CCP 11-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I '/7/SO . I. . adult entertainment licensing ordinance because the city had made no findings on their justification. The invalid enumerated offenses were controlled substances act . violations, bribery, robbery, kidnapping and organized criminal activity. The court- upheld requirements that the licensee not have been convicted of prostitution and sex- I related offenses. Id. at 1074. If a community seeks to require that persons with a history of other crimes be denied licenses, clear findings must first be made which I justify denial of licenses on that basis. . The Dumas court also invalidated portions of the licensing ordinance permitting the police chief to deny a license if he finds that the applicant "is unable to operate or I manage a sexually oriented business premises in a 'peaceful and law-abiding manner" or is not "presently fit to operate a sexually oriented business." Neither provision satisfied the constitutional requirement that "any license requirement for an activity I related to expression must contain narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority.. ld. at 1072. See also Alexander II, supra, slip op. at 16 . (unconstitutionally vague to define regulated bookstores as those selling "substantial or significant portion" of certain publications); 11126 Baltimore Boulevard, supra, 684 .e F. Supp. at 898-99 (striking ordinance allowing zoning officials to deny permit if adult entertainment establishment is not llin harmony" with zoning plan, does not "substantially impair" master plan, does not "adversely affect" health, safety and I welfare and is not "detrimental" to neighborhood because such standards are "subject to possible manipulation and arbitrary application"). . A number of courts have upheld ordinances requiring that viewing booths in adult I theaters be open to discourage illegal and unsanitary sexual activity. See,~, Doe v. City of Minneapolis, 693 F. Supp. 774 (D. Minn. 1988). I Licensing provisions and ordinances forbidding massage parlors employees from administering massages to persons of the opposite sex have withstood equal . protection and privacy and associational right challenges. See Clampitt v. City of Ft. Wayne, 682 F. Supp. 401,407-408 (N.D. Ind. 1988) (equal protection); Wiqqiness, Inc. I v. Fruchtman, 482 F. Supp. 681, 689.90 (S.D. N.Y. 1979), aff'd, 628 F.2d 1346 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842, 101 S.Ct. 122. However, some courts have found I same-sex massage regulations to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of .- -43- I