Krontz

Krontz v. City of San Diego

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 4th 1126·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 210·2006 Daily Journal DAR 1968·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 535
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2006D045332California5,271 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

The primary issue in this case is whether the government may suspend the permit of a business engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment as a sanction when the business violates a regulation. We conclude suspension of the license is not an improper prior restraint, is constitutionally permissible, and the government is not limited to imposing a fine. We also reject the argument that the suspension process utilized here violated appellant’s constitutional guarantee of due process.

FACTS

Donald V. Krontz holds a police permit to operate a nude entertainment establishment, Déjá Vu, on Midway Drive in San Diego. The City of San Diego and the San Diego Chief of Police (together the City) enforce permit regulations.

The San Diego Municipal Code (Municipal Code) requires a number of businesses including nude entertainment establishments, auto dismantlers, and ticket brokers to obtain a police permit. (Mun. Code, ch. 3.) The Municipal Code provides any business permittee who “[violates or allows the violation of . . . any law or regulation pertaining to the business” is subject to suspension of the permit. (Mun. Code, § 33.0403, subds. (a)(1), (b)(5), italics…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.