City Of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books

535 U.S. 425 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

After a comprehensive study of adult establishments Los Angeles concluded that concentrations of adult businesses are associated with higher rates of prostitution, robbery, assaults, and thefts in surrounding communities. The city then enacted an ordinance prohibiting the establishment, substantial enlargement, or transfer of ownership of an adult arcade, bookstore, cabaret, motel, theater, or massage parlor or a place for sexual encounters within 1,000 feet of another such enterprise or within 500 feet of any religious institution, school, or public park. The amended ordinance defines an 'Adult Entertainment Business' as an adult arcade, bookstore, cabaret, motel, theater, or massage parlor or a place for sexual encounters, and notes that each of these enterprises 'shall constitute a separate adult entertainment business even if operated in conjunction with another adult entertainment business at the same establishment.' Alameda Books, Inc., and Highland Books, Inc., (Ps) are two adult establishments operating in Los Angeles. Neither is located within 1,000 feet of another adult establishment or 500 feet of any religious institution, public park, or school. Each establishment occupies less than 3,000 square feet. Both Ps rent and sell sexually oriented products, including videocassettes. Both provide booths where patrons can view videocassettes for a fee. Although Ps are located in different buildings, each operates its retail sales and rental operations in the same commercial space in which its video booths are located. There are no physical distinctions between the different operations within each establishment, and each establishment has only one entrance. Ps filed a suit alleging that §12.70(C) violates the First Amendment and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court found that the prohibition was a content-based regulation of speech that failed strict scrutiny. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed holding that, even if §12.70(C) were a content-neutral regulation, Los Angeles (D) failed to demonstrate that the prohibition was designed to serve a substantial government interest. D failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate a link between multiple-use adult establishments and negative secondary effects. The prohibition on such establishments was invalid under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.