10-18-1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HARBOR DISTRIBUTING COMPANY - (Continued) Mr. Norman R. Atkins~ attorney representing the applicant, stated that he does not agree with the City Attorney's opinion; that his client had spent $9, 000 in attempting to comply with the ordinance, and that they have met all health and safety requirements; that the only item which has not been resolved is the matter of a misdemeanor conviction of a limited partner, who was convicted of selling obscene materials; and that the California Supreme Court decided in the case of James Perrine, East Los Angeles Court, Los Angeles County, that convictions of this character cannot supply a reason for denying a license. He stated his client should not be required to file a law suit. Councilman Patterson asked how the facts of the Perrine case would apply;to the matter under consideration. The City Attorney stated that the Perrine case, involving a book store, is substantially different from an arcade with peep shows; that the Police Department has reported that the eroticism of the film has given rise to~ audience participation and that employees who are hired by these stores to maintain order who have been convicted of lewd acts them- selves would not seem to be the kind of policing agents the City would want; that the ordinance was drafted in good faith in an attempt to regulate certain activities in these stores, but not to regulate the content of the material shown nor to act as censors; and that the Council is now being asked to come to a legal decision which should be left to the Courts. Mr. Atkins stated that in his opinion the Perrine case is the controlling issue, and that the Council should not disregard the decision of the California Supreme Court. There were no further proponents or opponents in the matter, and the Mayor closed the public hearing, There was further discussion concerning the Perrtne case and the conviction of Phillip Manville Andrews, a limited partner, for sale of obscene material; Councilman Patterson stated that he is not necessarily in favor ofp~ep shows, but strongly supports free speech and free expression and that any form of censor- ship is appalling. Councilman Villa stated there must be respect for individual liberties and constitutional rights; that whether or not the Perrine case applies should be the decision of the Court; that when a citizen comes in to request a permit, he should be told in the beginning that it is not going to be issued, before he spends a great deal of money in trying to comply with the ordinance, Councilman Evans' motion, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, to uphold the Hearing Officer's denial of a Permit for Peep Show Establishments located at 225 N. Harobr Boulevard and 1510 N. Harbor Boulevard, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Evans, Yamamoto; Griset, Villa, Patterson Herrin Markel CITY COUNCIL -351- October 18, 1971