Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

?' Z.B. April 25, 2005 ---. Page 3 Adult Entertainment -- New ordinance requires disclosure of personal information Sexually oriented business employees and operators now need sexually oriented business licenses Citation: CitY of Monroe v. WFO Corporation, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12th App. Dist., Warren County, No. CA2004-03-032 (2005) OHIO (03/14/05) ~ The city of Monroe enacted an ordinance requiring sexually oriented businesses and sexually oriented business employees within the city limits to have sexually oriented business licenses. WFO Corporation owned and operated B ristol's, a strip club featuring nude and semi-nude entertainment. To receive a sexually oriented business license, an applicant had to prove he or she had not been convicted of certain enumerated crimes. To do this, the applicant had to disclose certain personal information. The city sued WFO to halt its operations under the new ordinance. The court ruled in its favor. WFO appealed, arguing the ordinance's personal information requirement was an illegal restraint on free speech. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance's disclosure provisions were legal. The ordinance required applicants to provide their full, true names; current mailing address; and fingerprints for a background check. The disclosure pro-. visions were clearly not content-based. The city had a legitimate interest in requiring this information as a means to facilitate necessary criminal backgound checks regarding crimes of a Sexual nature. The purpose of the provision was unrelated to :the suppression of expres- sion. The collection of this information served as an important means of deter- mining whether a license could be issued in compliance with the ordinance's criminal provisions, thereby assisting the city's interest in eradicating the sec- ondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. There was no chilling effect caused by the collection of personal informa- tion. The ordinance required a minimal amount of personal information. Nota- bly, it did not even require applicants to disclose a residential address or social security number. Ultimately, the personal information provision did nothing to suppress free- dom of expression. " ~'ee also: City ofLittteton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4 LLC, 541 U.S. 774, 124 S. Ct. 2219, 159 L. Ed. 2d 84 (2004). see c~lso : Ddja Vu of Nashuille Inc. v. Me'iro Government of NashvilIe, 274 F. 3d 377 (2001). 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 115