Undercover cop accused of paying for X-rated act at SF massage parlor claims visit was police sting
An undercover police investigation in San Francisco has become the center of a dispute after a city officer was accused of paying for a sexual act during what he says was an official sting operation at a massage business.
The incident stems from a June 2025 investigation at Richmond Serenity Spa involving San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Robert Glenn. According to a police report obtained by The California Post, Glenn was participating in an undercover effort aimed at determining whether prostitution was being conducted at the spa.
Glenn wrote in the report that he entered the business, requested a massage, and was told the service would cost $50. After being escorted to a private room, he waited for the masseuse to arrive. Glenn said he asked whether he should remove his clothing and was told to undress. He then lay face down on the massage table, covered by a blanket, while the massage began.
At some point during the session, Glenn turned onto his back. He reported that the masseuse then indicated she would perform a sexual act. According to Glenn, he asked how much the additional service would cost and offered $60 more, which she accepted.
Glenn stated that the woman briefly left the room to retrieve oil and returned before beginning the act. He said he stopped the encounter shortly after it started, handed her the remaining $50 from the original massage payment, and then left the spa.
The officer said the interaction was recorded and that photographs were taken as part of the undercover investigation.
Following the alleged incident, the San Francisco Department of Public Health issued $7,500 in administrative fines against the spa in July. The department cited the business for solicitation of prostitution and engaging in lewd conduct.
The spa’s owners, Jing Huang and Liyan Wang, are now challenging the city’s decision to revoke their massage permit for five years. Their attorney, Paul Horcher, criticized Glenn’s conduct in court filings and argued the revocation should be dismissed. Horcher questioned the officer’s actions and described the incident as inappropriate behavior during a police investigation.
The owners also argue the investigation was mishandled. According to their claims, Glenn did not detain anyone, make any arrests, identify the masseuse involved, or notify the business owners about the alleged incident. They say they only learned about the allegations about a month later, which they argue prevented them from conducting their own investigation or mounting a proper defense.
The owners requested a hearing in August to challenge the permit revocation. In November, a departmental hearing upheld the earlier ruling, concluding the spa had violated health regulations that prohibit massage practitioners from engaging in sexual acts or touching another person’s genitals or anus. As a result, the five-year license revocation remained in place.
City Attorney David Chu later urged the San Francisco Board of Appeals to uphold that decision. In a letter submitted last week, Chu wrote that the spa owners did not present testimony from the masseuse who allegedly performed the act, which could have contradicted Glenn’s account. The city also argued that the claims of police misconduct lacked supporting evidence.
City officials also noted that the spa had previously faced similar allegations. In 2021, San Francisco police raided the business when it was operating across the street from its current location.
Records from the earlier case show that hearing officer Tinnetta Thompson, who now works with the Department of Police Accountability, concluded at the time that the owners were not responsible for the violations. Court documents also indicate that Richmond Serenity Spa has appeared on several adult-service websites.
The owners continue to deny that prostitution or other illegal activity takes place at their business.
The case reached the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday. During the hearing, board members said they wanted to review the audio recording from Glenn’s investigation before making a final decision.
Board member John Trasviña said it was notable that neither the health department nor the city attorney’s office had listened to the original recording and appeared to be relying only on the written police report.
Board members also expressed concern about the accuracy of the transcript from the November hearing. Rebecca Saroyan said the document provided to them contained numerous errors and unclear sections.
Because of those issues, the board voted to delay the case so members could review the recording and obtain a more accurate transcript of the earlier hearing. The matter is expected to resume in May.
After the hearing, attorney Paul Horcher said he and his clients appreciated the board’s decision to examine the evidence carefully.
The California Post reported that it contacted the San Francisco Police Department and the spa owners’ attorney for additional comment.
About Post Author
