Case Name: SECRET DESIRES LINGERIE, INC. et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.; GAMBILL v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1996-06-03
Citations: 266 Ga. 760
Docket Number: S96A0667; S96A0668
Parties: SECRET DESIRES LINGERIE, INC. et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.; GAMBILL v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, P. J., and Hunstein, J., who dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 266
Pages: 760–764

Head Matter:
S96A0667.
SECRET DESIRES LINGERIE, INC. et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.; GAMBILL v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
S96A0668.
(470 SE2d 879)

Opinion:
Thompson, Justice.
On October 4, 1993, the City of Atlanta enacted an ordinance to regulate lingerie modeling studios. Appellants challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Following a trial, the superior court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance. This appeal followed.
Appellants assert the City did not rely upon relevant evidence of the undesirable secondary effects of lingerie modeling studios when it enacted the ordinance and that, therefore, the ordinance cannot pass constitutional muster. We agree.
When a governing body enacts an ordinance regulating adult entertainment establishments because of their purported undesirable secondary effects, it must rely upon specific evidence showing a correlation between such establishments and the undesirable secondary effects the governing body seeks to control. Chambers v. Peach County, 266 Ga. 318, 320 (467 SE2d 519) (1996). The governing body can rely on evidence in the form of studies performed by other governmental units. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U. S. 41, 51 (106 SC 925, 89 LE2d 29) (1986); Discotheque, Inc. v. City Council of Augusta, 264 Ga. 623, 624 (449 SE2d 608) (1994). It can rely on evidence in the form of its own formal studies, see World Famous Dudley's v. City of College Park, 265 Ga. 618, 619 (458 SE2d 823) (1995), and it may rely on evidence not contained in formal studies. See Parker v. Whitfield County, 265 Ga. 829 (463 SE2d 116) (1995) (county relied upon studies of other communities as well as formal and informal meetings between members of the board, county sheriff's department, county residents and commissioners of other counties). The studies need not be perfect, World Famous Dudley's v. City of College Park, supra, but they must be considered before the ordinance is passed in order for the ordinance to be considered as one enacted for the purpose of combating the undesirable secondary effects of sexually explicit businesses. Chambers v. Peach County, supra.
In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance regulating adult business establishments, the governing body must be able to offer evidence of the studies it relied upon in enacting the ordinance. Id. If it cannot do so, the ordinance cannot be deemed constitutional.
At trial, the City introduced the testimony of three of its vice squad officers who opined that there is a correlation between lingerie modeling studios and prostitution. But the City did not even show that members of the city council were aware of the officers' conclusions, much less that the ordinance was enacted on the basis of those conclusions. And the ordinance itself sheds no light on this issue. Compare World Famous Dudley's v. City of College Park, supra, in which the preamble of an ordinance regulating adult business establishments recited that it was based on the experiences of certain cities.
The City is unable to point to any evidence demonstrating that it considered specific studies of the pernicious secondary effects of lin gerie modeling studios before enacting the ordinance. Although the trial court found that the City had knowledge of the police officers' conclusions prior to the enactment of the ordinance, the trial court's finding is clearly erroneous. There is not a scintilla of evidence demonstrating that the police officers (or their superiors) alerted the city council to the problems they uncovered.
The trial court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the ordinance. Chambers v. Peach County, supra.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, P. J., and Hunstein, J., who dissent.
The preamble to the ordinance simply provides:
WHEREAS the City of Atlanta has an interest in promoting and protecting the public health safety and general welfare of its citizens; and, WHEREAS the City of Atlanta has a responsibility in maintaining law and order within its borders; and . WHEREAS the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta does not currently regulate lingerie modeling studio establishments and their employees; and WHEREAS lingerie modeling studio establishments have a tendency to breed illegal activities