Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

g.g. April 10, 2003 -- Page 7 Adult Entertainment-- Adult stores required to obtain license and restrict hours Store claims it was not an adult store and law was vague ILLINOIS (02/18/03) -- Select Video was a retail store owned by Wisconsin Vendors. It sold and rented books, magazines, newspapers, videotapes, and other items. Before March 2000, Select's inventory included a mixture of sexu- ally explicit materials, although these items were determined not to be obscene. In 1998, the county enacted an ordinance that required ail "adult entertain- ment establishments" to f'fle for and obtain a license to conduct business in the county. The dispute in this case involved the definition Of adUlt entertainment es- tablishment. The statute del'reed an adult store as an establishment that had "a substantial or significant portion of its business offers for sale, rental, or view- ing any Adult Mater/als." The company attempted to avoid regulation as an aduk entertainment es- tablishment because of the restricted hours of operation and other regulations. The company met with county authorities in an attempt to fred out what amount of adult materials would trigger regulation under the "substantial or si~cant portion" phrase of the statute. County authorities visited the store to examine the inventory. Ultimately, the county determined Select Videos was an adult store. The company sued, claiming the statute was unconstitutionally vague and illegally regulated activities protected by the First Amendment. The company also al- leged the First Amendment violation was an illegal prior restraint. The com- pany also asked for a court order stopping further enforcement of the law-as written. While this suit' was~pending, the company applied for a license as an adult store. The license was granted. Both parties asked the court for judgment without a trial. DECISION: Judgment was granted for the county. The language in the statute was not impermissibly vague. Since the prior restraint argument was based on the issue of vagueness, that claim was also rejected. The court noted that the store could have pursued other remedies. It was also noted the ordinance had since been amended. Thus, the claim for a court order was moot. Citation: Wisconsin Vendors Inc. v. Lake County, Illinois, U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, E. Div., No. 99-C 8340 (2003). see also: Pleasureland Museum Inc. v. Beutter, 288 F. 3d 988 (2002). see also: Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S. Ct. 2440, 49 L. Ed. 2d 310 (1976). 317