Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa

Last updated

Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa
US-CourtOfAppeals-11thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Full case nameVoyeur Dorm, L.C., et al v. City of Tampa, FL
DecidedSeptember 21, 2001
Citation265 F.3d 1232
Case history
Prior history121 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (M.D. Fla. 2000)
Court membership
Judges sitting Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Joel Fredrick Dubina, John M. Duhe, Jr.
Case opinions
MajorityDubina, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Tampa City Code

Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001), [1] was a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in which the court decided whether an adult-oriented website called Voyeur Dorm could be defined as "adult entertainment establishment" under the city's zoning codes. The circuit court was unanimous in its decision that the zoning codes did not apply to an online-only business. [2]

Contents

Background

Voyeur Dorm, located at 2312 West Farwell Drive in Tampa, Florida, was an online company operating a website that allowed subscribers to watch the lives of the residents 24 hours per day for a $34.95 monthly subscription. The women employed by Voyeur Dorm signed contracts stating that they were employees on a "stage and filming location". Subscribers could also pay an additional $16.00 each month to chat with the women. From August 1998 to June 2000, Voyeur Dorm generated $3,166,551.35 from subscriptions and sales. Upon learning that local law enforcement officers were investigating the business in 1998, Voyeur Dorm wrote to Tampa's Zoning Coordinator to inquire about whether the city's zoning codes applied to the activities at 2312 West Farwell Drive. [1]

Tampa's zoning codes for adult-oriented businesses were based on the secondary effects doctrine, or the belief that such businesses would attract undesirable customers and cause quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood to deteriorate. Hence, adult-oriented businesses were confined to pre-approved districts of the city. Voyeur Dorm contended that the house on West Farwell Drive did not qualify as a traditional adult-oriented business because it did not welcome customers from the general public onto the property. [2] Tampa's Zoning Coordinator disagreed, finding that Voyeur Dorm was operating an adult-oriented business in an unapproved location, and ordering the business to vacate the property immediately or be shut down. [3]

Voyeur Dorm appealed the zoning decision to District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which upheld Tampa's order for Voyeur Dorm to vacate the building. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. [3]

Opinion

The circuit court reversed the lower court decision, and found that Voyeur Dorm could not be defined as an adult-oriented business under Tampa's zoning codes, which had been written with physical businesses in mind. Judge Fredrick Dubina wrote that "the offering occurs when the videotaped images are dispersed over the Internet and into the public eye for consumption. The City Code cannot be applied to a location that does not, itself, offer adult entertainment to the public." [4]

While several U.S. Supreme Court precedents had upheld efforts by cities to improve residential neighborhoods via zoning codes that prohibited adult-oriented businesses, [5] the 11th Circuit found that those efforts had been supported by evidence of secondary effects. On the other hand, as an online-only business, Voyeur Dorm did not attract disreputable characters to the neighborhood around the building where the online entertainment originated. [4]

Lawyers on both sides in the case noted that free speech issues, which may be relevant as Voyeur Dorm was a content creator, were not being argued, and that the ruling should be about the city's zoning codes specifically. [6] Tampa appealed the circuit court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court declined to hear the case. [7]

Related Research Articles

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Greenberg v. National Geographic was a copyright lawsuit regarding image use and republication rights of National Geographic Society to their magazine in electronic form.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flava Works</span>

Flava Works, Inc. is an independent company that produces gay media featuring black and Latino men. Its headquarters are in Miami, Florida, with a satellite office in Chicago, Illinois.

<i>Williams v. Pryor</i>

Williams v. Pryor, 229 F.3d 1331, rehearing denied, 240 F.3d 944 was a federal lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged an Alabama law criminalizing the sale of sex toys in the state. In 1998, a statute enacted by the legislature of the State of Alabama amended the obscenity provisions of the Alabama Code to make the distribution of certain defined sexual devices a criminal offense. Vendors and users of such devices filed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against William H. Pryor, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. The State appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court ruling on October 12, 2000.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Telecommunications Act (TCA) precluded damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it provided a comprehensive remedial scheme. Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams is a part of the Sea Clammers Doctrine line of cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew D. Hurwitz</span> American judge (born 1947)

Andrew David Hurwitz is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He served as a justice of the Arizona Supreme Court from 2003 to 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Corn-Revere</span> American lawyer

Robert L. "Bob" Corn-Revere is an American First Amendment lawyer. Corn-Revere is the Chief Counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and was formerly a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C. He is regularly listed as a leading First Amendment and media law practitioner by The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward/White), SuperLawyers Washington, D.C., and by Chambers USA . Best Lawyers in America named him as Washington, D.C.’s 2017 “Lawyer of the Year” in the areas of First Amendment Law and Litigation – First Amendment. He was again named as Best Lawyers’ “Lawyer of the Year” for First Amendment Law for 2019 and 2021, and in Media Law for 2022.

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.

Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.

<i>Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Intl</i> 2002 U.S. court case

Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791, was a 2002 en banc 9-6 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, about the scope of copyright protection for building codes and by implication other privately drafted laws adopted by states and municipal governments. A three-fifths majority of the court's fifteen judges held that copyright protection no longer applied to model codes once they were enacted into law.

Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to municipal parking restrictions. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that a residential zoned parking system requiring permits for daytime parking in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood of Arlington County, Virginia, with those permits limited to residents, their guests and those who came to their homes for business purposes had a rational basis and was thus constitutional. Its decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court.

References

  1. 1 2 Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265F.3d1232 (11th Cir.2001).
  2. 1 2 Kaplan, Carl S. (October 5, 2001). "Florida Community Can't Shut Down 'Voyeur Dorm'". New York Times . Retrieved September 4, 2024.
  3. 1 2 265 F.3d at 1234
  4. 1 2 265 F.3d at 1236
  5. ↑ e.g. City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters , 475 U.S. 41 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (U.S Supreme Court, 1976).
  6. ↑ Gearan, Anne (February 25, 2002). "High Court Won't Hear Voyeur Dorm Case". Midland Daily News. Retrieved August 20, 2022.
  7. ↑ Cert. den. 122 S.Ct. 1172 (2002)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.