Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1998 -- Page 3 to ensure wireless networks were interference-free and had procedures to resolve interference issues. If a carrier created interference, the FCC had a wide range of remedial options, ranging from fines to forced shutdowns. The county had to follow the FCC's procedures if it believed a permit holder was interfering with public safety communications. If local zoning authorities could adopt interference regulations, licensees would be subject to conflicting legal obligations -- and the FCC's compliance divisions would be powerless. see also: Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, ]20 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). Free Speech 'Adult store claims licensing ordinance violates First Amendment Citation: Baby Tam & Co. Inc. v. city of Las Vegas, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 98-15004 (1998) The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Baby Tam Co. Inc. sold sexual novelties, adult videos, general videos, T-shirts, and gag gifts. It wanted to open an adult bookstore in Las Vegas and applied to the city for a business license. A city ordinance required all busi- nesses to get a license before opening. Baby.~Tam's proposed location was in a commercial district that didn't allow adult bookstores, which the city code defined as businesses that had at least 51 percent of their stock in books, film; magazines, and' other periodicals that emphasized or depicted "sexual conduct or specified anatomical areas." On its license application, Baby Tam stated that 30 percent of its merchandise would be adult videos. The city issued Baby Tam four consecutive temporary licenses. Before the last temporary license expired, the city audited the store to determine the exact percentage of its inventory that was adult material. The audit showed the adult inventory exceeded the 51 percent threshold, and the city ordered Baby Tam to shut down the store. .,- Baby Tam sued the city, seeking a court order preventing the city from enforcing its adult bookstore ordinance. According to the company, the ordi- nance was an unconstitutional "prior restraint" on free speech. A prior restraint existed when the right to make protected free speech was contingent upon the approval of government officials. A licensing scheme involving prior restraint wasn't unconstitutional, so long as it provided for "prompt judicial review" in the event an applicant was denied a license. The city ordinance provided that if the city denied a bookstore license, the applicant could seek a court order directing the city to issue a license. State law provided that the court had discretion regarding whether to hold a hearing on a request for such a court order.