Broadway Books, Inc. v. Roberts

642 F. Supp. 486
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee
DecidedJune 12, 1986
DocketCIV 1-86-194
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 642 F. Supp. 486 (Broadway Books, Inc. v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Broadway Books, Inc. v. Roberts, 642 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Tenn. 1986).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

EDGAR, District Judge.

This is an action brought by the owners of three adult bookstores in Chattanooga, *489 Tennessee for a declaratory judgment that the recently enacted City of Chattanooga Ordinance 8601 is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, and for injunctive relief. This case has been fully heard on the merits and is now ready for disposition.

Ordinance 8601 establishes a licensing procedure for “adult-oriented establishments” which are defined to include “adult bookstores”, “adult motion picture theaters”, “adult mini-motion picture theaters” and “adult cabarets.”

The plaintiffs in this case are three of approximately eleven adult-oriented establishments in the Chattanooga area which provide closed booths for patrons to watch coin-operated video machines depicting erotic sexually explicit activity. The ordinance requires licenses for operating these adult-oriented establishments. There is no question that the plaintiffs in this suit fall within the confines of this ordinance and would require a license to continue to operate. The ordinance also requires that any “entertainer” in these establishments obtain a permit. 1

License applicants must furnish specified information to the City Treasurer to obtain a license. This disclosure must also be made by partners of partnership applicants, and by officers, directors and the owners of more than five percent (5%) of the stock of corporate applicants.

In order to receive a license to operate an adult-oriented establishment, an applicant must meet the following standards which are specified in section 7 of the ordinance:

1. If the applicant is an individual:

(i) The applicant shall be at least eighteen (18) years of age and a person of good moral character and reputation in the community in which he or she resides.
(ii) The applicant shall not have been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere to a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, prostitution, obscenity or other crime of a sexual nature in any jurisdiction within five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the application.
(iii) The applicant shall have been a resident of the City of Chattanooga or its environs continuously for thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of the application.
(iv) The applicant shall not have been found to have previously violated this ordinance within five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the application.

Similar issuance standards apply to officers, directors and stockholders of corporations where the applicant is a corporation and to partners in joint venturers when the applicant takes those business forms.

The ordinance requires a payment of a $500 fee to be submitted with the application for an operator’s license. One-half of the fee is returned if the application is denied. The licenses are to be renewed upon application annually.

A key provision of the ordinance is specifically directed at the booths which are contained within these establishments. The ordinance provides in section 14(g) that:

Every adult-oriented establishment shall be physically arranged in such a manner that the entire interior portion of the booths, cubicles, rooms or stalls, wherein the adult entertainment is provided, shall be visible from the common area of the premises. Visibility shall not be blocked or obscured by doors, curtains, partitions, drapes, or any other obstruction whatsoever. It shall be unlawful to install booths, cubicles, rooms or stalls within adult-oriented establishments for whatever purpose, but especially for the purpose of secluded viewing of adult-oriented motion pictures or other types of adult entertainment.

The ordinance contains several other provisions which will be discussed below. The *490 entire ordinance is attached a£ Appendix A to this memorandum opinion*

Ordinance 8601 as a whole regulates the time, place and manner of expression. While its implementation may have some impact upon constitutionally protected first amendment activity, the Court finds that it was not enacted for the purpose of limiting speech on the basis of its content. The ordinance is not directed at future expression by businesses. See City of Paducah v. Investment Entertainment, Inc., 791 F.2d 463 (6th Cir.1986). Furthermore, the City is not prevented by the first amendment nor by the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause from classifying and regulating adult-oriented establishments differently from other places of entertainment. Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976), City of Minot v. Central Ave. News, 308 N.W.2d 851 (N.D.1981); Airport Book Store, Inc. v. Jackson, 242 Ga. 214, 248 S.E.2d 623 (1978). Therefore, Ordinance 8601 is not presumptively invalid under the first amendment. Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986); Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976); Hart Book Stores, Inc. v. Edmisten, 612 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.1979). 2

This ordinance is constitutional if it is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and does not limit alternative avenues of communication. Renton, — U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 928, 89 L.Ed.2d at 37. An even more precise formula for testing the constitutional validity of this ordinance has been provided by the Supreme Court in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968), which held that this genre of regulation is sufficiently justified:

*491 ... if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged first amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

391 U.S. at 377, 88 S.Ct. at 1679. With the exceptions noted below, this Court finds that Ordinance 8601 meets these requirements in every respect.

These adult-oriented establishments are a substantial law enforcement problem for the Chattanooga Police Department — and particularly for its vice squad. Since 1982, Chattanooga police officers have arrested numerous people at these establishments for sex-related crimes such as prostitution, selling obscene material to juveniles, indecent exposure, assignation, and solicitation to commit an unnatural sex act. There have been 112 such arrests since 1982.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County
529 F. Supp. 2d 868 (E.D. Tennessee, 2007)
Krontz v. City of San Diego
39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 535 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
State of Tennessee v. Paul Friedman
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2005
Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis
333 F. Supp. 2d 773 (S.D. Indiana, 2004)
City of Chattanooga v. Cinema 1, Inc.
150 S.W.3d 390 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2004)
City of Elko v. Abed
677 N.W.2d 455 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2004)
City of Chattanooga v. Cinema , Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2004
Dls, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga
107 F.3d 403 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Chez Sez VIII, Inc. v. Poritz
688 A.2d 119 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
State v. Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc.
937 S.W.2d 905 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1996)
Tee & Bee, Inc. v. City of West Allis
936 F. Supp. 1479 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1996)
Time Square Books, Inc. v. City of Rochester
223 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga
894 F. Supp. 1140 (E.D. Tennessee, 1995)
Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport
830 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Kentucky, 1993)
National Awareness Foundation v. Abrams
812 F. Supp. 431 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Mitchell v. COM'RS OF COM'N ON ADULT ENT. EST.
802 F. Supp. 1112 (D. Delaware, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
642 F. Supp. 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadway-books-inc-v-roberts-tned-1986.