A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to an adult bookstore in Indianapolis, temporarily stopping the city
from enforcing a 2002 ordinance that regulates adult businesses.
In the six-year-old case of Annex Books , et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Ind., No. 1:03-CV-918, U.S. District
Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District's Indianapolis Division issued the latest ruling Dec. 1 in a case asking
whether local rules violate the bookstore's constitutional free-speech rights.
She had upheld the ordinance in 2004, and it went to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in 2005 but
didn't issue a decision on the case until Sept. 3 this year. The appellate court affirmed Judge Barker's judgment
regarding the licensing procedures set out in the ordinance but reversed on whether any substantive First Amendment issues
exist. The appellate court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, which Judge Barker conducted Nov. 25.
In her 15-page order, Judge Barker restrained the city from enforcing the ordinance against Annex Books until a final decision
is made on the First Amendment issue.
She wrote that in order to meet its burden set out by the 7th Circuit, the city must show that adult entertainment businesses
without facilities for on-premises viewing create the same secondary effects as establishments providing those services and
that the revised ordinance requiring plaintiffs to close between midnight and 10 a.m. has "the purpose and effect of
suppressing secondary effects, while leaving the quantity and accessibility of speech substantially intact."
Judge Barker found that the city's evidence to date is likely insufficient to meet that burden and justify the ordinance.
"Considering the significant harm to Plaintiffs' free speech rights if the injunction is not issued, we find that
the narrow segment of decreased crime during enforcement of the revised ordinance that the City has been able to demonstrate
at this stage in the proceedings is insufficient to tip the balance in its favor," she wrote. "Accordingly, we find
that, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiffs have demonstrated at least some likelihood of success on the merits."














Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...
Yikes!