Opinion ID: 149504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the district court erroneously rely on Voyeur Dorm?

Text: In Voyeur Dorm, this Court held that section 27-523 of Tampa's City Code, which defines adult entertainment establishments, did not apply to a residence engaged in activities that were nearly identical to the activities taking place in the instant case. See 265 F.3d at 1237. The only difference was the gender of the residents. This Court found that section 27-523 only applied to locations where adult entertainment is actually offered to the public. See id. at 1236. Because the public did not physically attend the Tampa residence to enjoy the adult entertainment, the residence was not a business establishment and section 27-523 did not apply. See id. On a second appeal after remand, this Court addressed the attack by Voyeur Dorm on the constitutionality of the city code and held that there was no standing because [Voyeur Dorm, L.C.] cannot allege injury-in-fact because it is not an adult business.... Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, Fla., 2003 WL 23208270 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2003). The City of Miami has abandoned any argument that the district court erred when it concluded that Voyeur Dorm is controlling authority over the issue of whether Flava Works was operating an adult entertainment establishment. On appeal, the City of Miami only contends that Voyeur Dorm does not address the operation of a generic business in a residential zone. The City of Miami argues that Voyeur Dorm is distinguishable because it was limited to a determination of whether or not the appellant had operated an adult business establishment in a residential zone. Conversely, Flava Works insists that  Voyeur Dorm controls every aspect of the case. Flava Works argues that it cannot be an adult business without first being a business and [i]f Voyeur Dorm had been operating something which could be considered a business, there is no question that it would also have been considered an adult business given the undisputed nature of the communications streaming over the internet. Relying on Voyeur Dorm, the district court held that Flava Works was not operating a business at the 27th Street residence. In reaching its conclusion, the district court reasoned that the Tampa ordinance, which defined an adult entertainment establishment as `[a]ny premises... on which is offered ... for a consideration,'otherwise known as a businessdid not apply. Flava Works, 595 F.Supp.2d at 1348 (quoting Voyeur Dorm, 265 F.3d at 1235). Furthermore, the district court noted that neither the financial and accounting activities nor the computer systems necessary to transmit images to subscribers are located at the 27th Street residence. The district court conceded that the business ... would not likely exist without the activities taking place within the [27th Street] residence but concluded that does not make the activities into a business.... Id. The district court's reliance on Voyeur Dorm in concluding that Flava Works was not operating a business at the 27th Street residence is misguided. Just because the Tampa ordinance defining adult entertainment establishments limits its application to businesses does not mean the ordinance applies to all businesses. Furthermore, Voyeur Dorm did not hold that the Tampa residence was not a business, it merely held that the residence was not an adult business establishment (where there was no public offering of adult entertainment), which is a much narrower conclusion. We agree with Flava Works that an adult business is always a business. However, the opposite is not necessarily true. The vast majority of businesses are not adult businesses but are nevertheless prohibited within residential zones. As such, we decline to apply such an expansive reading of Voyeur Dorm and find that it does not address a prohibition against the operation of all businesses within a residential zone.