*1 published application, tice Register, were consistent in the Federal Bon, Inc., BON, INC., C’EST t/a applica- given in the with assurances Plaintiff, tion.4 specially excerpts con from Terse STATE BOARD OF NORTH CAROLINA Bag Judge curring opinion Rives in et CONTROL ALCOHOLIC al. States, gett Transportation Co. v. United Defendants. (N.D.Ala.1962) quoted F.Supp. Civ. No. 2826. margin,5 appearing in a in the while Court, United States District pecu context, different somewhat have Carolina, W. D. North pertinency liar here. Charlotte Division. adequately competing Failure to warn Sept. 1971. actually sought authority carriers of the used, and intended albeit tack- to injurious ing, naturally impact has an integrity

upon the of the administrative

process. opinion that under are of the have re to we which circumstances

the ferred, within acted well Commission declining require in

its discretion actual protestants demonstrate

that through tacking ab effect of adverse specific to diver references

stracts or of traffic.

sions ac that we conclude Since imposing the Commission in

tion of the capri complained not of was restriction consti arbitrary, that it did not

cious or it discretion and that an abuse of

tute prin established did no violence to some ciple law, entered an order will be dismissing this action. Counties, Talladega territory and' Ala- operation Jefferson would and connect Washington County, Oreg., through joinder. bama and that such would served points hand, and, other, response in applicant’s the one on the And thereto was as (except applicable. and the United States Alaska Not follows: Applicant Hawaii). it states NOTE: April 264), (Sub-No. 4. No. filed MC 73165 tack, apparently not intend to does Applicant: EAGLE MOTOR against willing accept a restriction LINES, INC., Street, North 33d hearing tacking if If a warranted. 1348, Birmingham, Post Office Box Ala. necessary, applicant requests it be deemed Applicant’s representative: Rob- 35201. Reg- Washington, Federal held at D.C. Pearce, E, Bowling ert M. Post Office Box Thursday, ister, 83, p. No. Yol. 7203 — Authority sought Green, Ky., 42101. May 1, 1969. operate carrier, motor ve- common rely hicle, irregular routes, transporting: “The be able Commission must over upon representations parties equipment, (2) (1) handling Material ** Machinery equipment used ap- board, “However, Baggett products, forestry, particle made its when wood repre- composition plication for the transfer with the board and hard board application, dustries, (3) Parts, contained that sentations attachments them.” became bound cessories the commodities described above, (1) (2) points between *2 Stein, Chambers, Fergu- Adam Stein, Lanning, son & and Michael Plum- G. ides, Charlotte, C., plaintiff. N. Knox, Charlotte, C., Charles E. N. Mecklenburg County defendants Education, members, Chief Char- City Police, lotte and Sheriff of Meck- lenburg County. Morgan, Atty. Robert Gen. of North Denson, Carolina and Y. Christie Asst. Atty. Raleigh Gen., C.,N. for defendant State Board of Alcoholic Control. CRAVEN, Judge, Before Circuit JONES and McMILLAN, District Judges. Judge:

CRAVEN, Circuit brought This suit three- is a before challenge judge the constitu- tionality inartfully drawn purporting to forbid criminal statute exposure,” “indecent and another parts exposes person, private reads: § N.C.Gen.Stat. 14-190 exposure; shows, presence thereof, more Indecent immoral etc. of one —Any person willfully place person, persons opposite who in sex whose Harris, vague language, L. pur- quite statute, companion (1971), Ed.2d 669 cases entertain- porting conduct control application. without bever- are premises where ment on ages served.2 are action, filing of the Since the *3 vagueness second of the Aware the of City a enacted so- the of Charlotte has County Mecklenburg Alco- statute, the ordinance, exposure § called indecent Beverage has issued Control holic City of of Charlotte. 13-21 Code the guidelines purporting inter- a of set supplemental com Bon has filed a C’Est pro- specifically pret so as to the statute constitutionality challenging plaint the dancing (1) topless and bottomless hibit purely this ordinance. Because is of (mere dancing permitted), (2) topless is properly before in nature it not local is simulating any performance sexual Ledesma, three-judge a Perez v. court. tivity any object, or other device “with 674, L.Ed.2d 701 91 27 S.Ct. U.S. (3) physical contact be- paraphernalia,” (1971). topless performers, tween customers topless (4) physical contact between pecu think case a this and customers. waitresses by liarly appropriate abstention one for publicized highly nude and Because of repeal a the the federal court. Since of dancing partially at C’Est Bon’s nude Eighteenth in the con Amendment business, place administrative of state consumption trol of the and use of alco begun proceedings to revoke C’Est were country beverages in this has holic been proceedings These license. Bon’s ABC The committed to the states. government federal on the license in a revocation of resulted interest has asserted no dancing, (1) grounds: nude alternative subject except in matter whatsoever the beverages (2) serving to an beverages. There is no fed tax such allowing person him re- toxicated agency or eral administrative executive premises. main on the itself with the control and that concerns filing beverages. feder- usage of the At the time of the exer The of alcoholic complaint the power, development and at the time of hear- police al ing of and the ise three-judge area, there expertise before the of administrative any prosecu- pending peculiarly not criminal were that of the been states has Younger against v. government. Bon. tions C’Est of federal the exclusion the lessee, director, of which he is or where tent, provision who shall or over ilarly exposed, parts so as to moral or permits place public exposure demeanor. or the any guilty any any highway plays any such room or thereof, indecent, show, her person, which private parts other expose of a misdemeanor. such which the of this are conducted act, willfully person land, buildings, Any person shall be exhibition capacity, hires, he has or or who who, immoral his or who aids or abets other owner, immoral or lewd dances promoter take section person, make as public control, public thereof, guilty any public place procures lessee or owner, part private or purposes, in violating shall be or the any or performance or Any person in any booth, or to be agent, leases manager, are sim- premises indecent parts any invited; another private private tenant, a mis- shall pun- used im- or or in meanor Violation utes Section 18-91. N.C.Gen.Stat. . tainment, ishable for not more than six license beverages, tion on or off disorderly conduct, any lewd, premises: malt article agent, premises do hundred dollars Prohibited acts (4) *1* any Permit on the licensed beverages or of authorizing of this statute is North employee where 3?* conduct, immoral, as defined a fine § following consumption premises. 18-78.1 reads: and wines for under license for sale of ($500.00), Carolina sold, of the the or breach of not or in § upon or practices. months, sale at retail —No improper to exceed made misde- General Stat- licensee, imprisonment on or off the any servant, premises any 18-64, holder of a peace, consump- or both. licensed enter- ^[*] shall five or of * regulation Although delay under state But here the an im- not have will may overbroadly sweep impact into attack here mediate constitu- on rights. ordinarily protected by areas the First tional has C’Est Bon’s license may Amendment, saving suspended grounds independent construction been period courts. See available for a of some months.4 The Bozanich, long proceedings Reetz v. 397 U.S. have administrative (1970); City begun might 25 L.Ed.2d 68 Me been well have since Telephone pressed ridian Tel Bell & Southern come to fruition had Bon egraph Co., 79 S.Ct. contro- hard a resolution of the (1959). versy L.Ed.2d 562 Unless the First there as it has done in this court. absolute, Amendment is suspension viewed as period The now in effect can against command certainly must be balanced to obtain an be used authorita- *4 usage power regulate police state regulations to the tive construction of the state beverages. Compare of Goe and statutes in the state Our courts.5 464, Cleary, saert 198, might v. 335 U.S. 69 S.Ct. point intervention at this well (1948). A 93 L.Ed. 163 hamper impede quick and of resolution with the benefit of an administrative controversy up. speed the than it rather position record is a better to strike judg- Clerk directed a The is to enter the than balance we.3 absten are The dismissing complaint, ment the insofar equitable tion de doctrine one three-judge as it seeks relief from a ' signed prevent be to needless friction court. government. tween and federal Railroad Commission Texas Pull of v. (concur- McMILLAN, Judge District 643, Co., 496, man 85 U.S. 61 312 S.Ct. ring) : Douglas City (1941); L.Ed. 971 of destroyed by Bon has been Club Jeannette, 319 U.S. 63 S.Ct. fire; challenged the statutes have been (1943). L.Ed. 1324 When abstention substantially by revised As- the General delays ultimate of resolution the merits sembly; liquor licenses have claim, of the constitutional fre suspension under been for several quently does, and when the constitution presumably months for extraneous and challenge one, al is a First Amendment reasons; valid and there indication is no outweigh delay the harm of will often plaintiff go expects that into the back comity competing the considerations. nightclub controversy The business. know, example, 3. We do not whether Bransford, (1941) ; Ex Parte L.Ed. guidelines by Mecklenburg the issued the 84 L.Ed. 1249 County Alcoholic Control Board are (1940). ad- regulations merely rough ministrative exposure the are aware indecent that any- rules-of-thumh. Nor do we know by statute stands itself is valid thing relationship about the between the on-premise con- without reference valid sumption Mecklenburg County Alcoholic Control beverages. Theo- of alcoholic the State Alcoholic Control retically adjudicate might proceed we guidelines Board or whether the issued constitutionality with- the of this statute Mecklenburg the Board have effect infringing prerogatives. out But on state hearing in a revocation before the State practically, the two statutes Board. regulations interpretative board’s tied are 4. C’Est Bon together contends that revocation of on the this Doubt- facts case. separate ground on the of service al- of less state resolution of the constitutional- beverages per- ity coholic to an intoxicated will made of the ABC scheme subterfuge son is light separate exposure cover the real indecent ground, e., dancing. argu- relevance, any, i. nude This if statute consider- constitutionality ment is an attack on the Since ed. tlie conduct which the state prohibit of a same, state official’s action and not an seeks is the it would constitutionality attack on of a state not make much sense us to abstain properly proceed statute and is not an issue for to one and as to the other. The three-judge Phillips possibility conflicting court. v. United of decisions would States, 312 U.S. 61 S.Ct. enhanced rather than diminished. moot; is in drasti- essentially the case posture from that

cally different original dis- 13, 1971, when

March entered; and there was order trict court special longer any reason is no Therefore, concur I by this court. tion to abstain the court decision the constitutional

from determination peti- presented originally issues

tion. Petitioner, SEVILLA,

Adolph Orozco *5 Respondent. Sheriff, PITCHESS, Peter J. Sevilla, pro. per. Adolph Orozco Civ. No. 70-2286. Younger, Gen., Atty. William Evelle J. Court, District United States Rodney Atty. Gen., James, E. Asst. C. D. California. Gen., Jr., re- Deputy Atty. Lilyquist, 3, Sept. 1971. spondent. FOR PETITION DENYING

ORDER CORPUS HABEAS Judge. HAUK, District 1966, petitioner In com- June of was addiction under Cal- mitted for narcotics Code, and Institutions ifornia Welfare 3100.6, jury after trial Section Angeles Superi- guilty in Los verdict of Thereafter filed Petition or Court. he Corpus in the Su- Writ Habeas perior Court, April which was denied appeal 1970. Petitioner’s of the denial Appeal of to the of this writ Court July 10, was California dismissed whereupon petitioned he the California Appeal Court for a of Prohibi- Writ August tion, July denied On 1970. petition hearing by Supreme was denied. California Court petition De- filed the instant on He then cember corpus Petitioner seeks habeas grounds: following (1) California Welfare and Institu- Code 3100.6 author- tions Section izes searches. unlawful