Opinion ID: 76258
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: O'Brien's Second Prong

Text: 55 Under O'Brien's second prong, the County must demonstrate that Ordinance 99-18 furthers the County's substantial interest in preventing secondary effects associated with adult entertainment. To this end, the County may rely upon any evidence that is reasonably believed to be relevant to its interest in preventing secondary effects. Renton, 475 U.S. at 51-52, 106 S.Ct. 925. However, the County cannot rely on shoddy data or reasoning and its evidence must fairly support [its] rationale. Alameda Books, 122 S.Ct. at 1736. Further, plaintiffs must be given the opportunity to cast direct doubt on this rationale with evidence of their own. Id. If plaintiffs succeed in doing so, the burden shifts back to the [County] to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its evidence. Id. (citing Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. at 298, 120 S.Ct. 1382). 56 Here, although Ordinance 99-18 prohibits public nudity across the board and not just nudity occurring in adult entertainment establishments, Manatee County expressly relied on its determination that public nudity increases incidents of prostitution, sexual assaults and batteries, [and] other criminal activity when it adopted Ordinance 99-18. The County also relied on a report prepared by the Florida Family Association, Evidence of Secondary Adverse Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses, which included testimony from the sheriff of nearby Pinellas County concerning the proliferation of prostitution, sexual contact and lewd acts that take place in nude dancing establishments in Pinellas County, and from the Director of Communicable Diseases of the Pinellas County Health Department concerning communicable diseases that are transmitted by unprotected sexual activity that takes place in [such] establishments. R.1-30, Tab 9. In Pap's A.M., the Court found that a municipality's own findings and reasonable belief that the experience of other jurisdictions is relevant to the problem it is addressing were a sufficient evidentiary basis. 529 U.S. at 297, 120 S.Ct. 1382. Hence the County's findings, and the evidence it submitted to the District Court in conjunction with its motion for summary judgment, satisfy the County's pre-enactment burden as set forth in Renton and reaffirmed in Pap's, A.M. Id.; Renton, 475 U.S. at 51-52, 106 S.Ct. 925. 57 However, since the Adult Lounges have challenged the sufficiency of the County's evidence, under Alameda Books and Pap's A.M. our inquiry does not end here. We must next determine whether the Adult Lounges have managed to cast direct doubt on the County's rationale for Ordinance 99-18. Alameda Books, 122 S.Ct. at 1736 (plurality opinion) (citing Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. at 298, 120 S.Ct. 1382); see also id. at 1742-44 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Based on the evidence before us, it appears that the Adult Lounges have accomplished this task. 58 In response to the County's motion for summary judgment, the Adult Lounges placed into the record a two-volume Appendix in Support of Peek-A-Boo Lounge and Temptations II's Opposition to Proposed Manatee County Public Nudity Ordinance [No. 99-18], which it had previously submitted to the Manatee County Planning Commission during the public hearings the Commission held prior to the adoption of Ordinance 99-18. R.1-30, Tabs 10-11. These materials included satisfactory health and safety inspection reports of plaintiffs' businesses issued by the Florida Department of Health and the Cedar Hammock Fire Department, R.1-30, Tab 10, at Ex. P, and Tab 11, at Ex. J; incident reports of criminal activity near the Adult Lounges and elsewhere showing lower crime rates near Appellants' businesses than in surrounding areas, R.1-30, Tab 10, at Ex. Q-S; recent sales and assessment data revealing an increase in property values for property located near Appellants' businesses, R.1-30, Tab 10, at Ex. M-N, U, and Tab 11, at Ex. K-M; and an award given in 1996 to the Peek-A-Boo Lounge by the Manatee County Sheriff for its outstanding contribution to the community, R.1-30, Tab 11, at Ex. C. 59 In further response to the summary judgment motion, the Adult Lounges also submitted three expert studies specifically addressing local conditions in Manatee County which purported to show that there was no evidence connecting their businesses with negative secondary effects. Dr. Terry A. Danner, Chair of the Department of Criminology at St. Leo University, conducted a study utilizing the County's own crime statistics that examined the criminogenic effects of the Appellant's specific businesses and found that Appellants businesses did not cause such effects. 19 Dr. Randy D. Fisher, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, prepared a study titled Evidence for the Adverse Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment: The Manatee County Record, which examined the record submitted by the County in support of Ordinance 99-18 and concluded that because the only statistical data provided [in the record] showed lower rates of crime... [and] substantial increases in property values, both in the long run and in the shorter run, in the areas around the existing adult businesses, the specific evidence relating to the Appellants' businesses contradicted any suggestion that the two existing adult businesses in Manatee County have `adverse secondary effects.' 20 Finally, Mr. Richard Schauseil, a licensed Florida real estate agent, conducted an extensive Market Study and Report on the effects of Appellants' businesses on neighboring properties which found that there were absolutely no signs of any negative effects on adjoining property values or conditions resulting from Appellants' businesses. 21 60 Taken together, the Adult Lounges argue that this evidence casts direct doubt on the County's alleged rationale in enacting Ordinance 99-18 by demonstrating that [the County's] evidence does not support its rationale and by furnishing evidence that disputes the [County]'s factual findings. Alameda Books, 122 S.Ct. at 1736. Given the record and procedural posture of this case, we are inclined to agree. Although Manatee County met its minimal initial burden under Renton to rely on evidence it reasonably believed to be relevant to addressing the problem of secondary effects, in this case Appellants have successfully cast doubt on the County's rationale by placing into the record substantial and unanswered factual challenges to the County's findings in the specific areas of crime, decreased property values, aesthetic blight, and other secondary effects. 61 In Alameda Books, the District Court granted summary judgment to the adult businesses challenging the constitutionality of a secondary effects ordinance. The Supreme Court reversed and held that the city had presented sufficient evidence to overcome a facial challenge to that ordinance. Alameda Books, 122 S.Ct. at 1738. By contrast, here summary judgment was granted to the County, and it is the adult businesses, whose constitutional challenge we understand to be an as applied challenge, who claim they have presented sufficient evidence to withstand that judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate, of course, only where the evidence before the court shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. In making this determination, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, including questions of credibility and of the weight to be accorded particular evidence. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991). In this case, the District Court failed to draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the Adult Lounges as to the credibility and weight of their evidence, which when properly interpreted does appear to create a genuine issue of material fact under prevailing legal standards as to whether Ordinance 99-18 furthers the County's asserted interests. 62 Significantly, the County has not attempted to counter the Adult Lounges' evidence with local studies of its own. We are not dealing, therefore, with a case involving a battle of competing experts. Rather, as the record now stands, we have before us an ordinance adopted only on the basis of speculative findings and outdated, foreign studies whose relevance to local conditions appears questionable in light of current data Appellants have placed in the record suggesting that plaintiffs' businesses, which have operated continuously in Manatee County for over fifteen years, do not cause secondary effects. Under these circumstances, we cannot credit the County with complying with Renton's narrow tailoring requirement, which requires that a secondary effects ordinance be drawn to affect only that category of business  shown to produce the unwanted secondary effects. Renton, 475 U.S. at 52, 106 S.Ct. 925 (emphasis added). See also Flanigan's, 242 F.3d at 986-87 (finding it unreasonable for Defendants to rely on outdated, foreign studies concerning secondary effects when the county's own current, empirical data conclusively demonstrated that such studies were not relevant to local conditions, especially where adult businesses were not a recent addition to Fulton County neighborhoods but have continually operated ... for nearly a decade); id at 987 (affirming that the constitutionality of an ordinance will depend on local conditions). 63 We note that the fact that the Adult Lounges have managed, in their as applied challenge, to cast doubt on the County's basis for enacting Ordinance 99-18 does not mean the ordinance could not ultimately survive intermediate scrutiny. Rather, under Alameda Books, at this point summary judgment is inappropriate and the burden shifts back to the municipality to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its ordinance. Alameda Books, 122 S.Ct. at 1736 (plurality opinion) (citing Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. at 298, 120 S.Ct. 1382); see also id. at 1742-44 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Thus, the County must be given the opportunity to supplement the record in this manner, and the District Court, which did not have the benefit of Alameda Books when it granted the County's motion for summary judgment, should consider any additional evidence in the first instance. 64 At trial, in keeping with Alameda Books' burden-shifting analysis, the District Court must determine whether the County's additional evidence renew[s] support for a theory that justifies its ordinance. 122 S.Ct. at 1736. Stated otherwise, in light of our finding that the Adult Lounges have managed to cast direct doubt on the County's rationale for adopting Ordinance 99-18, the District Court must decide by a preponderance of the available evidence (including whatever additional evidence the County places in the record) whether there remains credible evidence upon which the County could reasonably rely in concluding that the ordinance would combat the secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments in Manatee County. The burden lies with the County in this regard. However, the District Court should be careful not to substitute its own judgment for that of the County. The County's legislative judgment should be upheld provided that the County can show that its judgment is still supported by credible evidence, upon which the County reasonably relies.