Opinion ID: 377140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicant Disclosure Requirements

Text: 27 The ordinance requires that an applicant for an adult use license provide the following information under oath: 28
29
30
31
32 (e) The business, occupation or employment of the applicant for three (3) years immediately preceding the date of the application. 33 (f) The adult use or similar business license history of the applicant; whether such person, in previously operating in this or any other city or state under license, has had such license revoked or suspended, the reason therefore (sic), and the business activity or occupation subject to such action of suspension or revocation. 34 (g) All criminal or city ordinance violation convictions, forfeiture of bond and pleadings of nolo contendere on all charges, except minor traffic violations. 35 (h) Fingerprints and photograph of the applicant. 36 (i) The exact nature of the adult use to be conducted and the proposed place of business and facilities thereto. 37 (j) The names and addresses of all persons holding any beneficial interest in the real estate upon which such adult use is to be operated, including but not limited to, contract purchasers or sellers, beneficiaries of land trust or lessees subletting to applicant. 38 (k) If the premises are leased or being purchased under contract, a copy of such lease or contract shall accompany the application. 39 (l) A statement by the applicant that he or she is familiar with the provisions of this Article and is in compliance with them. 31 40 At least one plaintiff will be directly affected by a ruling on the validity of these disclosure requirements, and standing to attack them is therefore present. 41 Plaintiffs contend that these provisions are unconstitutional prior restraints on speech and invasions of privacy. They fall into two groups. In the first group are those contained in subsections (a), (b), (i), and (l). We do not understand plaintiffs to contest the validity of subsection (b). The others, except for the required disclosure of all aliases in (a), are legitimately related to the state interest that underlies the zoning provisions that force a separation of adult uses and are therefore valid under our decision in Part V of this opinion, supra. The alias disclosure requirement involves an invasion of privacy not justified by the zoning interest and is not otherwise justified. It is therefore invalid. 42 The second group of disclosure requirements includes subsections (c) through (h), (j), and (k). The city has argued that these provisions, like the investigation provision, are directed toward the goal of keeping anyone convicted of certain past wrongs from operating or having any interest in an adult use. For the reasons stated in Part VI-F of this opinion, infra, these provisions cannot be sustained as furthering the state interest shown by this record. Because they invade plaintiffs' privacy without any legitimate justification, they are prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 43