Sandy City v. Lawless
370 P.3d 1277
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Micaela Lawless, licensed as an escort in Midvale, met an undercover Sandy City officer in a Sandy hotel and was cited for performing as an escort in Sandy without a Sandy Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) license.
- Sandy City ordinance 5-18-3 prohibits performing as an escort in Sandy without a municipal SOB license.
- Utah Code § 10-8-41.5(2) authorizes municipalities to require individual licensing of persons employed in sexually oriented businesses and prohibits employment in a municipality without that municipal license.
- Lawless moved to dismiss in justice court and in district court, initially arguing the state statute violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; she later abandoned the statutory challenge and asked the district court to review only the Sandy ordinance’s constitutionality.
- The district court upheld the Sandy ordinance under the intermediate-scrutiny framework of United States v. O’Brien and denied dismissal; Lawless was convicted after a bench trial.
- On appeal, Lawless challenged the constitutionality of the state statute § 10-8-41.5(2) (not the ordinance); the Court of Appeals declined to reach that issue because she had abandoned it in the district court and therefore failed to preserve it for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah Code § 10-8-41.5(2) is constitutional | Sandy (plaintiff) asserted the statute validly authorizes municipalities to license escorts; enforcement was proper. | Lawless argued the statute (as enabling municipal licensing and exclusion) violated her constitutional rights (First and Fourteenth Amendments) — raised on appeal. | Not reached on merits — issue not preserved because Lawless abandoned it in district court. |
| Whether Sandy ordinance 5-18-3 is constitutional | Sandy maintained the ordinance is lawful and passes intermediate scrutiny. | Lawless initially argued the ordinance was unconstitutional but later focused district-court briefing on the ordinance rather than the state statute. | District court upheld the ordinance under O’Brien; Lawless did not challenge the ordinance on appeal. |
| Preservation of constitutional challenge | Sandy argued review should be limited to issues preserved below. | Lawless sought appellate review of the statutory challenge she had abandoned below. | Court applied preservation rule and declined to decide the unpreserved statutory constitutional claim. |
| Standard of review for constitutional questions | Sandy relied on established standards for reviewing statute constitutionality. | Lawless sought de novo review of the statute’s constitutionality. | Court noted de novo review normally applies to statutory constitutionality but refused to reach it due to lack of preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (establishes intermediate-scrutiny test for certain government regulations affecting expressive conduct)
- State v. Daniels, 40 P.3d 611 (Utah 2002) (constitutional questions reviewed for correctness)
- O’Dea v. Olea, 217 P.3d 704 (Utah 2009) (explains need for trial-court opportunity to address issues)
- Harper v. Evans, 185 P.3d 573 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (declines to address appellate argument abandoned below)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule applies to constitutional claims)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 266 P.3d 828 (Utah 2011) (preservation gives trial court chance to correct error)