City of Albuquerque v. Pangaea Cinema, LLC
284 P.3d 1090
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Guild Cinema in Nob Hill, Albuquerque, was prosecuted for showing one adult film during Pornotopia, a festival weekend.
- Albuquerque’s Ordinance 14-16-1-5(B) restricts adult films to designated zones and bans public screenings elsewhere.
- Guild conceded the film showed depicted specified anatomical areas and sexual activities under the Ordinance.
- Evidence showed no negative secondary effects from the single screening; neighbors reported positive effects.
- District court upheld conviction and the Guild appealed, contending vagueness and misapplication of the Ordinance.
- The majority affirmed the district court; the dissent would narrowly construe to exclude the Guild from the definition of an adult amusement establishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Ordinance vague as applied to a single screening? | Guild argues the ordinance fails to give notice for single-showings outside zones. | City asserts reasonable notice and flexibility; not void as applied. | Not unconstitutionally vague as applied. |
| Does the Ordinance pass time-place-manner scrutiny as applied? | Guild contends the Ordinance is not narrowly tailored and overreaches. | City argues the regulation advances substantial interests and is narrowly tailored. | Yes; the Ordinance passes time-place-manner scrutiny as applied. |
| Does the Ordinance unlawfully target content or regulate only secondary effects? | Guild suggests content-based targeting of speech. | City maintains regulation targets secondary effects, not content. | Regulation treated as time-place-manner, content-neutral in theory, and upheld as applied. |
| Does the Guild’s status as a mainstream, single-screen theater affect classification as an adult amusement establishment? | Guild contends it is not an adult establishment and should be excluded from the definition. | Ordinance applies to any theater featuring adult films when outside designated zones. | Court majority holds the Guild is subject to the Ordinance as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (time-place-manner zoning of adult theaters; substantial government interests)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976) (location-based regulation of adult theaters; secondary effects)
- Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 434 (2002) (content-neutral zoning; narrowly tailored to secondary effects)
- Tollis, Inc. v. San Bernardino County, 827 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (single-use adult theater regulation not narrowly tailored)
- Lucero v. Board of Supervisors, 774 P.2d 769 (Cal. 1989) (narrow construction to exclude single incidental screenings)
- Northend Cinema, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 585 P.2d 1153 ( Wash. 1978) (zoning to limit adult theaters; not a censorship of art)
- Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 2010) (objective notice in statutory interpretation; applicable standards)