Opinion ID: 74683
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City of Renton Test

Text: We review Appellee’s zoning ordinance in this case under the “time, place, or manner” standard set forth by the Supreme Court in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925 (1986). See Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1554 (2000). Under this standard, a “zoning ordinance is valid if it is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and it allows for reasonable alternative avenues of expression.” Id. Appellant’s main contention is that the zoning ordinance does not serve a substantial governmental interest. Appellant argues the zoning ordinance regulates pure speech and other expressive forms of conduct and therefore violates the First Amendment. We disagree. The Supreme Court consistently has held that combating the harmful secondary effects of adult businesses, such as increased “crime and other public health and safety problems,” is a substantial interest. City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 120 S. Ct. 1382, 1397 5 (2000); see City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 50, 106 S. Ct. at 930 (stating that “a city’s interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect”) (internal quotation omitted). Significantly, the Court stated that although the “regulation may have some incidental effect on the expressive element of the conduct. . . [t]he State's interest in preventing harmful secondary effects is not related to the suppression of expression.” Pap’s, 120 S. Ct. at 1393. The Court added that it “will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit motive.” Id. at 1392-93. Finally, we have noted “it is not difficult to draft an ordinance that addresses the harmful secondary effects of adult businesses without running afoul of the First Amendment.” Lady J. Lingerie, 176 F.3d at 1363. In this case, the zoning ordinance was intended, at least in part, to combat the negative secondary effects of adult establishments. Appellee relied on numerous studies and hearings to show that the presence of adult entertainment establishments is associated with negative secondary effects. Although several of these studies were conducted by different cities, the Supreme Court has made it clear that “the city need not conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that already generated by other cities to demonstrate the problem of secondary effects, so long as whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that 6 the city addresses.” Pap’s, 120 S. Ct. at 1395 (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, Appellee conducted at least one public hearing that specifically examined the secondary effects of Appellant's establishment. Therefore, even assuming, as Appellant alleges, this ordinance incidentally reaches some forms of protected expression, the ordinance is a valid time, place, or manner regulation under City of Renton because it is aimed at combating the harmful secondary effects associated with adult entertainment establishments.3