BEAVERTON, Ore. - The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the city of Beaverton in a long-running legal battle with the owners of Fantasy Adult Video.
Oregon Entertainment Corporation has been fighting to secure a 24-hour operations permit for Fantasy Adult Video since 1999. The city has won several court victories against the adult retailer, despite arguments that the city's attempt to regulate the store's hours of operation is unconstitutional.
In its ruling on Saturday, the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2005 summary judgment that stated, "Oregon Entertainment Corp. failed to make a strong case that its constitutional rights had been violated when the city declined to allow its Fantasy store to stay open 24 hours a day."
Fantasy Adult Video is located in a Community Service zone, allowing it to operate between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., but requiring a "conditional-use" permit to operate between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Attorneys for Oregon Entertainment said last month that the city of Beaverton did not have the discretion to deny the store of a 24-hour permit in 2003, claiming that the city's conditional-use permit denial amounted to "prior restraint," effectively violating the store's constitutional rights.
The company's original application for a 24-hour permit in 1999 was rejected, amidst speculative concerns about rising crime and the lowering of property value in the area. The decision was then upheld by both the state Land Use Board of Appeals and the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The store owners re-applied for a conditional-use permit in March 2003, presenting evidence to the Planning Commission that the city had not suffered adverse secondary effects during the four years the store had been open.
According to the Beaverton Valley Times, the company also claimed it was denied its Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights because it was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the case, blocking its use of the property without the proper legal process. The court ruled that Oregon Entertainment had no legal right to cross-examine witnesses in the hearings because the company "didn't have a vested property right in a conditional-use permit."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the last stops in the legal case before going to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal
- By
