### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50960

M IC H A E L K L E IN M A N ; S C O T T W A D E ; J O H N F U R L YT R AV IS , P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. CI T YOF S AN M AR CO S D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. E D ITH H
. JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e: T h i s ap p ea lcon cern s w h eth er a j u n k ed -v e h ic l e ord i n a n ce d esign ed to el i m i n ate eyesore s an d p rom ot e pu bl i c or der, S AN M AR COS , T EX ., C ODE OF O RDINANCES § 3 4
. 1 9 6 ( a ) , c a n b e a p p l i e d t o a wr e c ke d Ol d s m o b i l e 8 8 t hathas be e n pu tt o us e a s a c ac t us pl ant e r , c o l o r f ul l y pa i n t ed, a n d ado r ne d wi t h t he
w or ds “ m ake love n ot w ar . ” App el l ant s c ont end t hatt he c ari s an expr es sive ar t w o r k a nd t hat i nt e r fe r e nc e w i t h t hi s di s pl ay vi o l at e s t he i r r i ght s und e rt he Fi r s t Am e n d m e n t a n d t h e Vi s u a l Ar t i s t s Ri g h t Ac t (VARA)
. 1 7 U
. S. C. § 1 66 A( a) ( 3)
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d b o t h c l ai m s , the n wentf ur t he ra nd
or der ed t he o w nert o c om pl y w i t h a r em ovalor derof t he San M ar c os m uni c i pal

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 10, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

Judge Haynesconcur s in the jud gment only. * 2 cou rt. W e a l so reject A p p ell a n ts’con sti tu ti on a lan d statu torycl a i m s bu t va ca te t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s at t em pt t o enfor ce t h e m u n i ci pa lcourtorder. * I . B A CK GRO UND A ppel l antM i c haelK l ei nm an ope r at es Pl anetKst or es t hro ughout t he San A n to n io a n d A u s tin a r e a s . P la n e t Ks to r e s a r e fu n k ye s ta b lis h m e n ts th a t s e ll
n ovel t y i t em s and gi f t s. K l ei n m an ha s a t ra d iti o n of cel ebrati n g n ew st ore o pe ni ngs w i t h a “ c arb as h, ” a c har i t y e ve nta tw hi c h t h e p ubl i c pa ys f o rt he pri vi l ege of sl edg eh am m eri n g a car t o “ a sm ash ed w reck. ” Th e w recks are t h en f i l l ed w i t h di rt , pl an t ed w i t h vegetat i on , an d pai n t ed. Placed outsi de each st ore, t h e “ pl an t ers” ser ve as un i qu e adv ert i si n g dev i ces. A n O l dsm obi l e 88 car- pl an t e r w as cr eated up on t h e open i n g of a new P l an etKstor e in S an M arcos, T exas. K l ei n m an arrang ed to h ave the sm ash ed
c arpl ant ed w i t h a var i et y of nat i ve c ac t iand pai nt ed w i t h sc enes of l i fe i n San M a r c o s . P ositi on ed i n f ron t of the store, th e d i sti n ctive plan ter i s visib l e to
m o t o r i s t s t r av e l i ng no r t h o n I nt e r s t at e 3 5. Kl e i nm an di d no tdi c t at e t he c o nt e nt
o f t he i l l us t r a t i o ns , b ut he r e q ue s t e d t ha t t he p hr a s e “ m a ke l o v e no tw ar ” be in c o r p ora ted i n to the de sign
. T w o local arti sts, S cott W a d e a n d Jo h n F u r ly Tr av i s , w e r e c o m m i s s i o ne d t o pa i ntt he w r e c k. At t r i al , T r av i s t e s t i f i e d t hathe h a d n o p a r tic u la rm e s s a g e in m in d w h e n h e p a in te d th e ca r , “ju s t h a p p in e s s .” H e i n t en ded hi s i m ages t o convey t h e i dea t h at “ you coul d t ak e a j u n ked veh i cl e, j u n k can va s, an d crea te som eth i n g b ea u ti ful ou t of i t. ” W a d e so u gh t t o t r ans f o r m “ a l ar ge g as - guz z l i ng ve hi c l e ” i nt o “ s o m e t hi ng t hat ’ s m o r e r e s pe c t f ul
o f t he pl ane ta nd s o m e t hi ng t hatnur t ur e s l i fe a s o ppo s e d t o de s t r o ys i t
. ” W ad e expl ai ne d t hathi s i nt e ntw as t o de s c r ibe Am e r i c an c arc ul t ur e a nd t he l i nk b e tw e e n g a s o lin e a n d th e w a rin Ir a q . Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

A j unkedvehicle canbebrought into compliance if th e “vehicle or vehicle part is 1 complet elyenclosedwithin a buildin g and is not visib le from th e stre et or other private or public property” or if th e “vehicle is co mpletely covered bya heavyduty, contour-fittin g cover so th at no part of the vehicle except the tires is expo sed topublic view and it is th e o nlyone on the property,” S A N MA R C OS , T EX ., C O D E OF O RDI NANCE S § 3 4 .1 9 7 (a)( 1 ), (a)(4). 3 O n severalo c c as i o ns dur i ng an d aft er t h e conversi on of t h e sm ash ed w reck i n t o a car- pl an t er, t h e C i t y of Sa n M arcos t i cketed P l an etKan d va ri ou s Planet Kem pl oyees un der an ordi n an ce ban n i n g j u n ked veh i cl es. Th e ordi n an ce decl ar e s jun ked veh i cl es t o be a pu bl i c nu i san ce and prohibi t s c i t i zens f rom pl ac i ng or keepi ng j unk ed vehi c l es on t hei rpr ope r t y. S AN M AR COS , T EX ., C ODE OF O RDINANCES §§ 34. 194 , 34. 196 ( a)
. T h e ordi n an ce defi n es a “j u n ked veh i cl e”
a s fo llo w s : Ju n kedvehi cle m ean s a vehic l e t h at i s s e lf p ropel l ed, i n operab l e, a n d : ( 1) D oes not h ave l aw f u l l y af f i xed to it b o t h an un exp i red l i cense p la te a n d a v a lid m o to rv e h ic le s a fe ty in s p e c tio n ce r tific a te ; ( 2) I s w recked, di sm an t l ed, parti al l y di sm an t l ed, or di scarded; or (3 ) H a s re m a in e d in o p e r a b le fo rm o r e th a n 4 5 co n s e c u tiv e d a y s . Id
. § 34. 191. K l e i nm an c o nt e s t e d t he t i c ke t s and r e que s t e d a he ar i ng t o de t e r m i ne w het hert he c ar - pl ant er fal l s w i t hi n t hat def i ni t i on. Th e San M ar c os m uni c i pal
cou rt f ou n d tha t i t did a n d ord ere d the car-p l a n ter r em ov ed or b rou gh t i n to
com pl i an ce by conceal m en tbeh i n d a fen ce or i n a n en cl osure. K l ei n m an t h en 1 b rou gh t su it for i nj u n ctive reli ef i n state cou rt. T h e C i ty rem ov ed the cas e to fe d e r a ld i s t r i c tc o u r t
. W a d e a n d T r a v i s j o i n e d t h e s u i tt o a s s e r tt h e i rc l a i ms u n d e rVA R A
. F ol l ow i n g a ben ch t ri al , the di st ri ctcou rtd et erm i n ed t h at t h e app l i cat i on of t h e j u n k e d-c ar ordi n an ce t o t h e car- pl an t er w ou l d n otvi ol ate t h e F i rst A m e n d m e n t a n d th a t W a d e a n d T ra v is fa il e d to s ta te a sta tu to ry cla im forre li e f. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so or dered a l lt h ree pl ai n t i f fs su asp o n te t o c o m pl y w i t h t he Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

T ex as Tran sportation Code de clares a junked vehicle vi sibl e from a public plac e tobe 2 a public nuisance and its mainte nance to b e amisdemeanor punishablebya finenot to exce ed $ 2 0 0
. T EX . TRA NSP . C O D E § 683 .071 , 072 -073 (200 7). I n addition, municipalities mayadopt proc edure s to re move j u nke d vehicle s. Id
. § 683.0 74. Anymunicipal procedures cannot apply to aj unkedvehicle (1) thatis complet elyenclose d in a buil ding in alawful manner and is not vi sibl e fro m thestreet oroth er p ublic or p rivate property; or (2) th at is l aw f ul lystore d in connectio n with the business of a vehicle deal er or j unkyard, or i s anant iqu e or speci al interest vehicle, provided that th e vehic lei s o r derly maintaine d, not ah ealth haz ard, and scre enedf

ro m th e pub lic view. Id
. § 6 8 3 .0 7 7
. 4 m u n i ci p a lcou rt o r d e r a n d brin g th e ca r-plan ter i n to com p l i a n ce w i th the C i ty Code w i t hi n t hi r t y da ys . Thi s a ppe ale ns ue d. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s a di st ri ctcourt ’ s fact u alf i n di n gs af

t er a ben ch t ri alf

or cl ear err or and i t s l egal concl u si on s de no vo . W ate r C raf

tM gm t
. L L Cv. Merc u ry Ma r in e , 457 F
. 3d 484 , 488 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. C l ear err or exi st s: i f ( 1 ) t h e f i n d i n g s a r e wi t h o u ts u b s t a n t i a le v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tt h e m, ( 2) t he c o ur tm i s ap pr e he nde d t he e f fe c t o f t he e vi de nc e , a nd ( 3) al t hough t her e i s evi denc e, w hi c h i f c r edibl e w oul d be sub st an t i al , t h e f

orce an d e ffec t of

t h e t est i m on y, consi dered a s a w ho l e , c o nvi nc e s t he c o ur tt hat th e f i ndi ngs a r e s o a ga i ns tt he prepon deran ce of

cr edi bl e t est i m o n y th at t h ey do n otref l ector r e p r e s e n t t h e tr u th a n d rig h t o f th e ca s e . Id
. R eversalf

or cl ear error i s w arran t ed onl y i f t h e court h as a defi n i t e an d f i rm c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n co m m itt e d
. Id
. I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A. Fi r s t Am e ndm e nt A pp el l an t s’pri n ci pa lcontenti on i s si m pl e: “vi sua l art ” i s f u l l y protec t ed b y th e F i rst A m en d m en t. C on seq u en tl y, ne i th er th e cit y o rd i n a n ce n or th e sta te st atute s t and i n g beh i n d the ordi n an ce m ayi m po s e a “ c o nt e nt
- ba s e d r e gul at i o n” 2 p r o h ib iti n g th e ca r-plan ter’ s p u b lic d is p la y . In th e a lte r n a tiv e , A p p e lla n ts , w h ile
ac kno w l e dg i ng t hatt he c ar - pl ant e ri s a “j unke d v e hi c l e , ” a s s e r tt hatt he
o r di nanc e fai l s t o s at i s f y i nt e r m e di at e s c r ut i ny as a ppl i e d t o t he i rc r e at i o n. Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

Th e C ity , of

c ours e, r ej ectsach aract eriz ationof th e pl anter a s p rote ct edb yth e Fir st 3 Amen dment. 5 T h a t t h i s ca ctu s p l a n ter, a th ree -dim en sion a lad ve rti sem en t f or a n ov elt y shop , coul d be con si dered a const i t u t i on al l y- protec t ed e x p ressi on speak s m ore to the l a w ’ s va gu en ess th a n to th e cap a b i l i ty or i n ten ti on of th e a rti sts. In fact, t he Ci t y s t i pul at e d t hat“ t he v e hi c l e /pl ant e ri s a n o bj e c t w h i c h c o nt ai ns a nd pr oj e c t s s o m e l e ve lo f a r t i s t i c e xp r e s s i o n a f t e ri tw as pa i nt e d byP l ai nt i f fs W ad e an d T ravi s and al t ered t o al l ow i t t o grow pl an t
- l i fe. ” B u t t h i s c ategory i s not 3
so u n b o u n ded
. Th e Su prem e C ou rt , i n t h e course of app l yi n g t h e F i rst A m en dm en tt o an expressive act( a S ai n tP atr i ck’ s D ay p ara d e) , st ated
unan i m ous l y: As s o m e o f

t he s e e xam pl e s [ o f no n- s pe e c h pr o t e c t e d e xp r e s s i o n] show , a n arrow , su cci n ct l y art i cul able m essage i s not a cond i t i on of c o ns t i t ut i o nalpr o t e c t i o n, w hi c h i f c o n f i n e dt o e x pr e s s i o ns c o nve yi ng a “p a r tic u la r iz e d m e s s a g e ,” w o u ld n e v e rre a c h th e u n q u e s tio n a b ly shi el ded painti n g of

J ackson P ol l ock, m u si c of A rnol d S chön berg, or J a b b e r w o c k yv e r s e o f L e w is C a r r o ll. H ur l ey v . I

r i s h-Am e r i c an Gay , Le s bi an & Bi s e x ualG r o up of B ost on , 515 U
. S. 5 5 7 , 5 6 9 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 2 3 3 8 , 2 3 4 5 (1 9 9 5 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). H u rley re fers s olel y to gr e atw orks o f

a r t
. N e i t he ri n H u rley nor i n an y l atercase h as t h e C ou rt el abora te d on the extent of F i rstA m en dm en tprot ect i on f or vi sua lnon - speech obj ect s orart w orks. S ei z i ng o n H u rley ’ s s t at e m e nt , t he Se c o nd Ci r c ui t decl ared, i n a case c o nc e r ni ng N e w Yor k Ci t y’ s s t r e e tv e ndo r r e gul at i o ns , t hata r t w o r ks i nc l udi ng pa i nt i ngs , pho t o gr ap hs , pr i nt s , and s c ul pt ur e s ar e “ al w ay s ” c o m m uni c at i ve a nd th ere fore en ti tl ed to “ fullF i rst A m en d m en t pro tecti on . ” B ery v. C i ty o f New Y ork , 97 F
. 3d 689 , 696 ( 2d C i r. 199 6)
. D e spi t e t h i s broad l an gu age, t h e B ery court h el d on l y t h at the ordi n an ce’ s ap pl i cat i on to ven dors of t h ose w orks d i d n ot
s ta n d u p to in te r m e d ia te s c r u tin y . Id
. F u rt h er, the court reasoned t h at, becau se Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

Beryh a s b ee ncriticized o r li mite d b yotherlow erc ourto pinio n s a s w ell. See , e. g. 4 White v. Cityof Sparks , 341 F. Supp. 2 d 11 29, 113 9 (D. Nev . 20 04)(de clining to follow th e Bery hol ding becau se it would b e out of ste p with the First Amendme nt ’ s fun damental purpose— to protect express ion .”); Mastrovince nzo v. Cityof New York , 313 F. Supp. 2d 2 80, 294n .11 (notingth at the difficultywith Beryis that it i s “atonce too broa d an d toon arrow inth eir scope of protection. C onceivably, not every item of painting , photo graph, print or sculpture thatmaybeoffered for sale on City sidewalks byanyvendor i s nece ssarily so expre ssiveas to c ategoricallymerit First Amen dment protection , butatth e sa me ti me some obj ects outsidethose four cate gorie s m ayal so b e suff icie ntlyexpr es sive. Statev. C

hepilko , 9 6 5A .2 d 1 9 0 , 2 0 2(N. J . Super. C t. App . Div . 2 0 0 9)(a gre ein gwithcritici sm of Bery’s hol ding

th at anybu sine ss activity that involves th e takingan d sal e of photograph s auto maticallyqu alifi esf orFir stAme n dm ent prot ectionan d co nclu din gth at suchb u sin es s activity isentitledto Firs t Amen dm ent pr ote cti on only if it s erves pr edo mi nantly expres sive purp os es). 6 t h e cr af t s of t h e je w e l er, t h e pott er, an d the si l versm i t h are onl y som et i m es

“ e xp r e s s i ve , ” t he c o ns t i t ut i o nalpr o t e c t i o n a f f o r de d t ho s e c at e go r i e s o f w o r ks
m u s t b e d e te r m in e d o n a ca s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. Id
. Subs e que nt l y, t he Sec o nd C i r c ui tgr ap pl e d wi t h B ery ’ s i m pl i cat i on w h en vendor s of

T- shi r t s and bal l c aps dec or at ed w i t h “ gr af f i t iar t ” s oughtan e x e m p tio n fr o m th e s a m e N e w Y o r k C ityo r d in a n c e . Mast rovi n cenzo v. C i ty of New Y ork , 4 35 F. 3d7 8 ( 2dCi r . 2 00 6)
. The c o ur tna r r o w e d B ery ’s b r o a d d i c t u m: “T o s a yth a t t h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts th e s a le o rd is s e m in a tio n o f a ll
o bj e c t s r ang i ng f

r o m ‘ t o t e m po l e s ’t o t e l e vi s i o n s e t s doe s nott ak e us fari n t r yi ng to a r tic u la te o ru n d e r s ta n d a ju r is p r u d e n c e o f o r d e r e d lib e r ty ; in d e e d , it w o u ld
e n tir e lyd r a in th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t of m e a n in g .” Id
. at 9 2 (cita tion om itted ).

4 T h e cou rt reca st B ery ’ s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n f i n e a r ta n d d e c o r a t i v e a r t s i n t e r ms t hate nf orcem en to f

f i c e r s a nd v e ndo r s i n t he “ r e alw o r l d” c an unde r s t anda nd
a p p l y “ w i th ou t reco u rse t o princ i p l es o f a esth eti cs. ” I d. at 9 5
. Mast rovi n cenzo u l t i ma t e l yd e c i d e d t h a tt h e “ e x p r e s s i v e ” e l e me n t s o f t h e c l o t h i n gme r i t e d s o me F i rstA m en dm en tp rot ect i on , b u ttha tthe ci t y ordi n an ce w as na rrow l y t ai l ored Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

W e nee d not reachth e C ity’s co ntentionth at, if viewed as someform of protected 5 speech , thecar-planter represe nts c ommercial spe ech entitled to ale sser l evel of co nstitution al protection
. 7 andl e f ta m pl e a l t e r nat i ve a ve nue s o f c o m m uni c at i on , t he r e bys at i s f yi ng i nt er m edi at e s c r ut i ny. W e s har e t he Mast rovi n cenzo court’ s s kep t i ci sm t h at t h e hea vy m ach i n ery o f t he F i rs tAm e ndm e nti s t o b e de pl o ye d i n e ve r y c as e i nvo l vi ng vi s ualno nsp ee ch ex p ress i on . P rotecte d ex p ress i on ta k e s m a n y form s, bu t H u rley ’s
r e fe r e n c e to w o r k s o f fin e a r t d id n o t s w e e p s o b r o a d lya s to re q u ir e a ju d ic ia lly
cra ft ed h i era rch y o f a rti sti c ex p ress i on . B y a n a l yz i n g th e a rti st- ve n d ors’ ri gh ts
u n der i n t erm edi ate s cruti n y, t h e B ery c o ur te f fe c t i ve l y c o nc e de d a s m uc h. F ort u n atel y, w e ne e d g o n o f u rt h er t h an t h at i n t h e i n st an tcase. Ir respect i ve of

t h e i n t en t i on s of

i t s creat ors or P l an etK ’ s ow n er, the car- pl an t er is a u tilit a r ia n d e v ic e , a n a d v e r t i s e m e n t, a n d u ltim a te lya “ju n k e d v e h ic le .” T h ese qua l i t i es obj ect ivel y dom i n ate any exp ress i ve com pon en tof i t s exte ri or pai nt i ng. App el l ant s c onc ede t hatt he c arfal l s w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of

t he San 5 M arcos ordi n an ce. M oreover, the E i gh t h C i rcui t , conf ronted bef

ore H u rley w i th
a w r e c ke d a ut o t hatw as di spl ayed s t r e e t s i de t o r e m i nd t he pub l i c ho w t he
ow ner ’ s so n had bee n k i l l ed, had no di f f i c ul t y f i ndi ng t hatt he aut o’ s r em oval
u n d er a j u n k ed -veh i cl e ord i n a n ce su rv i ve d i n term ed i a te scru ti n y . D avi s v. No r m an , 555 F. 2d 189 ( 8t h C i r . 1977)
. W hen t he “ expr es sive” c om ponentof an obj e c t , c o ns i de r e d o bj e c t i ve l y i n l i ghto f i t s f unc t i o n a nd u t i l i t y, i s a tb e st
seco n d a ry , the pu b l i c d i sp l a y o f th e ob j ect i s con d u ct su b j ect to rea son a b l e sta te
r e g u la tio n . W e th e r e fo r e p r e te r m it “ r e c o u r s e to p r in c ip le s o f a e s th e tic s .” I n a n a bund anc e o f

c aut i o n, ho w e ve r , be c aus e t he Ci t y c o nc e de s t hatt he
ca r-plan ter h a s som e p rotecte d ex p ress i ve co n te n t, w e a p p l y th e interm ed i a te
s c r ut i ny t est ar t i c ul at e d b y t he Supr e m e Cour ti n Un i t ed S t ate s v. O ’ B ri en , 3 9 1 U
. S
. 36 7 , 88 S
. C t. 16 7 3 ( 1 9 7 3 ), w h i ch ba l a n ces t h e in d i vid u a l ’ s ri gh t t o Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

8 s p e a k w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t’s p o w e rto re g u la te
. O ’ B ri en re s ts o n th e p r in c ip le th a t w h en “spe ech ” an d “no n -spe ech ” el em en ts are u n i ted i n a co u rse o f con d u ct,
a v a li d g o v e rn m e n ta l in t e r e st in re g u la tin gth e n o n sp e e ch ele m e n t ca n j u stify in c id e n ta l lim ita tio n s o n F ir s t A m e n d m e n t fr e e d o m s . Id
. at376, 88 S. C t
. at 167 8 -79. U n der O ’ B ri en , a r e gul at i o n i s c o ns t i t ut i o nali f i ti s w i t hi n t he
c ons t i t ut i onalpow erof the gov er nm ent ; i tf urt her s an i m por t antors ubst ant i al govern m en t ali n t erest ; t h e governm en ti n t erestis u n rel ated t o t h e sup pressi on o f f r e e e xp r e s s i o n; and t he i nc i de nt al r e s t r i c t i o n o n al l e ge d Fi r s t Am e ndm e nt fr e e d o m s is n o g r e a te rth a n is e s s e n tia l t o t h e fu r th e r a n c e o f th a t in te r e s t. I d. at3 76 , 8 8 S. Ct
. at167 9. The j unke d- ve hi c l e o r di nanc e pa s s e s m us t e rund e rt he O ’ Bri e n test. Fi r st , r egul a ti on o f j unk ed v ehi c l es i s w i t hi n t he C i t y’ s t r adi t i onal
m uni c i pa l po l i c e po w e r s . Se c o nd, i m po r t ant go ve r nm e nt al i nt e r e s t s j us t i f y t he ord i n a n ce, th e p u rp ose of w h i ch i s to pr otect th e com m u n i ty’ s h ea l th an d safety f rom t h e probl em s c reat ed by aba n don ed veh i cl es l ef ti n pu bl i c vi ew . Aj u n ked veh i cl e i s a pu bl i c nu i san ce: Aj u n k e d v e h i c l e t h a ti s l o c a t e d i n a p l a c e wh e r e i ti s v i s ib l e f r o m a pub l i c pl ac e o rpub l i c r i ght

- o f

- w ayi s de t r i m e nt alt o t he s af e t y and w elfa re of the ge n era lpu b l i c , ten d s to red u ce th e v a l u e of priva te pro per t y, i nvi t es vandal i sm , c r eat es f i r e hazar ds and co nst i t ut es an att ract i ve n u i san ce c reat i n g a h azard t o t h e h eal t h an d safet y of m i no r s a nd i s d e t r i m e nt a l t o t he e c o no m i c wel fa r e o f t he c i t yby pr o duc i ng ur ba n b l i ghtadv e r s e t o t he m ai nt e nanc e a nd c o nt i nui ng d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e C ity a n d is a p u b lic n u is a n c e . S AN M AR COS , T EX ., C OD E OF O RDINANCES § 3 4. 196( a)
. J u n ked ve hi c l es ar e a n at t r ac t i ve nui s anc e t o chi l dr e n. Rode nt s , pes t s , a nd wee ds t hr i ve i n a nd a r o und th e m . T e s tim o n ys h o w e d th a t t h e C ity p u r s u e d m o r e th a n 1 ,3 0 0 ju n k e d v e h ic le
c a s e s in th e tw o y e a r s p r io rto tr ia l. T h e s e fa c ts , fo u n d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t, fu lly sup port t h e C i t y’ s i n t erest s i n regul ati n g j u n ked veh i cl es. T h e ordi n an ce al so t en ds t o reduce u rban bl i gh t , van d a l i sm , an d the dep ress i n g ef fectof j u n ked Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

9 veh i cl es on property val u es. A pp el l an t s’i n si st en ce t h at t h e car- pl an t er has been
r e n d e r e d s a fe is im m a t e r ia l t o th e c o n s t it u t io n a li t yo f t h e o r d in a n c e . T h e C it y ’s
r i ghtt o re gul at e j unke d ve hi c l e s , nott he i ndivi dua lst at us of e ac h v e hi c l e , i s t he
c o n c e r n o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t in q u ir y . S ee FTCv. S u peri or C ou rtTri al L aw yers A s s ’n , 4 9 3 U .S . 4 1 1 , 4 3 0 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 7 6 8 , 7 7 9 (1 9 9 0 ). Thi r d, t he j unke d- ve hi c l e o r di nanc e i s no t i nt e nde d t o r e gul at e “ s pe e c h” ata l lb uti s a c o nt e nt
- ne ut r alhe al t h a nd s af e t y o r di nanc e . Appe l l ant s a r gue th a t t h e C i ty’ s en forcem en t of the ord i n a n ce is m oti va ted by d i sa gr ee m en t w i th t h e content of

t h e car- pl an t er’ s “ m essage” an d thu s s h ou l d be su bj ectt o t h e st ri ct
s c r ut i ny r e s e r ve d f

o rc o nt e nt
- ba s e d s pe e c h re gul at i o ns . The di s t r i c tco ur tm ad e no f i ndi ng o f an i m pe r m i s s ibl e m o t i va t i o n, no ri s s uc h a f i ndi ng c o m pe l l e d b y t he
r e c o r d. F o u r t h , t h e o r d in a n c e i s r e a s o n a b ly ta il o r e d to a c h ie v e th e C it y ’s l e gi t i m at e i nt e r e s t s w i t h o n l yi n c i d e n t a lr e s t r i c t i o n o n pr o t e c t e d e xp r e s s i o n. The ordi n an ce authori zes j u n ked veh i cl es t o rem ai n on p rivate property i f encl osed fr o m p u b lic v ie w . S A N MA R C OS , T EX ., C O D E OF O RDI NANCE S § 3 4
. 1 9 7 (a)( 1 ). A p p ell a n ts
c ont end t hatt he o r di nance i s notnar r ow l y t a i l ore d bec ause i tper m i t s an excepti on f

or deal ershi ps an d j u n ky ards. Th e un derl yi n g s t at e s t at u t e, how ever, proh ibi t s t h e C i t y f

rom adop t i n g an y procedu res as t o veh i cl es “st ored or parked in a law fu l m a n n e r o n p riv a te p ro p e rty in co n n e ctio n w it h t h e b u sin e ss of a l i cen sed ve h i cl e d ea l er or j u n k ya rd
. ” T EX . T RANSP
. C ODE § 68 3. 07 7. Thus , t he Ci t yh a s a n o v e r a r c h i n gl e g a lb a s i s f o re x e m p t i n gd e a l e r s h i p s a n d j u n k ya r ds f r om i t s j unk ed vehi c l e st at ut e. Indee d, t he e xem pt i on f orbusi nes se s t hatdeal
w i t h j u n ked veh i cl es rei n f orces rat h er t h an di scr edi t s t h e content- n eu t ral i t y of t h e j u n ked veh i cl e ordi n an ce. B ot h t h e C i t y an d the S t ate s en sibl y di st i n gu i sh i ndivi dua lc o nductf r o m c o m m e r c i alc o nduc t , w hi c h c r e at e s di f fe r e ntha z ar ds
a n d req u i res d i ff

ere n t regu l a ti on s. In a d d itio n , t h e ord i n a n ce is l i m i ted to Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

10 regulat i n g t h e m edi u m an d l ocat i on of t h e car- pl an t er, a n d i n so doi n g i treduces t h e bl i gh tan d att ract i ve n u i san ce probl em s c au sed by veh i cul ar w recks. Appe l l ant s a l s o a r gue t hatt he e nc l o s ur e r e qui r e m e ntl e av e s t h e m wi t h o ut
a n ya d e q u a te a lte r n a tiv e m e a n s o f e x p r e s s io n . S ee W ardv. R o ck Aga i n st R aci sm , 491 U
. S
. 781 , 798

- 99, 109 S
. C t
. 274 6, 275 3 ( 198 9)
. B u tas t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t n o te d , e n c lo s in gth e ca r -p la n te rd o e s n o t c u t o ff p u b l i c a c c e s s b e c a u s e it l e av e s Pl an et K fr ee t o di s pl ayt he c ar - pl ant e rb e hi nd a fe nc e , i ndo o r s , o ri n a gar ag e e nc l o s ur e . Kl e i nm an c o ul d s t i l la dv e r t i s e a nd i nvi t e t he pub l i c t o vi ew t h e car- pl an t er. H e coul d, pu rsuan tt o l ocall aw , erec ta si gn or di spl ay a post er o f th e ca r -p la n te rv is ib le t o th e p u b lic
. B e c a u s e th e o r d in a n c e a ffo r d s a m p le al t erna t i ve m ean s f

or A pp el l an t s to exp ress theirm essages, t h i s c ou rtw i l lnot
se c ond- gues s t he s c o p e o f t he or di nance nori m pos e Appel l ant s’pr ef er r ed di spl ay m o d e o n th e C ity
. Id
. at800, 109 S. C t
. at2758. B. VA RA Appe l l ant s Tr av i s a nd W ad e a l s o r ai s e c l ai m s und e rt he VA RA
. The VA R Ap r o v id e s th e a u th o ro f a w o r k o f v is u a l a r t w ith th e rig h t: (A ) to preven tan y i n t en t i on aldi st ort i on , m u t i l ati on , or ot h er m odi f i cat i on of

t h at w ork w h i ch w ou l d b e p rej u di ci alt o hi s orher h on or orreputati on , an d a n y intenti on aldi st ort i on , m u t i l ati on , or m o di f i c at i o n o f

t hatw o r k i s a v i o l at i o n o f t hatr i ght , a nd ( B) t o pr e ve nta ny de s t r uc t i o n o f a w o r k o f

r e c o gni z e d s t at ur e , a nd an y i n t en t i on alor grossly n egl i gen tdest ructi on of t h at w ork i s a v io la tio n o f th a t r ig h t. 17 U
. S. C
. § 106A ( a) ( 3)
. Th e di st r i c tcour tdeni ed re l i ef u nderVA R A , f

i ndi ng t hat t h e j u n ked

- veh i cl e ordi n an ce does not requ i re t h e dest ructi on of a j u n ked
v e h i c l e , me r e l yi t s s c r e e n i n gf r o m g e n e r a lp u b l i c v i e w. T h e prel i m i n ary st atutor y i ssue, how ever, i s w h et h er t h e car- pl an t er qua l i f i e s a s a “ w o r k of

vi s ualar t ” unde rt he VA RA
. The s t at ut e e xc l ude s “ any m e r c hand i s i ng i t em or ad ver t i s i ng, pr o m o t i o nal , de s c r i pt ive , c o ve r i ng, pa c ka gi ng Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/10/2010N o. 08- 50960

11 m at e r i alo rc o nt ai ne r ” f r o m pr o t e c t i o n. 17 U
. S. C. § 101

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t h a tth e c a r -p la n t e r s a r e c lo s e ly a s s o c ia t e d w it h P la n e tK , a r e p a r t o f t h e s t o r e ’s corp ora te i m a ge an d cu l tu re, a n d a r e a disti n ctive sym b ol of the P l a n et K bu si n ess. Th ese f

i n di n gs, w h i ch are not cl earl y erroneou s, i n di cat e t h at t h e carpl ant e r s a r e “ pr o m o t i o nal” m at e r i ala nd t hus o ut s i de o f t he VAR A’ s pr o t e c t i o n. S ee Pol l ar a v . Sey m o ur , 3 4 4 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 7 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F o rth is re a s o n a s w e ll
as t hato f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , w e a f f i r m t he c o nc l us i o n t hatAppe l l ant s Tr av i s a nd W a d e fa i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o rr e l i e f u n d e rVAR A. C . O rder f

or C om pl i an ce T h e di st ri ctcourtordered t h at “ P l ai n t i f fs s h al lcom pl y w i t h the O rder of t h e Sa n M a rc os M u n i ci pa lC ou rt” an d “bri n g t h e car pl an t er i n t o com pl i an ce w i t h C i t y C ode. ” A pp el l an t s assertthis ord er w as in errorsi n ce t h e C i t y n ever req u ested an y a ff

i rm a tive reli ef. F u rth er, W a d e a n d T ra vis w ere n ot p a rti es to t h e m u n i ci pa lcourt ’ s or der an d can n otbe ordere d to “com pl y. ” W e agree. A l t hough th e C i t y c ont ends t hatt he o r deri s ac t ual l y i n K l ei nm an’ s favor— by givi ng hi m t hi r t y da ys t o c o m pl y be f o r e an y Ci t y e nf

o r c e m e nta c t i o n— t he di st ri ctcourtl acked j u ri sdi ct i on t o gran t t h i s rel i ef

. T h i s port i on of t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s o r de rm us tb e v ac at e d. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or th e rea son s ar ti cu l a ted ab ov e, w e a ff i rm th e j u d gm en t on the m erits b u t va ca te th e por ti on of th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t t h a t ord ers A p p ell a n ts t o c o m p lyw ith th e m u n ic ip a l co u r t o r d e r . AFFI RM ED I N PAR T AND VACATED I N PAR T. Case: 08-50960 Document: 00511024986 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/10/2010