Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />However, the bookstores claimed that the ordinance was actu- <br />ally passed in response to a second store opening in the county af- <br />ter 20 years of there only being one. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme <br />Court had established precedent for determining the constitutionality <br />of regulations on adult entertainment businesses, and the bookstores <br />claimed that the county did not meet these standards because the ordi- <br />nance amounted to a total ban on such businesses. <br />The court found that there were issues of material fact as to what <br />the true motivation for the ordinance was, stating: "If the commis- <br />sioners are legislating solely based on the secondary effects, then their . <br />acts may well be constitutional. If, however, they are simply attempt- <br />ing to restrict the speech of the adult bookstores, then their restric- <br />tions are subject to strict scrutiny. <br />Where an issue of material fact existed, a motion to dismiss was <br />not generally approved. The court found that "the more prudent <br />course [was] to have a trial or evidentiary hearing ... to determine <br />what the commissioners actually relied upon in passing the ordi- <br />nance." The court instructed the bookstores to specifically set out <br />each provision to which they objected and be prepared to show <br />standing to bring those claims. <br />The bookstores request for an injunction against the county-to <br />prohibit it from enforcing the ordinance-was considered moot, as the <br />ordinance could not be enacted until the court upheld its legitimacy, <br /> <br />See also: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 <br />S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed, 2d 29, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1721 (1986). <br /> <br />See also: U, S. v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673,20 L. Ed. 2d <br />672 (1968). <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />96 <br />