Opinion ID: 2216446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs contend ordinance 18.05 abridges their right to pursue a legitimate livelihood.

Text: Of course, the deprivation of substantial profits is a deprivation of property, so the issue is whether the deprivation is without due process of law. Three K.C., 279 N.W.2d at 271. But the right to pursue any trade or calling is subordinate to the right of the state to regulate such freedom of action where required to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The regulation, to be constitutional, must have a definite, rational relationship to the ends sought to be obtained. Huff, 256 N.W.2d at 26; Green, 217 N.W.2d at 554-55; City of Osceola v. Blair, 231 Iowa 770, 772-73, 2 N.W.2d 83, 84 (1942). Plaintiffs first attack the ordinance's licensing requirement of 750 hours of instruction at an accredited school as being arbitrary and unreasonable. Davenport's evidence indicated the 750-hour requirement was a reduction of the 1000 hours of coursework required by the American Massage and Therapy Association. The requirement is significantly less than the 2100 hours of instruction imposed for barbers and cosmetologists. §§ 157.10, 158.8, The Code 1979. It has a rational relationship to public health: It is not unreasonable for the city to require of one proposing to sell massage services to the public, that such person demonstrate evidence of training and knowledge in that field. The opinion of the legislative body as to what training is an essential prerequisite for the public health and safety, to prevent injury or the spread of disease, is presumptively valid. In the absence of any clear demonstration by plaintiff that the requirements are unrelated to the purposes of the act, the courts will not substitute their opinions for that of the legislative authorities. Clevenger v. City of East Moline, 44 Ill. App.3d at 172-73, 357 N.E.2d at 723, 2 Ill.Dec. at 556. See also Rogers v. Miller, 401 F.Supp. at 829 & n.1 (upholding a 1000-hour requirement); Massage Parlors, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 284 Md. at 498 n.5, 398 A.2d at 57 (upholding a 500-hour requirement). Nor do we think the accredited school requirement is unreasonable. It is defined extensively in section 18.05-1 of the ordinance. Although the list of fourteen such schools was not provided by Davenport at the time the ordinance was enacted, the evidence indicates it was promulgated before the effective date of the ordinance and referred to by the senior assistant city clerk in response to telephone inquiries. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish their massage as relaxing or recreational as opposed to therapeutic, but their expert at trial characterized the line as very hazy and testified she could not really draw a line there. Neither should the city be required to make that distinction. In the justifiable opinion of the Davenport council the same dangers of disease and injury might well accompany both types of massage. We find no due process violation in the accredited school requirement. Plaintiffs additionally assert the 7 a. m. to 10 p. m. operating hour limitation of the ordinance rationally cannot be related to public safety and welfare. The Davenport council might have found the nighttime hours ordinarily are accompanied by increased criminal activity in commercial establishments at a time when the police force is reduced. Such operating time restrictions have been upheld as reasonable in other jurisdictions. Pollard v. Cockrell, 578 F.2d at 1013; Reddish v. Roberts, 460 F.Supp. 152, 153 (M.D.N.C.1978) (8 a. m. to midnight restriction upheld); Saxe v. Breier, 390 F.Supp. 635, 636 (E.D.Wis.1974); Brix v. City of San Rafael, 92 Cal.App.3d 47, 51, 154 Cal.Rptr. 647, 650 (1979); City of Spokane v. Bostrom, 12 Wash.App. 116, 119, 528 P.2d 500, 502 (1974). See also Hvamstad v. City of Rochester, 276 N.W.2d 633 (Minn.1979) (affirming denial of temporary injunction against 10 p. m. closing restriction, because plaintiff unlikely to succeed on merits). Finally, plaintiffs argue enforcement of sections of the ordinance prohibiting plaintiffs or their patrons from exposing, or failing to conceal, on plaintiffs' premises, any portion of their sexual or genital parts (specifically defined in subsection 18.05-21(e)) may deprive them of patrons dressed in halter tops, shorts, evening gowns, and similar garments. Defendant argues this effect is pure supposition, as the ordinance has never been enforced against the plaintiffs. We have observed that an ordinance, like a statute, is not unconstitutional on its face unless it is unconstitutional in every conceivable state of facts, and it will not usually be held unconstitutional as applied unless it is unconstitutional in the factual situation before the court. Baker v. City of Iowa City, 260 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Iowa 1977). We find no reason to assume that ordinance 18.05 will be applied or enforced in an unconstitutional manner, see United Health Clubs of America, Inc. v. Strom, 423 F.Supp. at 766-67; Rogers v. Miller, 401 F.Supp. at 829, and hold this ground for reversal to be without merit. B. We turn now to plaintiffs' contention that portions of ordinance 18.05 are so vague they are deprived of constitutional due process. In light of this due process challenge and ordinance section 18.05-27, which provides that a person violating any provision of the ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine or 30 days imprisonment, we reexamine our standard of judicial scrutiny. Ordinarily a significantly higher standard of certainty is required when a vagueness challenge is made in the context of a criminal prosecution than in situations involving civil remedies. Williams v. Osmundson, 281 N.W.2d 622, 625 (Iowa 1979); Knight v. Iowa District Court, 269 N.W.2d 430, 432 (Iowa 1978); State ex rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 191 N.W.2d 624, 629 (Iowa 1971). Also relevant here is Incorporated Town of Carter Lake v. Anderson Excavating & Wrecking Co., 241 N.W.2d 896, 903 (Iowa 1976), where we wrote, [W]hen the ordinance is regulatory and its principal purpose is to promote the public interest and welfare, the penal provision is merely incidental. This declaratory judgment action was brought in equity and our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. Unlike Williams and Knight, this appeal does not confront us with a criminal prosecution, and we do not reach the question whether the ordinance would withstand the stricter scrutiny appropriate in that context. Plainly, ordinance 18.05 is aimed at the regulation of massage parlors, not criminal punishment of operators and employees for specific acts. Cf. § 99.1, The Code (maintenance of building for purpose of prostitution is nuisance subject to injunction and abatement), which was held to be penal and subject to strict construction in State ex rel. Clemens v. Toneca, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 909, 914 (Iowa 1978). Penal provisions similar to that found here are to be found in chapter 157, The Code 1979 (cosmetology) and chapter 158, The Code 1979 (barbering), yet in construing those chapters we did not apply strict standards of judicial scrutiny. Green v. Shama, 217 N.W.2d at 555-56. In this case trial court treated the ordinance as nonpenal, and plaintiffs' brief concedes trial court applied the appropriate test. In Koscot, 191 N.W.2d at 629, we pertinently said: Most courts separate the remedial and penal sections of a legislative enactment where both are involved. Resultantly the Act is interpreted liberally where remedy is sought, strictly when the action brought is penal. We adopt that view. A law providing regulations conducive to public good or welfare, such as suppression of fraud, is ordinarily remedial, and as such liberally interpreted. (Citations omitted.) To the same effect, see 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 292 (1974). Accordingly, as in Koscot and Green, we liberally construe ordinance 18.05 to effect the object of the ordinance. Id. Plaintiffs first complain of difficulty in identifying an accredited school. What we have written in division III(A), above, adversely disposes of this contention. Plaintiffs next assert ordinance 18.05 is imprecise and unclear as to what constitutes advertising and the contents thereof. Davenport's ordinance at subsection 18.05-11(f) provides: No massage establishment granted a license under the provision of this Article shall place, publish or distribute or cause to be placed, published or distributed any advertising matter that depicts any portion of the human body that would reasonably suggest to prospective patrons that any service is available other than those services as described in Section 18.05-1 [definitions of massage, massage establishment, public bath house] in this Chapter, nor shall any massage establishment indicate in the text of such advertising that any service is available other than those services as described in Section 18.05-1 in this Chapter. We examine this provision in light of our statement in Williams, 281 N.W.2d at 625 (quoting Knight, 269 N.W.2d at 432), If vagueness can be avoided by a reasonable construction, consistent with the statute's purpose and traditional restraints against judicial legislation, we are duty bound to give [the statute] that interpretation. We consider the entire legislative act and, so far as possible, interpret its various provisions in light of their relation to the whole. Id. at 626. We see the above provision relating to advertising as one designed to prevent misrepresentation to the consuming public. Commercial speech may be regulated so as to prevent deception. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383-84, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2708-09, 53 L.Ed.2d 810, 835-36 (1977); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771 & n.24, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1830-31, 48 L.Ed.2d 346, 364 (1976) (Obviously much commercial speech is not provably false, or even wholly false, but only deceptive or misleading. We foresee no obstacle to a State's dealing effectively with this problem.). The overbreadth analysis which represents a departure from the traditional rule that a person may not challenge a statute on the ground that it might be applied unconstitutionally in circumstances other than those before the court applies weakly, if at all, in the ordinary commercial context. Bates, 433 U.S. at 380, 97 S.Ct. at 2707, 53 L.Ed.2d at 834. When coupled with the specific definitions of massage, massage establishment and public bath house, included in the advertising subsection by reference, and the provisions of the ordinance prohibiting exposure of sexual or genital parts [which are in turn specifically defined], we are not convinced the advertising regulation would pose any mental hazards for a person reasonably attempting to comply with it and advertise only those services permitted by ordinance 18.05. The phrase unreasonably suggest relates to the prohibition against depicting certain portions of the human body. Reasonably interpreting these provisions in light of the relationship of these words to the whole act, we hold only depicting of sexual or genital parts as defined in section 18.05-21(e) would fall under the prohibition of these provisions. So construed, the issue of unconstitutional vagueness is avoided. See State v. Williams, 238 N.W.2d 302, 304-08 (Iowa 1976). We have often read into a statute various safeguards in order to save it from constitutional infirmity. See, e. g., State v. Monroe, 236 N.W.2d 24, 37 (Iowa 1975); State v. Drummer, 254 Iowa 324, 117 N.W.2d 505 (1962). Restrictions upon advertising apparently similar to section 18.05-11(f) withstood judicial scrutiny in Clevenger, 44 Ill.App.3d at 169-70, 357 N.E.2d at 721, 2 Ill.Dec. at 554, and Wes Ward Enterprises, 42 Ill.App.3d at 463, 355 N.E.2d at 135. Plaintiffs further argue they are unable to ascertain the anatomical boundaries of sexual or genital parts of the body although they are defined as including the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anus, or perineum of any person, or the vulva or breasts of a female. They similarly complain that the provision requiring sexual or genital parts to be concealed with a fully opaque covering is vague. Plaintiffs hypothesize various situations to support their argument. A court will not engage in the presumption that officials charged with enforcement of a regulation will do so in an unconstitutional or illegal manner. Strom, 423 F.Supp. at 765. Nearly identical provisions survived facial attack in Harper v. Lindsay, 454 F.Supp. at 602-03 & n.1 (constitutional attack alleged infringement of freedom of personal appearance), and Wes Ward Enterprises, 42 Ill.App.3d at 462, 355 N.E.2d at 134. See also Wright v. Town of Huxley, 249 N.W.2d 672, 678 (Iowa 1977) (We find it difficult to believe [appellant] seriously contends people of common intelligence. . . would not be able to determine when the ordinance was violated by exposing to public view the breasts, buttocks, or genitals.). Finally, plaintiffs argue their due process rights are violated by section 18.05-15(a) which permits the city clerk to require an immediate physical examination when he or she has cause to believe a massage technician is capable of communicating a contagious disease to others. Section 18.05-15(a) requires all who desire to perform as a massage technician to undergo a physical examination for contagious and communicable diseases. It further provides, The Clerk or his duly authorized representative, when he has cause to believe that the massage technician is capable of communicating any contagious disease to others, may at any time require an immediate physical examination of any such person. (Emphasis supplied.) Plaintiffs assert this provision is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite and an improper delegation of legislative discretion to the city clerk. No citation of authority supports these assertions. Davenport points out this is a facial attack. There is no indication the clerk will act arbitrarily, and the evidence is that the clerk will rely on the city health officer as a duly authorized representative to make the determination an additional examination is required. Cause in the sense used here has been equated with good cause. Merrimack Park Recreation Association, Inc. v. County Board of Appeals, 228 Md. 184, 188, 179 A.2d 345, 347 (1962); Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 39 Md.App. 547, 551, 387 A.2d 622, 624 (1978); Duenke v. St. Louis County, 358 Mo. 91, 97, 213 S.W.2d 492, 496 (1948); Lovelace v. Ingram, 518 P.2d 1102, 1104 (Okla.1973). A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if its meaning may be ascertained by reference to prior judicial determinations. State v. Willis, 218 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Iowa 1974). Good faith enforcement of this provision is presumed in a facial challenge. Strom, 423 F.Supp. at 765. A similar provision withstood constitutional attack in Brown v. Brannon, 399 F.Supp. at 138-39, 143. We have studied the other vagueness allegations made by plaintiffs and find no constitutional defect.