Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 435 P.3d 248

Karlie Kidd, an escort licensed in Midvale, met an undercover Salt Lake City police officer and requested a payment for a "show-up"; she lacked a Salt Lake City sexually oriented business employee license and was cited under Salt Lake City Code §5.61.100.
Utah law (Utah Code §10-8-41.5) permits municipalities to require individual licenses for persons employed by sexually oriented businesses; an individual must be licensed by each city that requires such a license to work there.
Kidd challenged the statute as violating her First Amendment and Equal Protection rights; she argued her Midvale license should suffice and multiple licenses are duplicative and burdensome.
In district court Kidd moved to dismiss; the motion was denied, she entered a conditional no-contest plea preserving appeal, and the case was certified to the Utah Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to decide the appeal but affirmed Kidd’s conviction because her First Amendment argument was inadequately briefed and her Equal Protection claim was not preserved in district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah Code §10-8-41.5 (authorizing municipal licensing of sexually oriented business employees) violates the First Amendment	Kidd: statute unlawfully burdens escorts’ expressive/commercial speech; Midvale license suffices	State/City: statute is a valid exercise of municipal regulatory authority; no identified protected speech shown	Court: claim inadequately briefed—Kidd failed to identify protected speech or develop legal analysis; court did not reach merits; motion denied
Whether §10-8-41.5 violates Equal Protection	Kidd: statute denies equal protection by permitting duplicative municipal licensing	State/City: preservation issue and parties did not properly raise an equal-protection challenge below	Court: claim not preserved in district court (merely mentioning "equal protection" insufficient); court did not address merits

Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (party must show First Amendment applies to asserted expressive conduct)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for government regulation of conduct that incidentally burdens expression)
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (procedural safeguards and prior restraint considerations for sexually oriented business regulation)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (equal protection principles concerning discriminatory legislation)
State v. Hamilton, 70 P.3d 111 (Utah 2003) (standard of review for denial of motion to dismiss)
Angilau v. State, 245 P.3d 745 (Utah 2011) (statutes presumed constitutional; challenger bears burden)
Rose v. Office of Prof’l Conduct, 424 P.3d 134 (Utah 2017) (appellate briefing adequacy and burden of persuasion)
First Nat’l Bank of Layton v. Palmer, 427 P.3d 1169 (Utah 2018) (court must ensure jurisdiction exists before reaching merits)