Police charge salon owner

[Editor-in-Chief]

[ Friday, March 25, 2005 ]

Police charge salon owner

Tanfastique Tanning Salon owner Ron Hanslovan is facing criminal charges

By Josh Kowalkowski
and Claudia Vargas
Collegian Staff Writers
The owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, 159 S. Garner St., was charged yesterday with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime for allegedly spying on tanners through two "peep" holes in his office.

A search of owner Ron Hanslovan's office by the State College Police Department found a hinged board that, when lifted, revealed a large hole, 18 inches by 24 inches, with the first layer of drywall and all of the insulation removed, according to court documents.

Police determined that several small holes had been cut into the remaining drywall, which police say allowed Hanslovan to illegally view customers in tanning room 7 next to his office, said State College Police Detective and lead investigator Ralph Ralston.

Hanslovan said he was not aware of any charges.

"I had no idea charges were filed against me," Hanslovan said. "I have done nothing wrong."

According to the criminal complaint, one hole displayed a view of the area next to the tanning bed where a person would get undressed or change into a bathing suit, while another hole would show straight through the tanning bed, including a view of the crotch area of any customer.

PHOTO: Chad Woolbert

The owner of Tanfastique, 159 S. Garner St., is being charged by State College Police for invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime.


During the current investigation, police searched Tanfastique computer records, but nothing illegal was found. Records only showed customer history, Ralston said.

According to court documents, a female customer discovered the "peep" holes and reported her suspicions to two employees on Feb. 1. The employees then informed police.

The customer told the employees that Hanslovan made her feel uncomfortable.

"There's no way to tell how many other individuals may have been affected," Ralston said. "No other individuals have come forward yet."

During the late summer and early fall of 2004, the customer went tanning at the salon and was told by Hanslovan that there were no 20-minute high-intensity bed available for that day, according to court documents.

She then scheduled an appointment for a bed that costs more per session but when she arrived, Hanslovan said there was a high bed available.

According to court documents, the customer said she then saw someone leave room 7, where the high bed was, and thought it was suspicious, but she tanned anyway.

The customer then became aware of a "peep" hole that led into Hanslovan's office and left right away.

According to court documents, the employees said they remembered Hanslovan directing certain individuals into that room.

The Daily Collegian attempted to find out why charges were not filed immediately after the investigation began in February.

The Collegian also tried to determine whether police informed customers of the investigation while customers continued tanning. No one at the State College Police Department was able to provide that information last night.

State College Police Sgt. Chris Fishel said Hanslovan was charged with harassment in connection with a similar incident 10 years ago.

"[He was] found not guilty ... there was no other applicable offense back then," Fishel said.

A preliminary hearing date has not been set and Ralston said anyone with further information is encouraged to contact State College Police Department at (814) 234-7150.

"If people have any suspicions, we urge them to come forward," he said.






Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Owner of tanning salon faces charges


Man accused of peeping on patrons

By Erin L. Nissley

enissley@centredaily.com



STATE COLLEGE -- A DuBois man who owns a State College tanning salon will be charged with two misdemeanors after police say two employees found holes in a tanning room wall that provided views of customers as they undressed.

Two employees at Tanfastique, at 159 S. Garner St., went to police on Feb. 2 after they discovered what they believed to be peep holes.

The employees said they had a conversation with a customer who had used tanning room No. 7 on Feb. 1. The customer said that owner Ron Hanslovan, 44, made her uncomfortable and that she noticed two holes in the room's wall, according to the affidavit of probable cause filed by police.

The employees went into the business office and saw that holes were bored into the wall between the business office and tanning room No. 7. A bulletin board, hinged so it could fold upward, covered the holes, according to court papers.

According to the affidavit, one of the holes looked into the room, allowing a view of customers as they undressed; another provided a view into the tanning bed from one end.

Police obtained a search warrant and confirmed the employees' findings, according to court records.

One of the employees told police that she filled the holes with paper towels before she left the office Feb. 1. When she went back to photograph the holes the next day, she discovered that the bulletin board had been screwed down, she told police.

Both employees told police they remembered Hanslovan putting particular customers into room No. 7, including women that he had mentioned he found attractive. The business office is used by all employees, but some told police they noticed that Hanslovan occasionally locked his door when he went into the office. They thought that unusual because, they said, no one entered the office without knocking.

Police also interviewed the customer who reported the holes to employees. She said she had been going to Tanfastique since the summer and remembered an odd conversation she'd had with Hanslovan one day.

She said she had called to schedule a session and had asked for a particular type of tanning bed. Hanslovan said there were none available, and she agreed to schedule a session in a more pricey tanning bed. She said when she arrived at Tanfastique, Hanslovan told her that tanning room No. 7 was, in fact, open and she could have it. At the time, the woman told police, she thought it was odd that Hanslovan hadn't "taken advantage of the prospect of making $5 more." After she finished tanning in room No. 7, she checked the walls and discovered the holes, according to court records.

The woman could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Hanslovan was charged with criminal attempt, which alleges that he knowingly attempted to view another person without that person's knowledge or permission while that person was nude or partially nude. He also was charged with possessing the instruments of a crime -- in this case, the wall between the office and tanning room No. 7.

The charges are being mailed to him, according to court records.

Contacted Thursday at Tanfastique, Hanslovan would not comment on the charges or say how long he's owned the business.

However, he did say he plans to move the salon when the lease expires next month.

"We'll be opening a 20-bed, state-of-the-art facility," he said, adding that he plans to open the new facility in late May or early June.

His lawyer, Roy Lisko, could not be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.

Erin L. Nissley can be reached at 231-4616.

Source

[Tanning Queen]

Our industry has enough problems with the Derms fighting us everyday, owners like this just make all of us look worse. Out industry gets a bad wrap cuz of jackasses like this. Shame...

[Editor-in-Chief]

Details slim in tanning case


By Josh Kowalkowski
Collegian Staff Writer
During the six-week investigation of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, 159 S. Garner St., the State College Police Department did not inform customers that owner Ron Hanslovan was suspected of spying on tanners.

"We couldn't say anything to the public about the case until we had enough evidence for probable cause," State College Police Chief Tom King said. "We couldn't go on suspicion alone or else it would create harm to [Hanslovan]."

King also said police did not have the authority to plug the peep holes during the investigation because the building or property owners are the ones who have the power to do so.

HFL Corp., the owner of the Tanfastique property complex, 401-407 E. Beaver Ave., could not be reached for comment yesterday, and it is unclear whether police notified the building owner of the investigation.

King said the main goal throughout the investigation was to make the public aware as soon as the charges were filed.

"It would be irresponsible of us to release information on just what we suspected," he said.

The State College Police Department's investigation began Feb. 4 when police executed a search warrant of the salon.

Police said a search of Hanslovan's office found a hinged board that, when lifted, revealed a large hole, 18 inches by 24 inches, with the first layer of drywall and all of the insulation removed.

Police determined that several small holes had been cut into the remaining drywall, which police say allowed Hanslovan to illegally view customers in tanning room 7, next to his office.

Hanslovan was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime.

Sgt. Mark Argiro said the police only deal with the immediate incident.

He said the best analogy to describe the situation would be a DUI arrest, although nothing was directly comparable to this case.

"Once the arrest has been made, there's only so much we can do -- we can't take their keys away," Argiro said.

"And in this case we couldn't baby-sit him."

Lead Detective Ralph Ralston and Argiro said an arrest does not complete an investigation.

"Now if we had reason to believe there was another potential victim, then we'd start investigating again," Argiro said.

Kim Hassler, a 20-year Tanfastique client, said she thinks she might have been spied on because Hanslovan directed her to the tanning room next to his office three times during spring break, as well as numerous other times.

Hassler said the salon was empty during spring break, and added that she found it strange that Hanslovan would direct her to the same room each time.

"He cleaned up the bed right after someone had left [room 7]. ... He couldn't just say 'go into room 8 or room 9,' "she said.

Debra Greenleaf, director of counseling and advocacy at the Women's Resource Center, 140 W. Nittany Ave., said the center would help any potential victims.

"We would consider it to be sexual violence because of the viewing of sexual body parts without permission," she said.

Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall said invasion of privacy is a third-degree misdemeanor that carries a maximum of one year in prison, and possessing instruments of crime is a first-degree misdemeanor and carries a five-year maximum sentence and a $10,000 fine.

"Most likely the sentence would be shorter, and a lot of the time the person would get probation," he said.

Hanslovan was charged 10 years ago with harassment in connection with a similar case, but found not guilty.

Hanslovan's preliminary hearing is scheduled for April 27.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Police: Tanners not told about investigation


By Josh Kowalkowski
Collegian Staff Writer

Police who suspected a local tanning salon owner of spying on customers said they took no action to prevent the alleged activity during their seven-week investigation.

Local law enforcement and the district attorney's office are permitted to take action against suspects prior to filing charges, but it is unclear whether police sought a court order that would allow them to monitor the owner's behavior or inform customers of the allegations.

State College Police Chief Tom King said yesterday that while it is possible that Ron Hanslovan, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, 159 S. Garner St., continued directing customers into a room adjacent to his office, the police department could not notify customers of its investigation until officers had probable cause to arrest him.

"We didn't have the legal right to do that," King said. "The only way we could do that would be through a court order -- our job was to investigate."

King said no actions were taken during the investigation to monitor Hanslovan's actions and ensure any spying that might have taken place stopped.

King said the U.S. Constitution requires police to obtain a court order to prevent unlawful intrusion. He added that police did not get a court order to monitor Hanslovan's behavior. However, it is unclear whether a court order was requested.

Hanslovan was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime for allegedly viewing tanners through "peep" holes police found in his office -- seven weeks after a customer reported to employees that she thought she had been spied on by Hanslovan.

Since charges were filed, at least one other customer has come forward to the police with similar suspicions. However, State College Police would not comment on the exact number of complaints they have received since the beginning of the investigation.

Detective Ralph Ralston said earlier this week that although they could not directly inform customers during the investigation because of legal reasons, detectives made the "peep" holes bigger to make the investigation obvious to customers.

However, King said police did not plug or alter the holes in Hanslovan's office in any way, but they did photograph them for evidence.

"Detective [Chris] Weaver took pictures of the holes to make sure they led from his office into the tanning booth," he said. "And we did this to preserve the evidence."

Ralston did not return repeated calls yesterday and Tuesday to clarify the discrepancy.

"Anyone during an investigation can continue to commit crimes," District Attorney Ray Gricar said. "And in this case, we just don't know, but it's entirely possible."

King said police could not "baby-sit" Hanslovan to ensure he was not spying on customers through the peep holes during the investigation.

"We can't speculate on what he could have done, but only on what we knew," he said.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said it is not involved in decisions regarding the handling of an invasion of privacy case, and that there is no statewide code of behavior to regulate investigations.

"There's no such thing as a statewide protocol," said Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general.

Frederiksen said local police and the district attorney's office would handle individual investigations.

"It' s not our investigation or our procedures," he said.

King said that only the property owner, HFL Corp., could alter the building and fix the holes until police had filed charges. King said he does not think the detectives working on the case notified HFL Corp. until after charges were filed for the same reason the police could not release information to customers.

"We needed to have enough evidence to charge Hanslovan with probable cause," King said.

HFL Corp. Vice President Tom Daley could not be reached for comment yesterday.

King said the detectives moved through the case with haste to avoid additional spying on female customers.

"We operated on a fast-track method," he said. "We moved as quickly as possible."

Pittsburgh Police Detective Tammy Hawthorne said that typically a district attorney would make decisions regarding what to do during an investigation such as the one at Tanfastique.

"This sounds like an iffy thing because nobody knew if a crime was being committed during the investigation," she said.

Hawthorne said that someone like a district attorney could make decisions about whether a camera could be put in the room to make sure somebody was not doing anything illegal, such as spying on someone while they were tanning.

"I don't know of any other way to be sure he wasn't doing anything unless someone was in the room watching him," she said.

Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall said he has not had a role in the Tanfastique investigation, though he is prosecuting the case.

"The district attorney doesn't always get involved in the investigation unless it's a more serious crime, such as a sexual assault or white-collar crime," he said. "I'm not trying to belittle this case, but the charges are misdemeanors."

Marshall said he assigns a priority to each case he receives.

"This [preliminary hearing] is three weeks away, and is not very high on my list now," he said.

Hanslovan's lawyer Roy Lisko has declined to comment until the preliminary hearing, scheduled for April 27.

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Tanning salon owner has hearing continued

Ron Hanslovan will face his preliminary hearing in May in connection to charges filed last month.

By Josh Kowalkowski
Collegian Staff Writer

The preliminary hearing for Tanfastique owner Ron Hanslovan was continued yesterday at the Centre County Courthouse because police are still investigating the case.

"Hearings are continued all the time, usually at the request of the defense attorney to allow more time to investigate," State College Police Sgt. Mark Argiro said.

"It doesn't necessarily mean anything important has changed in the case," he added.

Argiro said it is not unusual for an investigation to continue after charges have already been filed, but he said he could not comment further because he is not directly involved with the case.

Hanslovan was charged on March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime for allegedly viewing tanners through "peep" holes police found in his office at Tanfastique, 159 S. Garner St. -- seven weeks after a customer reported to employees that she thought she had been spied on by Hanslovan while tanning.

Police searched the salon and found a bulletin board in Hanslovan's office that, when lifted, revealed a large hole, 18 inches by 24 inches, with the first layer of drywall and all of the insulation removed.

Several small holes had been cut into the remaining drywall, which police say allowed Hanslovan to illegally view customers in tanning room 7, which is adjacent to his office.

According to the criminal complaint, one hole displayed a view of the area next to the tanning bed where a person would get undressed or change into a bathing suit, while another hole would show straight through the tanning bed, including a view of the crotch area of tanning customers.

Invasion of privacy is a third-degree misdemeanor that carries a maximum of one year in prison.

Possessing instruments of crime is a first-degree misdemeanor and carries a five-year maximum sentence and a $10,000 fine.

Hanslovan was charged 10 years ago with harassment in connection with a similar case, but he was found not guilty.

Roy Lisko, the attorney representing Hanslovan, did not return calls yesterday made by The Daily Collegian.

Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob will be prosecuting the case. However, he could not be reached for comment.

Hanslovan's next court appearance is scheduled for May 18.

Collegian staff writer Jenna Spinelle contributed to this story.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Tan salon owner heads to pretrial

The Tanfastique owner was charged with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime in March; his pretrial will take place today.

By Krystle Kopacz
Collegian Staff Writer

The owner of a local tanning salon accused of watching patrons through "peep holes" in his office is scheduled for a pretrial conference today.

Ron Hanslovan, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, 159 S. Garner St., was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime for allegedly viewing tanners through holes that State College police found in his office.

Hanslovan pleaded not guilty at his arraignment and requested a jury trial.

Today's pretrial conference will be an informal meeting between prosecuting Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob, defense attorney Roy Lisko and a judge to talk about how each party will proceed.

Boob said he is "fairly certain" Lisko will request a continuance in the case, which will postpone court proceedings until Sept. 15, the next pretrial conference date.

Boob said Lisko, who was out of his office and unavailable for comment yesterday, filed a pretrial motion stating that the case should not have been sent to trial because there was not enough evidence to do so. The judge will have to address that motion before continuing with proceedings.

Because of the outstanding motion, Boob said he expects the judge will grant the defense a continuance. Although he cannot predict a timeline for the case, he said he is under the assumption that Hanslovan will get a trial by jury.

"The indications I've gotten is that this will be a trial," Boob said.

The charges against Hanslovan were filed seven weeks after a customer reported to employees that she thought Hanslovan had spied on her while she was tanning.

Police who searched Hanslovan's office found a hinged board that, when lifted, revealed a large hole, 18 inches by 24 inches, with the first layer of drywall and all of the insulation removed, according to court documents.

Police determined that several small holes had been cut into the remaining drywall, which police say could have allowed Hanslovan to view customers in tanning room 7, located next to his office.

According to police documents, one hole displayed a view of the area next to the tanning bed where a customer would undress or change into a bathing suit, while another hole would show straight through the tanning bed, including a view of the crotch area of any customer.

State College Police Det. Chris Weaver, who investigated the case, declined to comment because police are not involved in the pretrial conference.

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Tanfastique owner will face pretrial
Invasion of privacy case involves office 'peep holes'

By Devon Lash
Collegian Staff Writer

A local tanning salon owner accused of using "peep holes" in his office wall to view customers in an adjacent tanning room will appear in Centre County court today for his pretrial conference.

Ron Hanslovan, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, formerly at 159 S. Garner St., was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime after a police investigation revealed "peep holes" in his office. According to court documents, the holes, which looked into a changing area and tanning bed in room 7, showed where customers undressed and provided a view of of the tanning bed that would show a customers' crotch.

Hanslovan, 44, was originally scheduled for a pretrial conference on July 19, but a continuance was granted so the court could consider a motion that there was insignificant evidence for trial. It was filed on June 10.

According to the petition, the commonwealth failed to prove "the defendant actually viewed another person without that person's knowledge and consent" and that "the defendant was in a location where he could view anyone."

Judge Thomas Kistler, who reviewed the motion, denied it on Aug. 30, a representative from his office said.

Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said Hanslovan can ask for a jury trial or plead guilty to the charges, but said he couldn't predict what would happen.

The pretrial conference will take place at 8:30 a.m. today in the Centre County Courthouse, Bellefonte.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Owner of salon makes no plea


By Halle Stockton
Collegian Staff Writer

Although a pretrial conference was scheduled yesterday in the case of a local tanning salon owner accused of spying on customers, no plea was entered in the case, and the hearing, according to the prosecutor, never happened.

Centre County District Attorney Nathan Boob said there was no action yesterday in the case of Ron Hanslovan, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, formerly located at 159 S. Garner St.

However, Boob said jury selection in the case will take place Oct. 3.

"Hanslovan has to act by that point," he said.

Boob said he was unsure why the pretrial conference didn't happen, but he added that it is not completely out of the ordinary. "You would have to ask his attorney [why]," Boob said. "I don't know if they were there or not, but there was no action with it ... it was not called to pretrial and doesn't look like there was any plea."

Hanslovan's lawyer, Roy Lisko, declined to comment on the case yesterday.

"I'm not paid to be a blabbermouth for my client," Lisko said. "I make it a rule not to discuss my cases."

Further calls to Lisko's office for comment on the pretrial conference were not returned yesterday.

Boob said a trial date would be announced at the Oct. 3 jury selection. A trial could take place as soon as October or as late as December.

Hanslovan, 44, was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime after a police investigation revealed "peep holes" in his office. According to court documents, the holes, which looked into a changing area and tanning bed in room 7, adjacent to Hanslovan's office, showed where customers undressed and provided a view of the tanning bed that would show a customer's crotch area.

Hanslovan's pretrial conference was initially scheduled for July 19, but a continuance was granted to give the court time to evaluate a motion filed June 10, which said there was insufficient evidence to send the case to trial.

The motion stated that the commonwealth had failed in several ways to prove that Hanslovan actually viewed customers without their "knowledge or consent" and while "in a state of full or partial nudity," or that he had actually made the holes and used them himself.

According to court documents, Judge Thomas Kistler denied the motion Aug. 30, ruling that the court had "a substantial body of circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to the crimes alleged."


Source

[Brian Oshman]

Nathan Boob

Teheehee

[Ziti]

LOL Brian.

Curious, as you travel from salon to salon doing work, how many of these slimballs have you crossed?

[Editor-in-Chief]

Jury selection delayed for salon case
The case was postponed to allow the judge to decide whether to suppress some of the prosecution's evidence.

By Halle Stockton
Collegian Staff Writer

Jury selection in the case of a local tanning salon owner accused of spying on customers was postponed yesterday to allow a Centre County judge to decide whether to suppress some of the prosecution's evidence.

Defense attorney Roy Lisko filed a motion Friday to suppress evidence but was unavailable for comment by press time yesterday.

The motion's specifics will be available once it has been processed by the Centre County Courthouse clerk's office, which usually takes about two days.

Ronald Hanslovan, 44, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, formerly located at 159 S. Garner St., was charged March 24 with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime after a police investigation revealed "peep holes" in his office.

According to court documents, the holes, which looked into a changing area and tanning bed in room 7, which was adjacent to Hanslovan's office, showed where customers undressed and provided a view of the tanning bed, whichwould show the customer's crotch area.

Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said Lisko's motion would have to be addressed before Judge Thomas Kistler can set a trial date, which is why the continuance was granted and why the jury selection was postponed.

"[A motion for suppression] has to do with trying to get some evidence held back from the trial because of something they feel was done unconstitutionally," Boob said.

Hanslovan's pretrial conference was initially scheduled for July 19.

However, a continuance was granted to give the court time to evaluate a motion filed June 10, which argued that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to trial.

According to court documents, Kistler denied that motion Aug. 30 and sent the case to trial.

A pretrial conference was then scheduled for Sept. 15, but that never took place.

Boob said that this was not out of the ordinary.

A pretrial conference in the case is now scheduled for Nov. 15.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Searches questioned in tanning salon case


By Erin L. Nissley

enissley@centredaily.com


BELLEFONTE -- A defense attorney for a businessman accused of spying on women as they tanned at his salon is asking a judge to throw out evidence obtained with two search warrants because, he said, police did not follow proper procedure in applying for them.

Ronald A. Hanslovan, 45, owned Tanfastique, a salon that was located on Garner Street until the building it was in closed earlier this year.

Hanslovan was charged with criminal attempted invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of a crime after women came forward and said there were holes in the wall of one of the tanning booths.

Hanslovan appeared in court Tuesday with his lawyer, Roy Lisko, for a suppression hearing regarding the search warrants.

Using warrants, one obtained in February and one in March, police seized a computer from the business and examined the wall between Tanfastique's office and a tanning booth. According to court records, officers found holes in the wall and a bulletin board on hinges that covered the holes on the office side.

Police say someone standing in the office could peer through the holes and see into the tanning booth, allowing the viewer to look at tanners naked or partially naked. Police took photos of the wall and the bulletin board.

Lisko argued that the warrants contained misleading statements from at least one of the witnesses, who said she found the spy holes and "never went back" to the salon. But at a preliminary hearing in March, the woman said she had gone back.

"She'd been there 28 times since then," Lisko said. "Several times to the same booth."

State College police Detective Ralph Ralston, the lead investigator in the case, said he was unsure how many times the woman had gone back.

Lisko also argued that police had taken the hard drive from the computer seized from Tanfastique and copied it before they had obtained the warrant allowing police to look at the files on the computer. State College police Detective Bill Wagner said at Tuesday's hearing he only copied the hard drive and did not look at any files until after the search warrant was obtained in early March allowing police to do so.

Lisko also argued that the search warrants were obtained based on statements from several women that police did not try to corroborate.

"A person has an expectation of privacy," he said. "An affidavit on a search warrant can't be based on misleading or incorrect information ... nothing in this shows the reliability of informants."

Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said that even if one of the women misspoke when she said she'd never returned, it had little to do with the evidence of the case. And he said that police did not need to obtain a second warrant to look at the computer files because the first warrant mentioned the computer as an item of interest.

"There was nothing wrong with the procedure," he said.

The lawyers were ordered to file briefs outlining their arguments.

Staff writer Erin L. Nissley can be reached at 231-4616.

Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

[ Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005 ]



Salon owner to go to trial

Ron Hanslovan decided to go to trial. The date will be set at jury selection on Dec. 5.

By Halle Stockton
Collegian Staff Writer
A local tanning salon owner accused of spying on customers will go to trial, but the date has not yet been set.

Ron Hanslovan, 44, decided at his pretrial conference Tuesday to go to trial, Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said. Hanslovan's trial date will not be set until jury selection on Dec. 5, he said.

Hanslovan's lawyer, Roy Lisko, was unavailable for comment by press time.

Hanslovan was charged with invasion of privacy and possessing instruments of crime on March 24. The instruments of crime refer to "peep holes," discovered in Hanslovan's office, which provided a view of customers undressing in a changing area and a tanning bed in room 7.

Hanslovan, owner of the Tanfastique Tanning Salon, formerly at 159 S. Garner St., was granted a continuance to give the court time to evaluate a motion filed by his defense lawyer, which claimed there was insufficient evidence to send the case to trial.

Hanslovan's initial pretrial conference, which was scheduled for July 19, was delayed because of the motion. According to court documents, Judge Thomas Kistler denied the motion Aug. 30 and sent the case to trial. Hanslovan's pretrial conference was rescheduled for Sept. 15, but for unknown reasons it never happened. Boob said this was not unusual.

Lisko filed a motion to suppress evidence Sept. 30, which challenged the constitutionality of a search warrant for Tanfastique, where the police discovered and photographed "peep holes" that they believe provided a view into areas where customers undressed. The search warrant also included the computer that Hanslovan used to schedule clients into room 7.

Kistler reviewed the motion and on Nov. 8 he gave Lisko and Boob the option to submit briefs so that he could evaluate the motion out of court. The decision is still pending.


Source

[Editor-in-Chief]

Tan salon owner receives probation


By Halle Stockton
Collegian Staff Writer

Local tanning salon owner Ronald Hanslovan, accused of spying on undressed customers, pleaded no contest yesterday to a third-degree misdemeanor charge of invasion of privacy and will be under probation for one year.

"[Hanslovan] received the maximum sentence allowable -- one year of probation --and must pay a fine of $1,000 for court costs," Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said.

Hanslovan's defense lawyer, Roy Lisko, did not return repeated phone calls to his office by press time.

A plea of no contest does not dispute a charge.

"The defendant is not admitting they did it, but is also not going to raise defense to it," Judge Thomas Kistler said. "The defendant receives the same sentence and same record as if it was a guilty plea."

Hanslovan was also charged with possession of instruments of crime, but the charge was dismissed, Boob said. The charge referred to "peep holes" in his office that provided a view of areas where customers undressed and a tanning bed in room 7, which could include a view of a customer's crotch area.

Boob added that Hanslovan will have to comply with any treatment the Centre County Probation Office deems necessary after his evaluation.

"The probation office has a gamut of different treatment options," Boob said. "Any sort of sexual offender treatment is possible ... the department will have to evaluate him."

Centre County Probation Office Director Thomas Young said that, generally, those under probation are restricted from committing new crimes and leaving the state without written permission.

Young said they must have an approved address, pay fines to the county in which they were sentenced, keep appointments with the probation officer, participate in drug and alcohol testing and abide by special conditions deemed necessary by the probation officer.

He added there is typically no restriction on whether a person under probation can run a business, but would not comment on the specifics of Hanslovan's case.

The motion to suppress evidence, filed Sept. 30 by Hanslovan's defense lawyer, Roy Lisko, was denied Friday by Kistler who deemed the claim "without merit," Boob said.

The motion was filed to challenge the constitutionality of the search warrant for Hanslovan's tanning salon, Tanfastique, formerly at 159 S. Garner St., where police discovered and photographed the "peep holes" in Hanslovan's office. Police also confiscated the business computer that Hanslovan used to schedule clients into room 7.

Source

[Ezliving_Jim]

No prior record reduces sentence

By Halle Stockton
Collegian Staff Writer

A local tanning salon owner accused of spying on undressed customers could have faced prison time for invasion of privacy; however, he was sentenced Monday to one year of probation because of a lack of serious offenses on his criminal record.

Ronald Hanslovan, 45, owner of Tanfastique Tanning Salon, formerly at 159 S. Garner St., pleaded no contest to a criminal attempt charge of invasion of privacy. A plea of no contest is not an admission of guilt, but does not dispute the charge.

Centre County Assistant District Attorney Nathan Boob said the regular sentencing for invasion of privacy depends on the sentencing guidelines for individual defendants.

Sentencing guidelines dictate, through a mathematical formula, how severely a defendant can be sentenced. Each charge filed and prior offenses on record have certain scores for the severity of the crime committed, and the higher the score, the harsher the sentence, Boob said.

"[Hanslovan] only had a prior DUI on record and that is not enough to bump his prior record score into a higher bracket," Boob said.

For Hanslovan, the maximum sentence allowable for a guilty plea or plea of no contest to invasion of privacy -- a 3rd degree misdemeanor charge -- was
one year of probation while the minimum could be any amount of time under one year, Boob said.

He added that if Hanslovan were a repeat felon, which he is not, the maximum sentence for the one count of invasion of privacy would have been six months to one year in a county prison.

Hanslovan's defense lawyer, Roy Lisko, did not to return several phone calls to his office.

Hanslovan was also charged with possession of instruments of crime -- a second-degree misdemeanor charge -- however, it was dismissed. The charge referred to "peep holes" found in Hanslovan's office, which could provide a view of areas where customers could be partially or completely nude.

Boob said the charge could warrant two years incarceration in a county or state prison if the defendant were a repeat felon of serious crimes such as rape or murder.

"Had [Hanslovan] been found guilty of the possession of instruments of crime charge, it would have just gotten him probation for maybe two years, " Boob said.

Centre County Probation Office Director Thomas Young said that even with an increase of one year of probation to two years of probation, the conditions generally do not change drastically, if at all.

Young added that the difference between probation for a 2nd degree misdemeanor and a 3rd degree misdemeanor is also marginal.

"Typically standard conditions apply across the board ... depending upon individual circumstances the conditions would be tailored to the case," Young said.

Boob said Hanslovan should still be able to run a business and possibly even another tanning salon.

"Normally, restricting someone from running a business is not a condition of probation and it was not specifically lineated in this case," Boob said. "It would be up to the probation office if they would create any special conditions, and those would have to be approved by a judge."

Young said some special conditions that apply often have to do with restricting or banning the consumption of drugs and alcohol, requiring evaluations and counseling programs, and requiring participation in sex offender or other programs.

Young said he could not talk specifics about any case that comes to the probation office.

"It would go a long way to undermine what we are doing with the person," Young said.

Boob said he thought the plea agreement -- which encompassed the sentence, the dismissed charge and the plea of no contest to invasion of privacy -- was suitable.

"In this case, it was appropriate given the fact that the sentencing guidelines would have just led to probation even with all the convictions," he said.

Source

[Ziti]

Great, slap him on the hand and turn him loose. Bet he peeps again!

[Ezliving_Jim]

Bet the civil lawsuits start now.

[solarmeter®]

Attorney Nathan Boob

How ironic.... prosecuted by a Boob.

[Editor-in-Chief]

Tanning salon owner gets fine, probation


Man pleads no contest to watching patrons undress


By Erin L. Nissley

enissley@centredaily.com



BELLEFONTE -- A tanning salon owner who police said spied on patrons as they undressed and tanned pleaded no contest to criminal attempted invasion of privacy.

Ronald A. Hanslovan, 45, entered his plea Monday and was sentenced to one year of probation and pay a $1,000 fine. A charge of possessing the instruments of a crime was dropped.

The assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, Nathan Boob, said the sentence was similar to the one Hanslovan would have faced had he gone to trial on both charges.

"(Probation) is the maximum penalty for that charge," he said. "If we'd proceeded to trial on both charges, we were looking at the same outcome."

Hanslovan was arrested in March after a patron of State College tanning salon Tanfastique talked to employees there in February. The woman said she'd found holes in a wall between the business office and tanning booth No. 7, according to court records. She worried that she was being watched while she tanned nude.

The employees went into the business office and found a bulletin board with hinges on the top. They lifted the board up and saw the holes the patron had seen, court records show.

Police interviewed the woman who had complained and also looked through computer records kept at the business. They found that the woman had tanned there more than 80 times. Hanslovan was the one who assigned her a tanning bed about 30 of those times, and assigned her to room No. 7 about five times.

At a hearing last month, Hanslovan's attorney, Roy Lisko, argued that the woman continued to patronize the business even after she had discovered the holes. He also argued that police did not follow proper procedure in obtaining the search warrants during the investigation.

A judge had yet to rule on suppression motions filed by Lisko relating to the search warrants.

Tanfastique, 159 S. Garner St., closed earlier this year because the building was being demolished to make way for an apartment building. A call to Tanfastique Wednesday yielded only a recorded message saying that the business was scheduled to reopen in a new location in early January.

Attempts to reach Hanslovan and his attorney Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Erin L. Nissley can be reached at 231-4616.

Source