Title: CITY & CTY. OF DENVER v. Nielson
Citation: 572 P.2d 484
Docket Number: 27423
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 1977

572 P.2d 484 (1977) CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lois Mae NIELSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 27423. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 27, 1977. Max P. Zall, City Atty., Charles E. Sellner, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee. Charles A. Friedman, Denver, for defendant-appellant. ERICKSON, Justice. Appellant was convicted of having administered massages to members of the opposite sex, in violation of Denver Revised Municipal Code 971.2-14 (hereinafter ordinance). The Superior Court in and for the City and County of Denver affirmed the conviction on appeal, relying on Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, 524 F.2d 571 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 913, 96 S. Ct. 3228, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1222 (1976). The case is before us for review to *485 determine the constitutionality of the ordinance upon which conviction is predicated. We reverse. Section 971.2-14 provides: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a similar ordinance which prohibited massage by a member of the opposite sex did not violate federal constitutional rights of equal protection or due process in Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, supra. It reversed the district court decision, reported at 387 F. Supp. 690 (E.D.Pa.1974), which had held the ordinance to be unconstitutional. Reversal was mandated by the United States Supreme Court decision in Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S. Ct. 2281, 45 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1975):[1] . . . . . Regardless of the Third Circuit Court's decision in Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, supra, states may interpret their own constitutional provisions to afford greater protections than the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized in its interpretation of the federal counterparts to state constitutions. Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S. Ct. 1215, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1975); Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730 (1967); People v. Hoinville, Colo., 553 P.2d 777 (1976). The appellant contends that Denver's ordinance violates the due process clause of the Colorado Constitution, Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 25, by creating an irrational conclusive presumption. We agree. The district court decision in Colorado Springs Amusement, Ltd. v. Rizzo, supra, which was subsequently reversed, held a similar ordinance void as violative of due process on this basis: . . . . . Similarly, a Washington court has held that ordinances of this type "require stereotyping of the worst kind" and effectively say that "because some women perform lewd acts in sauna parlors that all massagists can be judged to be lewd if given the opportunity." J.S.K. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lacey, 6 Wash. App. 43, 492 P.2d 600 (1971), reh. 6 Wash. App. 433, 493 P.2d 1015 (1972). Every citizen has a natural and constitutional right to engage in any lawful business subject to such reasonable regulation as may apply to all persons engaged in the same kind of business. Moffitt v. City of Pueblo, 55 Colo. 112, 133 P. 754 (1913). The Denver ordinance is not a reasonable regulation. It creates an unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional conclusive presumption, in violation of Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution. The ordinance is unduly oppressive to legitimate massage practitioners and goes beyond the means reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective of preventing illicit sexual behavior. Alternative, constitutionally permissible methods of curtailing sexually illicit behavior are available to legislative bodies. See Cianciolo v. Members of City Council, City of Knoxville, Tenn., 376 F. Supp. 719 (E.D.Tenn.1974); Corey v. City of Dallas, 352 F. Supp. 977 (N.D.Tex.1972), rev'd, 492 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1974) (reversed on standing). In light of the above discussion, it is unnecessary to address the appellant's alternative constitutional challenges to the ordinance. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the complaint against the appellant for violation of the ordinance is dismissed. CARRIGAN, J., does not participate. [1] In Hicks v. Miranda, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that lower federal courts must treat its summary dispositions as conclusive precedents regarding constitutional challenges to similar statutes or ordinances. The wisdom of this decision has been seriously questioned. See Justice Brennan's dissent in the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, supra; see also Hogge v. Johnson, 526 F.2d 833 (4th Cir. 1975) (Clark, J., concurring); 76 Colum.L.Rev. 508 (1976).