REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES -TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY Deborah J. Fox, Fox & Sohaghi, LLP Jeffrey B. Hare, A Professional Corporation

Similar documents
CITY OF CASTLE PINES ZONING ORDINANCE. -Section Contents-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

222 F.3d 719 Page 1 28 Media L. Rep. 2281, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6226, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R (Cite as: 222 F.3d 719)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND USE INSTITUTE. 16 Annual Land Use Conference. March 7-9, 2007 University of Denver Sturm College of Law

The Role of Legislative Findings: Understanding the Purpose and Function of Legislative Findings

First Amendment - Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles

City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. The First Amendment: Wounded in the War for Freedom of Expression

No In The Supreme Court of the United States CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. and HIGHLAND BOOKS, INC., Respondents.

CHAPTER 131 AMUSEMENT LICENSES

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Case 3:17-cv MMD-VPC Document 1 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 11

CITY OF ERIE et al. v. PAP S A. M., tdba KANDYLAND. certiorari to the supreme court of pennsylvania

USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv TLS-SLC document 1 filed 07/19/18 page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 28-1, , , , AND

Case 2:17-cv MJP Document 55 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 13

WHEREAS, the Anacortes Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance in study sessions on September 26, 2012 and October 10, 2012; and

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Ordinance Regulating Adult Establishments Alamance County, North Carolina

Recent Developments in First Amendment Law: Panhandling and Solicitation Regulations

MEMORANDUM. Nancy Fletcher, President, Outdoor Advertising Association of America. To: From: Laurence H. Tribe ~~- ~- ~ ~~- Date: September 11, 2015

~ BOO 1st Edition B01. A Practical Guide to Land Use Law in Rhode Island. John M. Boehnert MCLE NEW ENGLAND. Keep raising the bar,"

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

WHEREAS, the City of Westminster, pursuant to its police power, may adopt

JUNE 1999 NRPA LAW REVIEW COUNTY DESIGNATED NON-PUBLIC FORUM FOR RESIDENTS ONLY

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Case 1:14-cv CMA Document 15 Filed 03/21/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

First Amendment: Zoning of Adult Business No Cure-All

Sexually Oriented Businesses, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court's Term: The New Prerogatives of Local Community Control

No November 30, P.2d 552

Notes on Zoning and Electronic Sweepstakes Operations. Richard Ducker

Planning and Zoning for First Amendment-Protected Land Uses. APA National Conference / May 8, 2017 New York City

AICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review

Case 2:11-cv DB Document 46 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

SUSAN COMBS, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioners,

Chapter 3 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS OR ESTABLISHMENTS Last updated March 2011

The Free Speech Revollution in Land Use Control

MARTIN COUNTY ADULT USE ORDINANCE

APPEALS OF POLICE DISCIPLINE IN CALIFORNIA. Stephanie Campos-Bui, Clinical Supervising Attorney Jacob Goldenberg, Clinical Law Student

CALIFORNIA LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS

FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA NO Fremont County No. EQCV Appeal from the Fremont County District Court The Honorable Greg W.

In the Supreme Court of the United States PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

public place provided or set apart for nudity, has been considered improper (sec Moffet ". State, 340 So.2d 1155, 1156 n,3 (Fla.

Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?

CHAPTER 111: SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES

Changes pertaining to non-conforming uses and structures are to comply with Wisconsin Act 67(2017).

The Conflict Between the First Amendment and Ordinances Regulating Adult Establishments

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Defendant : COMPLAINT. Parties and Jurisdiction

ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF HAPEVILLE, GEORGIA, CHAPTER 11, BUSINESS LICENSING AND

COUNTY ORDER: Regulating Nudity in Adult Cabarets

Wireless Facility Siting

Case 2:09-cv KJM-CKD Document 83 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 5

Dancing Around the First Amendment: Symbolic Speech after Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.

MEMORANDUM. CBJ Law Department. From: Subject: Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 Date: January 22, To:

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION OF LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY STATE OF ALASKA

Constitutional Law: Utah's Cable Decency Act: an Indecent Act

Case 2:11-cv SJO-JC Document 60 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:659

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail

JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

The Storm Arrives: The First Amendment Cases in the Supreme Court's Term

TOP 3 FOR OCTOBER 2004

The War on Sex Toys. Seton Hall. Seton Hall University. Michael Maselli

[PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LENOX BY-LAWS] Section 2: Definitions

CITY OF COKATO ORDINANCE NO.: AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF LIQUOR

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 5/16/2011, now makes the following ruling:

1 SB By Senator Williams. 4 RFD: Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development. 5 First Read: 07-FEB-17 6 PFD: 05/12/2016.

MARGARET W. ROSEQUIST

A CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS

City of Providence STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

DRAFT-5/13/08 EL PASO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT ORDER RELATING TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS

California Bar Examination

Case 2:10-cv DDP -CW Document 22 Filed 11/17/10 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:250

REGULATION OF NUDITY; REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ESTABLISHMENTS LICENSED TO SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONTENT NEUTRALITY AS A CENTRAL PROBLEM OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH: PROBLEMS IN THE SUPREME COURT S APPLICATION

Chapter XII JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DMQ DECISIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Nos. 20, 21 & 22. September Term, JACK GRESSER et ux. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Wal-Mart v. Dukes What s Next for Employment Class/Collective Actions

Late Breaking Report From The Medical Marijuana Committee PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION

2000 Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Constitutional Law

THE IMPACT OF FLORIDA STATUTE ON LOCAL REGULATION OF NUDE DANCING FACILITIES.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Chapter 13 TOWN OF SKOWHEGAN SPECIAL AMUSEMENT ORDINANCE Adopted Annual Town Meeting March 8, 1999 Amended Special Town Meeting August 10, 2004

TOWN OF SOUTH HADLEY LICENSING AUTHORITY ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC On Discretionary Review From the District Court of Appeal First District of Florida

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No

Nos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

Local Regulation of Billboards:

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CHAPTER 11 ALCOHOL BEVERAGES

g. Child or Children: means any person of less than sixteen (16) years of age.

Detroit v Comcast, Cell Tower Zoning and Metro Act Update

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Transcription:

City Attorneys Department Spring Conference League of California Cities May 3-5, 2000 Jeffrey B. Hare Attorney at Law San Jose Deborah J. Fox Fox & Sohagi Los Angeles REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES -TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY Deborah J. Fox, Fox & Sohaghi, LLP Jeffrey B. Hare, A Professional Corporation I. OVERVIEW A. ADULT BUSINESSES ARE A UNIQUE FORM OF LAND USE 1. May be regulated pursuant to City's Police Power authority 2. Expressive conduct within "outer ambit" of 1st Amendment protection a. City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. (aka "Kandyland") (2000) 529 U.S. - (2000 Daily Journal DAR 3255) b. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 560 3. Reasonable Time, Place and Manner restrictions permitted B. ORDINANCES SUBJECT TO O'BRIEN ANALYSIS IF CONTENT NEUTRAL 1. United States v. O'Brien (1968) 391 U.S. 367: Four part test. 2. Is ordinance aimed at reducing secondary effects or suppressing speech? 3. Cities may continue to rely on evidence from other jurisdictions and case law that it reasonably believes is relevant to the community. C. NINTH CIRCUIT SCRUTINY OF PROCEDURAL AND NEXUS ISSUES 1. Procedural due process - prior restraint (Baby Tam I and Baby Tam II) 2. Adequacy of findings to support regulation (Alameda Books) 3. Adequacy of alternative sites (Lim v. Long Beach; Diamond v. Taft) II. CURRENT TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS A. MEGA-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY IS BIG BUSINESS I 1. Adult entertainment interests are organizing politically. 2. Intensive lobbying efforts; sponsoring legislation. 3. Employee efforts to organize for recognition and benefits 4. Franchise operations ("Gentlemen's Clubs") replacing smaller clubs 5. Industry seeking mainstream acceptance. B. "KANDYLAND" DECISION 1. Content-neutral ordinance upheld under intermediate O'Brien scrutiny 2. Regulation aimed at reducing secondary effects, not suppressing speech 3 Requirement of pasties and "G"-string only a de minimis restriction 4. Reaffirms rule that cities can rely on evidence from other cities a. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) 475 U.S. 41 b. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976) 427 U.S. 50 5. Reaffirms holding in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) 501 U.S. 560

III. BACKGROUND A. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ADULT BUSINESSES 1. Cities may enact content-neutral ordinances imposing reasonable a. Time b. Place, and c. Manner restrictions. d. Codified: (1) Gov't Code 65850.4 (2) Penal Code 318.5, 318.6 2. If content-neutral, ordinance subject to four-part O'Brien analysis: a. Government authority to regulate: police power. b. Does regulation further a government interest. c. Is government interest unrelated to suppression. d. Is restriction no greater than essential to the furtherance of the government interest. 3. Regulation of expression aimed at controlling adverse secondary effects a. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 U.S. 41 (1986) b. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976) 427 U.S. 50. 4. Must be narrowly tailored to serve legitimate government interests a. Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781 b. Colacurcio v. City of Kent, (9th Cir. 1998) 5. And must provide reasonable alternative channels of communication a. City of National City v. Wiener, 3 Cal. 4th 832 (1992) b. Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of L.A., 989 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir 1993) c. Internet as an alternative avenue. 6. Remember, cities can regulate, but not ban protected expressive conduct. a. Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, (1981) 452 U.S. 61 b. Courts will scrutinize overzealous zoning restrictions. Gammoh v. City of Anaheim (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 186. B. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE "MANNER" OR OPERATION OF BUSINESS 1. Cities can impose reasonable operational conditions a. No touching; no direct tipping; management supervision Hang-On v. City of Arlington 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir 1995) Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County 793 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir 1986) Spokane Arcade v. City of Spokane 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996) Colacurcio v. City of Kent (9th Cir 1998) b. Licensing requirements FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, (1990) 493 U.S. 215 2. Cities can restrict total nudity (Pasties and a G-string) a. City of Erie v. Paps A. M. (Kandyland) b. Tily B., Inc. v. Newport Beach 69 Cal.App.4th 1 (1998) 3. Cities can regulate live entertainment whether or not alcohol served. a. Penal Code 318.5, 318.6 (AB 726). b. 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996) 517 U.S. 484 4. And "theater exemption" no longer required (unless grandfathered) a. Penal Code 318.5, 318.6 5. But cities cannot "criminalize" sexual conduct a. In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99 b. People v. Janini (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 347 (Depublished)

IV. CURRENT ISSUES A. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (BABY TAM I AND BABY TAM II) 1. Baby Tam and Co. v. City of Las Vegas 154 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1998) a. All First Amendment activities subject to "prior restraint" scrutiny b. Requires "expedited judicial review" c. Code of Civil Procedure 1094.8 -Ordinance optional 2. Baby Tam and Co. v. City of Las Vegas 199 F.3d 111 (9th Cir. 1999) a. Discretionary conditions precedent operate as prior restraint b. Practice tip: Make all discretionary conditions subsequent B. IMPORTANCE OF FINDINGS 1. Adult business industry is challenging "old" studies a. Court will scrutinize nexus of findings and application b. Gammoh v. City of Anaheim 73 Cal.App.4th 186 (1999) c. Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles (pending). C. PENDING DECISIONS: 1. Lim v. City of Long Beach (9th Cir. -argued Feb 8, 2000) Amortization; burden re: reasonable range of alternative sites; Analyzing reasonableness of sites for existing users. 2. Diamond v. City of Taft (9th Cir. -argued Feb 8, 2000) Reasonableness of alternative sites for new adult businesses. 3. Alameda Books, Inc., v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. -Feb 8, 2000). Do findings justify zoning restrictions. V. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. ADOPT NEW OR UPDATE EXISTING ORDINANCE 1. Consider revised "Model" in your packet 2. Modify and adapt to local conditions B. DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO "THEATER EXEMPTION" 1. No longer required per AB 726 (Penal Code 318.5, 318.6) C. BABY TAM AMENDMENTS 1. Provide for expedited judicial review (CCP 1 094.8) (Baby Tam I) a. Separate ordinance provisions are optional, but recommended. b. Include all First Amendment protected activities (parades, permits) 2. Eliminate discretionary conditions precedent (Baby Tam II). D. DELETE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS RE: SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. E. IDENTIFY AND DOCUMENT EVIDENCE OF "SECONDARY EFFECTS." F. CAREFULLY EVALUATE NUMBER OF ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE SITES. VI. PRACTICE TIPS A. MODIFY AND ADAPT MODEL ORDINANCE TO LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Evaluate urbanization and regional factors in determining site availability 2. Include findings to support each regulatory component. 3. Make certain that ordinance regulates, but does not ban, adult uses. B. WATCH OUT FOR TRAPS 1. Avoid overzealous, overbroad regulations. 2. Direct regulations at secondary effects, not expressive conduct. 3. Avoid discretionary requirements that constitute "prior restraint." C. OTHER

VII. CONCLUSION A. MONITOR NINTH CIRCUIT DECISIONS. f B. MONITOR LEGISLATION. C. MONITOR LEAGUE BULLETINS. D. SUPPORT REQUESTS FOR AMICUS ASSISTANCE.

ATTACHMENT 1 GOVERNMENT CODE 65850.4 (a) The legislative body of any county or city may regulate, pursuant to a content neutral ordinance, the time, place, and manner of operation of sexually oriented businesses, when the ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest, does no unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication, and is based on narrow, objective, and definite standards. The legislative body is entitled to rely on the experiences of other counties and cities and on the findings of court cases in establishing the reasonableness of the ordinance and its relevance to the specific problems it addresses, including the harmful secondary effects that the business may have on the community and its proximity to churches, schools, residences, establishments dispensing alcohol, and other sexually oriented businesses. (b) For purposes of this section, a sexually oriented business is one whose primary purpose is the sale or display of matter that, because of its sexually explicit nature, may, pursuant to state law or local regulatory authority, be offered only to persons over the age of 18 years. (c) This section shall not be construed to preempt the legislative body of any city or county from regulating a sexually oriented business or similar establishment in the manner and to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature to authorize the legislative body of any city or county to enter into a legally sanctioned and appropriate cooperative agreement, consortium, or joint powers authority with other adjacent cities or counties regarding regulation of established negative secondary effects of adult or sexually oriented businesses if the actions taken by the legislative body are consistent with this section. (e) The Legislature finds and declares that in order to encourage the legislative body of a city or county in regulating adult or sexually oriented businesses or similar businesses under this section, the legislative body may consider any harmful secondary effects such a business may have on adjacent cities and counties and its proximity to churches, schools, residents, and other businesses located in adjacent cities or counties.

ATTACHMENT 2 PENAL CODE 318.5. (a) Nothing in this code shall invalidate an ordinance of, or be construed to prohibit the adoption of an ordinance by, a county or city, if that ordinance directly regulates the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any person, or the breasts of any female person, who acts as a waiter, waitress, or entertainer, whether or not the owner of the establishment in which the activity is performed employs or pays any compensation to that person to perform the activity, in an adult or sexually oriented business. For purposes of this section, an "adult or sexually oriented business" includes any establishment that regularly features live performances which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any person, or the breasts of any female person, or specified sexual activities that involve the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any person, or the breasts of any female person. (b) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to any adult or sexually oriented business, as defined herein, that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, or by action of a local body such as issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license or permit allowing the business to operate on or before July 1, 1998, as, a theater, concert hall, or similar establishment primarily devoted to theatrical performances for purposes of this section. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Quimby-Walsh Act." 318.6. (a) Nothing in this code shall invalidate an ordinance of, or be construed to prohibit the adoption of an ordinance by, a city or county, if that ordinance relates to any live acts, demonstrations, or exhibitions occurring within adult or sexually oriented businesses and involve the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any participant, or the breasts of any female participant, and if that ordinance prohibits an act or acts which are not expressly authorized or prohibited by this code. (b) For purposes of this section, an "adult or sexually oriented business" includes any establishment that regularly features live performances which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any person, or the breasts of any female person, or sexual activities that involve the exposure of the genitals or buttocks of any person, or the breasts of any female person. (c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to any adult or sexually oriented business, as defined herein, that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, or by action of a local body such as issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license or permit allowing the business to operate on or before July 1, 1998, as, a theater, concert hall, or similar establishment primarily devoted to theatrical performances for purposes of this section. (d) This section shall not be construed to preempt the legislative body of any city or county from regulating an adult or sexually oriented business or similar establishment, in the manner and to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.