also does not distinguish whether the revocation occurred 40, 30 years ago or before the marriage even existed, or yesterday. Now sometimes the spouse serves in those business roles, and in those cases that license should absolutely be denied.
Courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects not only speech, but freedom of association - and, “intimate association,” like marriage. When government action penalizes someone based on that relationship, it can trigger constitutional scrutiny.
What about fairness? I have heard a member of this council state publicly that they should not be judged based on the actions or associations of their spouse, as related to a business. Yet this ordinance would do exactly that to people seeking a business license in Sparks. Passing this language unchanged would create a clear double standard. And what about people who represent themselves as married, but aren’t legally married?
My second concern is Paragraph 9, which allows a license to be denied to someone who previously worked at a business where a license was revoked.
Employees who may have had no authority, knowledge, or involvement in whatever violation occurred could be punished. Many employees - receptionists, assistants, technicians - simply work at a business. They do not control policies, compliance decisions, licensing matters, or the actions of an owner.
Holding those employees responsible for the actions of an owner or manager raises obvious due process concerns.
The goals are legitimate. But regulations must be carefully written so they target the bad actors - not spouses, not unrelated employees, and not people whose only connection is proximity.
I strongly encourage the council to revisit the language in subsections 6 and 9 and ensure that this ordinance is both effective and constitutionally sound.
Because if it passes as written, Sparks could find itself defending an expensive constitutional lawsuit.
Thank you.
