« Ind. Gov't. - Lake County legislator to resign to become Ice Miller lobbyist | Main | Ind. Law - Schererville planners review sexually oriented ordinance »

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Ind. Decisions - More on ruling in: Spencer County adult business ordered to close

Apparently it was never ordered to close.

As the AP reported yesterday, Spencer Circuit Judge Wayne Roell has "fined the owners of a southern Indiana adult bookstore and lounge $30,000 for violating a county ordinance limiting the operation of a sexually oriented business."

The ILB wrote yesterday: "This seems odd, because a long list of earlier stories cited by the ILB reported that the judge had ordered the business to close immediately."

Today Kate Braser of the Evansville Courier & Press writes:

An adult business in Spencer County must pay a $30,000 fine for violating a court order limiting the amount of sexual material at the business.

The order was issued this week by Spencer County Circuit Court Judge Wayne Roell. The judge ruled in March that the Adult Plaza was in violation of a county ordinance outlawing sexually oriented businesses from existing within 1,000 feet of a home, church or school. * * *

In this week's five-page court order, Roell seeks to clarify "widely reported misconceptions about (the court's) prior ruling. "In its order of March 9, 2007, this court did not order that the defendants cease all operations," Roell wrote.

"The court did grant a permanent injunction against the defendants from operating a sexually oriented business."

In this week's ruling, Roell also clarifies the phrase "at least 35 percent of its displayed merchandise."

Calling the phrase "at best vague," Roell said it refers to actual inventory count. An investigator for Adult Plaza argued during a May hearing that retail sales of sexual material comprised less than 10 percent of the interior space of the main building.

"Because no one has done an inventory count and because the defendants' interpretation of the ordinance is at least arguably reasonable, the court declines to hold the defendants in contempt with regard to the retail sales part of its business," Roell wrote.

Where Roell found the Adult Plaza in violation of the injunction was in regards to evidence that on four separate occasions, dancers exposed themselves.

As noted in earlier posts, the ILB has been unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain copies of Judge Roell's two rulings, meaning all we have to go on is press reports. The ILB will make another effort this morning.

[The ILB's initial entry on this dispute appears to have been this one from Jan. 16, 2006, headed "Adult business dispute draws top lawyers to fight in Spencer."]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 21, 2007 07:25 AM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions