Acorn Investments, Inc. v. City of Seattle Walter Tank Douglas Jewett

Acorn Investments, Inc. owns and operates panoram machines at four adult entertainment centers in the City of Seattle. When a customer inserts one or more quarters into a panoram, the machine exhibits a video tape or motion picture on a screen for a few minutes. 1 A customer may also view live entertainment through a panoram. Each panoram is located in a booth that gives individual patrons some degree of privacy.

In this action, Acorn attacks as violative of the First Amendment city laws that require panoram businesses to pay various license fees and to disclose the names and addresses of shareholders. The district court awarded the City summary judgment on the shareholder disclosure issue and, after a one-day bench trial, ruled in favor of the City on the license fee issue. We reverse on both issues.

I

THE CITY’S PANORAM LICENSING ORDINANCE

The Seattle ordinance licensing panorams dates back to 1955. 2 As originally enacted, the ordinance required panoram businesses to obtain two separate licenses, a Panoram Location License and a Panoram Operator License. The fee in 1955 for a Panoram Location License was $25 per panoram machine per annum, and the fee for a Pano-ram Operator…

Specially Concurring:

Although the majority and I agree that the panoram licensing ordinance fails to meet the test of City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 476 U.S. 41 , 106 S.Ct. 925 , 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986), I disagree with its conclusion that the district court clearly erred by finding that panorams foster criminal activity. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 837 F.2d 1298, 1304-05 (5th Cir. *227 1988) (Renton applied to licensing scheme), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1309 , 103 L.Ed.2d 578 (1989).

The district court analogized the city’s panoram licensing ordinance to the zoning provision in Renton, holding that the city was attempting to control the secondary effects of panorams on the areas in which they operated. 1 It found specifically that panorams “foster criminal activity.”

The majority acknowledges that it must uphold this finding unless “clearly erroneous” but concludes that:

If our review was de novo, I might agree with the majority’s evaluation of the evidence. But our review is for clear error, and plenty of evidence supports the district court’s finding that panorams foster criminal activity.

However, I would find the ordinance unconstitutional…

887 F.2d 219 ACORN INVESTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE; Walter Tank; Douglas Jewett, Defendants-Appellees. No. 88-3657. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 5, 1989. Decided Oct. 5, 1989. Jack R. Burns, Burns and Hammerly, P.S., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. R. James Pidduck, Asst. City Atty., Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 Acorn Investments, Inc. owns and operates panoram machines at four adult entertainment centers in the City of Seattle. When a customer inserts one or more quarters into a panoram, the machine exhibits a video tape or motion picture on a screen for a few minutes. 1 A customer may also view live entertainment through a panoram. Each panoram is located in a booth that gives individual patrons some degree of privacy. 2 In this action, Acorn attacks as violative of the First Amendment city laws that require panoram businesses to pay various license fees and to disclose the names and addresses of…