It has been litigated, and relitigated, and relitigated and relitigated. (A) Collateral estoppel: The record is impressive for its bulk and the issues are numerous and complex, but this is actually a simple case. The 'dancing' regulated *1085 by the ordinance in this case is conduct. However, the ordinance may regulate conduct that is obscene. The clarification is that the ordinance may not regulate the content of expression which is not obscene. The County might yet make that showing, but trial on the merits will be required to resolve the issue. Specifically, the County has failed to demonstrate a relationship between license requirements and the law enforcement costs associated with regulating the devices. The single exception is that the County has failed to establish a 'substantial governmental interest' in licensing 'peep show' devices as required by Ninth Circuit case law. With one exception and one clarification, the ordinance is valid. Defendant moves for full summary judgment both on the merits and on grounds of collateral estoppel.

Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on the following issues: (1) dancers should not be required to disclose their home addresses and phone numbers on licensing applications for personal security reasons (2) pursuant to the Privacy Act, dancers need not disclose their social security numbers (3) direct payment by customers to stage dancers should not be prohibited (4) the closure hours do not serve a legitimate purpose and (5) the ordinance is overbroad in that it may be read to prohibit nonobscene dancing. This action followed on Februand challenges the enactment as a whole and 16 discrete provisions. Suffice it to say that the County was concerned with illegal sexual conduct occurring on the premises and the secondary effects of criminal activity in the surrounding area including prostitution and drugs. For an overview of the considerations which lay behind such enactments, see Kev, Inc. Hence, the County's perceived need to distance the viewers from the viewed. One might think that dancing would fall within the realm of the visual arts, but as the trade is practiced, the tactile arts are the real drawing card. The provision generating the most heat is the 'four foot rule' which prohibits dancers and patrons from coming within that distance of one another. This worked wholesale operational changes by imposing license requirements, closure hours, minimum lighting criteria and other restrictions. 97-1052 regulating establishments offering nude and seminude dancing. On November 4, 1997, Spokane County enacted Ordinance No. This Order will memorialize the Court's rulings. These matters were considered without oral argument. Burns defendant by Patty Connolly Walker. Connolly Walker, Spokane County Prosecuting, Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, for Spokane County, defendant.īEFORE THE COURT is plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff's motion to strike.

Burns PS, Bellevue, WA, for Deja Vu-Spokane Inc., a Washington Corporation, plaintiff. *1084 Jack Ross Burns, Law Office of Jack R.

Dejavu spokane reviews