Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

Page 2 -- December 24, 2004 g,B, AdultEntertainment-- Ordinance applies to any commercial establishment serving alcohol Business owner claims ordinance-unconstitutionally broad 'Citation: Kraimer v. City of Schofield, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 03-C-0473-C (2004) WISC©NSI2~ (1.0/28/04) -- The City of Schofield enacted an ordinance that prohibited certain acts ~ any commercial establishment that sold alcohol. The prohibited acts centered around the showing of sexual acts or genitalia in graphic representations, such as pictures or film. Kraimer owned an adult business covered by the ordinance. Kraimer sued, ara, umw, the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and applied to conduct the city could not legitimately regulate out of concern for harmful secondary effects. DECISION: Decision in favor of Kraimer, The ordinance was overbroad. It made no exceptions for live performances with serious artistic, social, or political value, or for ex_hibitions of serious films or art works. The court determined the ordinance included activities and establishments that could not plausibly be believed to cause negative secondary effects, such as graphic representations of prohibited body parts produced with serious artistic or educational Lntent or live performances of artistic or social merit. As written, the ordinance applied too broadly to a range of establishments, and it prohibited performances that occurred intYequently. The court concluded the ordinance was flawed because it was confined to "sexually-oriented businesses" and did not apply only to businesses that "regu- laxly feature" sexually-oriented entertainment, For example, o_n its face, the ordinance would apply to a meeting of pediatri- cians at a local motel conference room attending a presentation on recognizing the signs of child abuse if alcohol was served in the motet"s bar. It would also apply to serv/ng wine at the opening of an art exhibit, if nude people were the subject of any sculpture or painting. Facilities that did not regularly feature sexually-oriented entertainment would not want to put their liquor licenses at risk by allowing activities or images on their premises that might be covered by the ordinance. Instead, these establishments would be impelled to act as a government censor to protect themselves. Ultimately, such an ordinance was unconstitutional. see also: Blue Canary, v. Ci~ of ,,Plilwauk~e, 270 F, 3d 1]56 (2001). see also: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books Inc., 535 U.S. 425, .122 S, Cr. 1728, 152 L. Ed. 2d 670 (2002). 2004 Qumlan Pu~lisnm§ (group. Any reproducnon ~s pronrb~ted. For more ~mormanon please call i6i7) 542-0048. 88