Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />May 25, 2005 -- Page 5 <br /> <br /> Here, it was apparent the plain meaning of the word "building" did not <br />encompass a parking lot. A parking lot was not a structure; it had no roof, walls, <br />or any other kind of permanent, immovable features apart from a fence. <br /> Put simply, a parking lot was an open air space used to temporarily park <br />automobiles and buses. It in no way resembled a building. <br /> Consequently, under state law, the board of adjustment had no jurisdiction <br />over the parking lot because it was not a building. <br />xee also: Heilker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 552 &E. 2d 42 (2001). <br />xee also: Brown v. Flowe, 507 S.E. 2d 894 (1998). <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment-- Ordinance fails to define 'completely and opaquely <br />cover[ed]' <br />Lounge providing adult entertainment claims this makes ordinance too <br />vague to enforce <br />Citation: Vaughn v. St. Helena Parish Police Jury, U.S. District Court for the <br />Middle District of Louisiana, No. 01-772-D (2005) <br /> <br />LOUIS IANA (03/18/05) -- Vaughn owned a lounge providing live entertain- <br />ment of an erotic nature. <br /> In response to community fears, the St. Helena Parish Police Jury passed an <br />ordinance Seeking to restrict the secondary effects of nude and partially nude <br />entertainment in the area. The ordinance defined nudity as "a state of dress that <br />fails to completely and opaquely cover" the dancers' private body parts. <br /> Vaughn sued to stop the ordinance, arguing the ordinance was illegally <br />vague because it failed to define the phrase "completely and opaquely cover" <br />in its definition of what constituted illegal nudity. <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of the Parish. The ordinance was not illegally vague.. <br /> Vaughn stated he feared his determination of what were "completely cov- <br />ered'' buttocks and breasts may not be the same as that of law enforcement and <br />may subject him to arrest, prosecution, conviction, or loss of his liquor license, <br />He argued a "full b/kiN" that he has seen in public might not meet the strict <br />requirements of the ordinance. Also, one of his performers expressed concern <br />her bathing suit might Nde up during a performance and subject her to arrest. <br /> Even without a definition, the ordinance's language clearly warned people <br />regarding the limitations imposed by the statute in its definition of what consti- <br />tuted nudity, namely what parts of the.body couldn't be exposed. In other <br />cases that have failed to define the phrase "completely' and opaquely cover," <br />courts have consistently upheld the ordinance's language. <br /> Additionally, if a bikini bottom accidentally shifted positions, or a random <br />isolated wardrobe malfunction occurredl 'as long as the situation was immedi- <br />ately corrected, no resulting penalties would be imposed on either Vaughn or <br /> <br />2005 Ouinlan Publistning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />89 <br /> <br /> <br />