ILNews

7th Circuit mulls adult-business laws

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether a Southern District of Indiana judge correctly weighed evidence in granting a preliminary injunction that stopped Indianapolis from enforcing a 2002 ordinance regulating adult-business hours.

Attorneys appeared before a three-judge panel Sept. 20 to argue the 7-year-old case of Annex Books, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., No. 1:03-CV-918, which U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled on in December 2009.

The case had been remanded after the 7th Circuit heard arguments in 2005. The appellate court had affirmed Judge Barker’s judgment regarding the licensing procedures set out in the ordinance but reversed on whether any substantive First Amendment issues existed. The appellate court had ordered an evidentiary hearing, and she examined whether any secondary effects were created by the ordinance that required the plaintiffs to close between midnight and 10 a.m. The judge found the city’s evidence to date is likely insufficient to meet the standard or justify the ordinance, and Indianapolis appealed that preliminary injunction.

Corporate attorney Justin Roebel for Indianapolis argued that Judge Barker created a new standard and shouldn’t have weighed the evidence, and should not be turning this case into what he described as a “battle of experts.” The city doesn’t need to provide localized evidence but can use outside-the-state data, even if it’s from much larger cities such as New York and Reno that have different demographics.

The 7th Circuit judges pressed the attorneys about the data being relied on in this case, criticizing it as being outdated and not adequate to compare the effects of the ordinance.

Plaintiff’s attorney J. Michael Murray agreed the evidence wasn’t technically clear but that it logically showed an increase in crime rather than what the city said the ordinance effect would be. Murray said more conclusive and “statistically significant” data would be presented at trial for a permanent injunction, but Roebel argued that a trial isn’t the standard and the plaintiff’s data currently isn’t adequate to be relied on.

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook questioned that data and said this is a case that doesn’t have clear guidance. In response to an initial statement from Murray about how the previous 7th Circuit ruling from last year created a “template” for Judge Barker to use, Chief Judge Easterbrook opined about how unclear this issue is for the trial court to determine.

“I think that might be overstating the extent to which our opinion can be said to be a ‘template’ … There’s a whole passage in there that says we appreciate that we’re remanding with a completely fuzzball standard and aren’t entirely sure what it means,” he said. “But that’s what the Supreme Court has said.”

The panel took the case under advisement.
 

Rehearing "City stopped from enforcing adult-business law" IL Daily Dec. 3, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT