Court Opinion

ID: 9738883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:04:50.910437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.943340
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I would ascribe greater weight than does the majority to the following language from Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648.
“The District Court observed, we believe correctly:
“ ‘The local ordinance here attacked not only prohibits topless dancing in bars but also prohibits any female from appearing in “any public place” with uncovered breast's. There is no limit to *589the interpretation of the term “any public place.” It could include the theater, town hall, opera house, as well as a public market place, street or any place of assembly, indoors or outdoors. Thus, this ordinance would prohibit the performance of the “Ballet Africains” and a number of other works of unquestionable artistic and socially redeeming significance.’ [Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, (E.D.N.Y.1973) 364 F.Supp. 478, 483.]
“We have previously held that even though a statute or ordinance may be constitutionally applied to the activities of a particular defendant, that defendant may challenge it on the basis of over-breadth if it is so drawn as to sweep within its ambit protected speech or expression of other persons not before the Court. As we said in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 114, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972):
“ ‘Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant’s standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.’ ”
422 U.S. at 933, 95 S.Ct. 2568-9, 45 L.Ed.2d at 660.
The majority emphasizes that the Court held that nude dancing “might be entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection under some circumstances.” 422 U.S. at 932, 95 S.Ct. at 2568, 45 L.Ed.2d at 660. Yet, the only circumstance under which the United States Supreme Court has allowed a ban on nude dancing has been when a state has included the ban as part of its liquor license program. California v. LaRue, (1972) 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342. The purview of Indiana’s public indecency statute is not limited to establishments where alcoholic beverages are served. The statute is couched in terms of nudity “in a public place.” West’s Ann. Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1 (1978).
I believe the quoted language from Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., supra, stands for the proposition that a public indecency statute which prohibits nudity in any public place is unconstitutionally overbroad. See Jamaica Inn, Inc. v. Daley, (1977) 53 Ill.App.3d 257, 11 Ill.Dec. 38, 368 N.E.2d 589.
I would affirm the judgments of the trial courts below.