Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 20 ARIZONA (09/07/12)— This case involved the "intersection of mu- nicipal zoning regulations and the right of tattoo artists to ply their trade." This case addressed the issue of whether, in Arizona, tattooing is a constitutionally protected expression that is entitled to full First Amendment (to the United States Constitution) and Arizona Constitu- tion protection and can be regulated only through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Background/Facts: Ryan and Laetitia Coleman (the "Cole - mans") sought to operate a tattoo parlor in the City of Mesa, Arizona (the "City"). Under the City's zoning code, tattoo parlors and other specified businesses (including pawn shops and body piercing salons) were required to obtain a Council Use Permit ("CUP") in order to oper- ate in the City. Under the zoning code, a CUP was a "discretionary au- thorization" that the City Council could issue if the City Council found the proposed use would be "compatible with surrounding uses." In July 2008, the Colemans applied for the required CUP. The City Council ultimately denied the CUP. In its denial, the City Council cited concerns that the proposed use was "not appropriate for the location or in the best interest of the neighborhood." The Colemans sued the City and various city officials (collectively, the "City"). Among other things, the Colemans alleged that the City's denial of the CUP violated their rights to free speech under the federal and Arizona Constitutions. The Colemans maintained that because tat- tooing was "pure speech" protected under the First Amendment and Arizona Constitution, it could only be regulated by a "reasonable time, place, and manner regulation." They argued that the CUP was not such a regulation, and therefore their free speech rights were being violated. The City asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. It argued that the Colemans failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The superior court agreed and granted the motion. The Colemans appealed; the court of appeals reversed. It held that tattooing was "pure speech entitled to the highest level of protection" by the First Amendment and Article 2, § 67 of Arizona's Constitution. The court of appeals further concluded that the Colemans had "suf- ficiently alleged claims for violations of their free speech . . .." The City petitioned for review. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals vacated; judgment of superior court reversed and remanded. As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court ruled on the issue), the Supreme Court of Arizona, agreeing with the Colemans and the court of appeals, held that, in Arizona, tattooing is a constitu- tionally protected expression that is entitled to full First Amendment protection. The court also held that the process of tattooing is expres- ©2012 Thomson Reuters 3