Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> 52( 'l)a . I <br /> I <br /> r There are no comparable constitutional issues raised by enacting or enforcement <br /> I . <br /> of forfeiture statutes based on violations of prostitution, gambling, or liquor laws. The I <br /> legislature may require sexually oriented businesses which violate these laws to forfeit- <br /> their profits. The Working Group believes that such an expansion of forfeiture laws I <br /> would give prosecutors greater leverage to control the operation of those businesses <br /> which pose the greatest danger to the community. I <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS I <br /> 1. The legislature should amend the present forfeiture statute to I <br /> include as grounds for forfeiture all felonies and gross misdemeanors <br /> pertaining to solicitation, Inducement, promotion or receiving profit from I <br /> prostitution and operation of a "disorderly house." <br /> 2. The legislature should consider the potential for a RICO-like I <br /> statute with an obscenity predicate. <br /> e. <br /> 8. NUISANCE INJUNCTIONS I <br /> Minnesota law enforcement authorities may obtain an injunction and close down <br /> operations when a facility constitutes a public nuisance. A public nuisance exists when I <br /> a business repeatedly violates laws pertaining to prostitution, gambling or keeping a <br /> "disorderly house." The Minnesota public nuisance law penmits a court to order a I <br /> building to be closed for one year. Minn. Stat. H 617.80-.87 (1988). <br /> Nuisance injunctions to close down sexually oriented businesses which repeatedly . <br /> violate laws pertaining to prosecution, gambling or disorderly conduct are potentially . <br /> powerful regulatory devices. The fact that a building in which prosecution or other <br /> offenses occur houses a sexually oriented business does not shield the facility from <br /> application of nuisance law based on such offenses. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 I <br /> U.S. 697, 106 S. Ct. 3172 (1986) (First Amendment does not shield adult bookstore <br /> I <br /> -28- ~I <br /> I <br /> . - <br />