Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

Page $ -- July 25, 2004 purpose of maintaining the single-family character of some of its neighborhoods see ah'o: Frazier v. Ci~.. of Grand £edge, 133 F. Supp. 2d 845 (200~). see aisc: Herrada v. Ci~/ of Detroit, 275 F3d 555 (2001). Adult Business -- OrdinanCe fails to provide for expedited revmw Adult bookstore claims ordiuance violates constitutional rights Citation: Ci~ of Lirfieton v. Z.J. Girls D-4, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 02-1609 (2004) COLORADO (06/07/04) -- Z.J. Gifts D-4 opened an adult bookstore in Lktleton .ina place not zoned for adult businesses. Although Lktleton had enacted an adult business licensing ordinance, Z.J. opened its shop without applying for any adult business license. The ordinance stated an adult business license would be denied if the ap- plicant was underage; provided false information; had an adult business li- cense revoked or suspended in the prior year; operated an adult business deemed to be a public nuisance within the prior year; was not authorized to do business in the. state; did not pay taxes, fees, fines, or penalties; had not obtained a sales tax license; or was convicted of certain crimes within' the prior five years. Under the ordinance, city officials had 40 days to reach a licensing decision. Z.J. Gifts sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's dec/sion, finding the ordinance was unconstitutional because it did not provide for expedited judicial review of adult business licensing decisions. The city appealed to the United States Supreme Court. DECISION: Reversed. The ordinance was legal. Because the regulation simply conditioned the operation of an adult bush ness on compliance with neutral and nondiscretionary criteria and did not try to censor content, Z.J. Gifts was not entitled to an unusually speedy judicial review of licensing decisions. Colorado's rules provided a flexible system of review where judges could reach prompt decisions in ordinary cases, and still use their judicial power to prevent significant.harm to First Amendment interests where circumstances required. Importantly, those denied licenses in the future remained free to raise special problems of undue delay in their individual cases, and the courts had the power to arrange their schedules to accelerate certain proceedings. The ordinance's criteria were simple e.nough to apply and their application simple enough to review that it ,;vas unlikely the ordinance would totally sup- press d~e presence of any specific item of adult material in the Littleton com- munity. A supplier oF adult material should be able to find an outlet, while a bu,/er should be able to find a seller. Consequently, the ordinance did not re- sult in nndue ~ ' ue.,av or illegal censorslaip. .~'ee ~:'{s~;: Nightclub,;' h?.c. 9; P,_zduc~h, 202 :~z;~i 884 (20001. 78 ~; 200,s- ~,ulfllaf~ °Liolislllng '~m'OUD. Xnv :'eOFOdUCtIOFii S oronlblmr]. ,roi' .note ~niormauon please call ~617) 542-0048.