Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. Marcia 10, 2003 -- Page 3 <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment -- County passes ordinance prohibiting 'public <br />indecency' <br />Nude cabaret claims civil rights violations <br />MINNESOTA (01/24/03) -- After SOB Inc. opened an alCohol-free cabaret <br />featuring live nude dancing, the Benton County Board of Commissioners en- <br />acted an ordinance generally prohibiting "public indecency." Because of the <br />ordinance, dancers were forced to perform in pasties and G-strings. .. <br /> SOB sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. - <br /> SOB appealed, arguing the ordinance violated its Due Process, Equal Pro-' <br />tection, and privacy fights. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The board could enact an ordinance prohibiting "public indecency.'' <br />Sexually oriented businesses could be subjected to reasonable time, place, <br />and manner restrictions based on the nature of the products or services they <br />sold. State and local governments could use diverse zoning strategies' (for ex- <br />ample, either dispersal or concentration)to regulate adverse secondary effects <br />of such businesses such as crime, prostitution, and economic blight. <br /> A municipality could not get away with shoddy data or reasoning. Its evi- <br />dence had to fairly support the municipality's rationale for the ordinance. <br /> The ordinance stated its purpose was to "prohibit public indecency in order <br />to deter criminal activity, to promote societal order and public health, and to <br />protect children." It included express f'mdings public indecency could increase <br />criminal activity, including prostitution, disorderly conduct, and sexual assault; <br />expose children to an unhealthy and nurmreless environment; foster social dis- <br />order by disrupting the orderly operation of public events and acc°mmoda- <br />lions; and present health concerns. <br /> The municipality did not need to conduct new' studies or produce evidence <br />independent of that already generated by other cities, so long .as whatever evi- <br />dence the municipality relied on was reasonably believed to be relevant to the <br />problem addressed. <br />Citation: SOB Inc. v. County of Benton, 8th U.S. Circuit CoUrt of Appealsl <br />Nos. 01-3928 & 01-4022 (2003). <br /> <br />The 8th Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, IOwa, Minnesota, Missouri, <br />Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota: <br />see also: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002): <br />see also: City of Erie v. Pap's A.M.,. 529 U.S..277 (2000). <br /> <br />Variance -- Homeowner wants to build additional story <br /> <br />Addition will affect state landmark <br /> <br />HAWAII (01/.~4/0,~) -- Noh wanted to build an addition on h/s l~ouse. Because <br /> <br />209 <br /> <br /> <br />