Opinion ID: 1592072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: time, place, and manner restriction

Text: ABC Books also contends that the ordinance is unconstitutional as a time, place, and manner restriction because it is not tailored narrowly enough and does not further a significant governmental interest. The city's ordinance does not limit its applicability to picture arcades where obscene movies are shown, nor does the city contend that the films or videos viewed therein are obscene. Therefore, this court assumes that the materials viewed in the booths are protected by the first amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that protected first amendment speech may be subject to time, place, and manner restrictions if sufficiently justified and narrowly enough drawn. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989); Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984); Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra , the Supreme Court set out the appropriate standard for reviewing governmental regulations on the time, place, or manner of protected speech: [T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided [1] the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, [2] that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and [3] that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. at 2753 (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, supra ). Under the time, place, and manner analysis, other courts have consistently upheld viewing booth ordinances as valid exercises of state police power. See, Doe v. City of Minneapolis, 898 F.2d 612 (8th Cir.1990); Berg v. Health and Hosp. Corp. of Marion County, Ind., supra ; Wall Distributors, Inc. v. City of Newport News, Va., 782 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir.1986); Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v. Wenner, 681 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir.1982); Suburban Video, Inc. v. City of Delafield, 694 F.Supp. 585 (E.D. Wis.1988); Broadway Books, Inc. v. Roberts, supra ; EWAP, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 97 Cal.App.3d 179, 158 Cal.Rptr. 579 (1979); Deluxe Theater v. City of San Diego, 175 Cal.App.3d 980, 221 Cal.Rptr. 100 (1985). Similarly, we find no constitutional infirmity in ordinance No. 14335. The first requirement of the Ward time, place, and manner test is easily met. The ordinance is indisputably content-neutral; it draws no distinction between the types of films or videos which might be viewed in the booths. Thus, the ordinance is unrelated to the content of the movies shown in the booths. The second element of the Ward test requires that the ordinance be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The narrow tailoring requirement is satisfied `so long as the ... regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.' Ward v. Rock Against Racism, supra at 799, 109 S.Ct. at 2758 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985)). The city has a significant interest in preventing the kind of unlawful conduct, as well as the health and safety problems, which regularly occurs in the enclosed booths on ABC Books' premises. The evidence at trial showed that incidents of masturbation, fondling, and indecent exposure occur in the enclosed booths. Further, semen, dirty Kleenex, and condoms can be observed on the floors of the booths. The prohibition of such booths furthers the city's interest in deterring and detecting the use of the premises for such unlawful activity. The city's interest in deterring not only unlawful conduct, but conduct inimical to public health, decency, and order, would not be achieved as effectively without the ordinance, and thus the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The third Ward requirement necessitates that the city show that the ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels of communication of sexually explicit material. This requirement is also easily met. The ordinance in no way prohibits or regulates the time or place for viewing the sexually explicit films or videos. It simply requires that no partially or fully enclosed or concealed booths can be maintained. ABC Books can provide and its patrons can watch, except in partially or fully enclosed or concealed booths, films or videos whenever and wherever they desire. The viewing public is in no way denied access to the market or ... unable to satisfy its appetite for sexually explicit fare. Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 62, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). Thus, ample alternative channels for communicating sexually explicit films and videos are left open by the ordinance. Finally, ABC Books argues that the ordinance suppresses free speech because it would lose money by complying with the ordinance, and as a result, its film and video operation could close. In Young v. American Mini Theatres, supra , the Supreme Court upheld a zoning ordinance which forbade the owners of two adult theaters to exhibit adult movies at their current locations. Justice Powell noted that [t]he constraints of the ordinance with respect to location may indeed create economic loss for some who are engaged in this business. Id. at 427 U.S. at 78, 96 S.Ct. at 2456 (Powell, J., concurring). Justice Powell went on to state, The inquiry for First Amendment purposes is not concerned with economic impact; rather, it looks only to the effect of this ordinance upon freedom of expression. Id. Thus, the governmental interest in this ordinance does not relate to the suppression of free expression. In conclusion, under the Ward analysis, the city's picture arcade ordinance is a valid manner restriction of speech under the first amendment.