04-03-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

past conduct (often found invalid) , require disclosure of personal . information, permit warrantless inspections, and impose special fees or taxes. Whether such conditions will be upheld depends upon the specificity and legitimacy of the governmental unit's alleged justification and on the extent of the burden imposed on free expression. In the case of license fees, the city must be able to support the fee based upon its projected. costs for additional personnel and equipment necessary to adequately police the regulated activities. • The regulation of establisrments serving alcoholic beverages presents some unique options for public regulation of otherwise constitutionally protected activities. Where such establishments offer nude or sexually-oriented entertainment, the courts have recognized the potentially volatile mix of • alcohol and sexually provocative activities and have permitted greater use of the traditional "police powers" to regulate the entertainment. This expanded regulatory authority is grounded in the broad powers granted to the states by the Twenty-First Amendment (repealing prohibitions) . Whatever protection nude • dancing might have under the First Amendment is, according to the Court, outweighed by the broad powers granted to the states under the 21st Amendment to regulate the conduct of liquor establishments in furtherance of legitimate public purposes. The most recent Supreme Court decision in this area, Citv of Newzort v. Iacobucci, (1986) , makes it clear that: a) nudity, whether or not obscene, may be banned completely in licensed liquor establishments, , b) it is unnecessary to demonstrate some factual or empirical legislative basis to believe that such a ban will actually further its asserted purpose, c) .issues of state preemption of local liquor control are irrelevant to the resolution of First: Amendment speech questions in regard to a ban on nudity in liquor establishments. Given the currency of the Iacobucoi decision it is yet unclear whether the Minnesota Supreme Court might take a more limited approach to this type of regulatory authority based upon its interpretation of the rights afforded under cur state constitution. A case currently pending before the Minnesota courts may determine this issue. 4. Criminal Enforcement of Obscenity Laws The Minnesota Statutes and certain portions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances provide criminal penalties for the sale, the distribution and, in certain cases, the possession of obscene materials. Violations of the state law are felony offenses and violations of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (RCM) are misdemeanor offenses. The 1988 Minnesota Legislature is currently considering a bill which would modify the wording and clarify the penalties for violations of the state law. Upon enactment of such statutory changes,the City Attorney's Office will be su3nitting to the council a request to modify the RCO provisions to bring their wording into conformity with the statutory language. To the extent that materials or activities considered by you in the course of your examination of adult entertainment uses in the City are "obscene", ycu Should assume that enforcement of those criminal provisions will be the