*1 Dist., 30, 1977.] Div. One. Nov. 48235. Second No. [Civ. KAMP, K. VAN de JOHN PEOPLE
THE ex rel. etc., Plaintiff
as District Attorney, Appellant, al., ENTERPRISES, INC., et ART
AMERICAN
Defendants Respondents.
Counsel
John K. Van de Sondheim, District B. Donald J. Kamp, Attorney, Harry Thomas K. Hudson, Elden and Dirk L. Kaplan, District Deputy for Plaintiff and Attorneys, Appellant.
Fleishman, Brown, Rohde, Weston & Fleishman and David M. Stanley Brown for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion
THOMPSON, J. This issues first appeal presents apparent impres- sion. We are called to determine: (1) upon applicability California’s Red Code, Abatement Law (Pen. Light 11225-11235) §§ a premises for the used occupied by publisher storage distribution of obscene; matter conceded to be not printed relief if the scope is Based injunctive permissible law applicable. upon a record which establishes that the used are also premises publication “a nerve center” for related we conclude that prostitution publication, the Red Abatement Law We conclude further Light applies. limited in so that relief to the law must be scope pursuant injunctive is no than First Amendment greater upon protection infringement of the use of essential proves prevention government to promote prostitution. that the its trial determined Because the court finding despite the Red Abatement “nerve center” the factual and did not make Law did not predicate findings apply an evidence that extent conclusively supports applicability despite in the we for defendants limited in reverse judgment scope, injunction case bench.
Facts1 California, Chatsworth, is used as A on Lassen Street in building of various entities constituting empire engaged headquarters corporate materials. The distribution pornographic publication administration, art, editorial, and photographic develop- publication, 20,000 feet of the ment of the entities are housed in square *5 with the remainder devoted to of foot storage building 120,000-square One-third of the stored material books, and magazines, photographs. one-third sexual consists activity, photographs photographs explicit sex, At and one-third material without of simulated printed photographs. are least 100 employed premises. people staff the umbrella
American Art entity, employs photog- Enterprises, those Lassen Street from the photog- headquarters, Working raphers. men and women the services model engage through agencies, raphers, variant, and who conceivable intercourse who every perform not does The in their activity are activity. photographed photographed an Male models average Lassen Street occur in the paid building. are taken $50. services, and female models
$35 for .their photographs A Art its associated American companies. for use publications is described of models the use and payment typical example The Fixler 363], v. Fixler Cal.Rptr. instance of at hundreds of times has situation been repeated Street the Lassen building. operating photographers conduct in in the detail of sexual 1We eschew the interest contained appeal prurient fact statement of the and dissenting opinion. concurring in Trial Court Proceedings to Penal Code sections the District Acting pursuant of Los filed a closure of the Attorney Angeles County complaint seeking Lassen Street to abate a nuisance as defined in those building statutory sections. The trial found that the is used as a court “nerve building center” for with others prostitution, amplifying finding concerning the detail of the use of the to secure the of sexual building performance concluded, however, for hire. The court that the are not “used for the as that term is in Penal purpose prostitution,” employed Code section and that a used for building publication distribution of books is not to the Red magazines subject Light Abatement Law.
Nature Appeal This the district followed. The district appeal by attorney attorney the outset the case at bench not does involve emphasizes therefore, We are to consider it in the context that obscenity. required, at the Lassen Street is publishing activity building constitutionally protected. A
Red batement Law Penal Code section 11225 states: or used “Every building place lewdness, for the . of. . or assignation, prostitution, every ¡ lewdness, in . . which acts of .. . building place assignation, occur, are held to is a nuisance which shall be prostitution, enjoined, *6 abated and whether is a or nuisance.” The it prevented, public private section is worded to define as a nuisance for the “used places purpose Hence, as well as where “acts of occur. prostitution” places prostitution” where acts of are to be consummated prostitution arranged elsewhere to abatement under the law. v. Barbiere subject (People P. v. 56 812]; (1942) Cal.App. People McGonigle [166 P.2d 7].) Cal.App.2d [132 “If the of a
Penal Code section
existence
provides:
article,
order of
nuisance is established in an action as
in this
an
provided
case,
abatement
shall be entered as a
of the
part
judgment
the removal from the
or
of all fixtures . . . and
directing
building
place
movable
used
or
property
conducting, maintaining, aiding
abetting
. and the effectual
nuisance, and
the sale thereof.
.
closing
directing
and that it be
its use for
or
against
any purpose,
building
place
While
unless
released.”
for a
of one
sooner
closed
year,
period
kept
terms,
as not
section 11230 is construed
worded in
requiring
mandatoiy
nuisance or the removal
of a
found to be a
the closure
statutory
building
Rather,
located in it.
the trial court
and sale of
adjudicating
property
as
of the
nuisance is treated
to establish the existence
statutory
complaint
with a broad discretion to fashion an
vested
remedy
appropriate
Constitutional of the Red tension in There is necessary application Law to used Abatement constitutionally protected publica- the extent to which the of that tension tion. Resolution depends upon restrains or itself contrasted restraining press application speech conduct related to speech.
Where designed prevent governmental activity collides with First itself evil restraint social speech press upon Constitution2 in I, 2 of California section Amendment and article where either freedom fashion press speech the constitutional must prevail. guarantees yield, necessarily government Amend “The First Court: States of the United In the words Supreme *7 free to left if it destroy a hollow would ... be ment promise government as ho law is restraints so indirect passed its long or erode guarantees (Wilson the First Amendment. v. 2The California is more inclusive than guarantee 468, 652, 116].) (1975) 532 P.2d Court 13 Cal.3d 658 Cal.Rptr. Superior [119 530 free . . . We have . .... . . held that laws prohibits press repeatedly affect the exercise of vital cannot be sustained actually [right] [this] because were enacted for the of with some
merely
dealing
evil within the State’s
or even because the laws
legislative competence,
do in
fact
means of
such an
with
evil.” (Mine
provide
helpful
dealing
217,
426,
Workers
222
v. Illinois Bar Assn.
389 U.S.
L.Ed.2d
(1967)
[19
430,
The rule of
of the First
has
Amendment
been
primacy
applied
California to invalidate an
restraint of
attempt
prior
speech
press
as abatement of
nuisance
the form of
ex
disguised
obscenity. (People
rel. Busch v.
Room Theater
42
17 Cal.3d
(1976)
Projection
Cal.Rptr.
[130
cert,
328,
289,
550
600],
den.,
P.2d
U.S. 922
97
429
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct. 320]
[50
sub nom. Van De
v.
District
Los
Attorney
Angeles County
Kamp,
of
Room
the denial
Theater.)
Projection
principle prohibits
license to
a book store
because
distribution
operate
prior activity
v.
Court
5
656
Cal.3d
(Perrine
(1971)
obscenity.
Municipal
Cal.Rptr.
[97
cert,
320,
729,
den.,
404 U.S.
648],
P.2d
L.Ed.2d
92 S.Ct.
[30
District,
sub nom.
Court
East Los
Judicial
Municipal
Angeles
710]
Los
v. Perrine.)
County
Angeles
Where, however,
restriction
application
governmental
evil conduct rather than
regulate
designed
socially
speech
press
itself
an indirect
creates
tension
the First Amendment and its
Then,
California
a different
equivalent,
principle applies.
govern
“[the]
ment
is
if it is within the constitutional
regulation
sufficiently justified
Government;
if it
furthers an
substantial
power
important
interest;
if the
is unrelated
interest
governmental
governmental
free
if
the incidental
restriction
suppression
expression;
First Amendment
is no
is
freedoms
than
essential to the
alleged
greater
furtherance of
interest.”
States v.
(1968)
O’Brien
U.S.
(United
367,
672, 680,
L.Ed.2d
88 S.Ct.
also
v.
see
Crownover
1673];
[20
405,
681,
Musick
Cal.3d
422-423
509 P.2d
(1973)
497],
[107 Cal.Rptr.
cert, den.,
Application
The
constitutional
distill
to two
governing
principles
propositions
here.
Because the
conducted at
particularly apt
publishing activity
the Lassen Street
constitutes
the sole
building
virtually
purpose
which the
is used and it is conceded that
is not
building
obscenity
involved, closure of the
and removal of
it
from is an
building
property
unconstitutional
restraint
itself.
prior
upon protected speech
press
ex rel.
Theater,
Busch
Room
42, 59;
17 Cal.3d
(People
Projection
supra,
Guild,
cf. Art Theater
Prostitution and its related commercial endeavor of pandering be to further a substantial interest. may prohibited governmental (People v. Osuna 599].) Cal.Rptr. [59. interest in that conduct is unrelated to
governmental preventing speech Granted that the burden is on the state to here that press. prove conduct does not create an incidental regulation prohibited which is First than Amendment infringement upon rights “greater essential to vindicate its . . . interests” v. United States (9th (Bursey [that] Cir. 466 F.2d 1972) the record 1083), establishes conclusively some Red Abatement Law is regulation pursuant Light appro priate.
Because of the broad relief available injunctive scope pursuant the Red Law, could, Abatement the court have Light example, use of the ácts of enjoined arrange prostitution. Conceivably broader relief is of fact injunctive appropriate depending upon findings of the relief and its concerning necessity impact upon publishing Because the trial court concluded that the Red Abatement activity. Law was not at all and that the were not used for the applicable were not made. prostitution, necessary findings
Disposition from an order also The is reversed. appeal Appellant-People judgment order” a from judgment injunction “post dissolving preliminary a new one. Because the and enter to vacate motion judgment denying was dissolved time the the of since injunction preliminary passage than in the trial court more further renders appropriate proceedings form, the in its this court the action reinstating injunction original by the is affirmed. The order appeal preliminaiy injunction dissolving the order” is dismissed. “post judgment J.,
Lillie, P. concurred. Acting HANSON, J.I in the concur for that except judgment portion the be construed as restrictions on trial court in may placing respect of under the relief which be the remedial may imposed provisions scope Law, the Penal Code Red Abatement section et seq. Light et (hereinafter § seq.). action,
I the order the would reverse dismissing denying judgment relief, the all dissolving expunging appellant preliminaiy injunction, costs from notice of lis pendens, awarding appellant, respondents to the trial court conduct and remand matter necessaiy relief, the which will result in additional factual scope inquiries granting Law. will Red Abatement of which accomplish A of time and effort has been tremendous amount expended of the this The case satisfies two court below on case.1 counsel Court, rule Rules of under California three criteria publication issues that it is one of first involves 976(b), legal impression more than interest. calls for something continuing public foregoing case 1The the three this superior actions reflects register during years 22, 1972, (between on July court of the of notice filing appeal time Aug. filed, 1975) and court motions there were made of documents about entries legal trial, of 2 exclusive being court days foregoing about 20 appeárances including trial transcript The reporter’s filed the Court of Appeal. separate petitions 2,000 384 exhibits There are testimony. consists of 9 volumes over containing pages defendants’—161). into evidence There were 32 exhibits introduced (plaintiff’s—223; (1976) 56 case v. Fixler from the trial of People reference Cal.Rptr. 363], brush. The factual basis and for the need authority holdings legal quick amplification. *10 follows:
My opinion
The Case This action was the the to brought by pursuant provisions People Red the Abatement Law 11225 et to abate certain (§ Light seq.) 21314 and 21322 nonresident Lassen Street in the premises area of Los Lassen (hereinafter Chatsworth the Street County Angeles owned, and the defendants occupied captioned premises) operated referred to as American (hereinafter Art). /respondents collectively Art is a of hard core American materials. The publisher pornographic asserts that the Lassen Street action were a “used” for the premises place lewdness, a assignation, purposes constituting public a nuisance and one closure of the permanent sought injunction, year’s furniture, fixtures, and the sale of all and movable premises, property to out used the nuisance.2 carry a the court
Following protracted legal struggle, superior judgment ordered the dismissed as to certain It defendants. also decreed complaint the that “take their from Defendants nothing Complaint a Enterprises, Inc., News, American Art corporation, World Inc. a dba a News, Pacific News, Inc., corporation, Parliament corpora- Academy tion, Inc. dba Press and Socio a Towers, Seven Library, a Press, Inc., Press, London corporation, corporation, London Inc. dba a Bindery, Oxford Remcor, corporation, Remcor, partnership, Larry venture, Luros, Luros, joint Parker, Milton Beatrice B. Paul Stanley Wisner, Hulsey, Sohler, Bancroft, Wilbur Keith Iris Lloyd Bancroft, Grossman, Rita Pulster, Green,” Fred Howard with Lassen Street It dissolved the respect premises. Petroski, Jr., J. an of the 2Sergeant Los Police Henry investigator Angeles Department vice assigned administrative division and in of the charge investigation concerning Art, the Lassen Street owned and American testified that on operated by April 18, 1972,while he Lassen Street he building search warrant saw file serving cabinets on on the second photo library floor “several thousand” file cards containing “models,” female, male and saw nude and vouchers for photographs activities; he “models” from payment engage explicit thought those observations that Lassen Street used for the being purposes that a task force went effect to activities at prostitution; premises into special investigate 1972; at the end of and that directed their May toward investigation violations the Red Abatement it his Law since was obscenity opinion would the sex not curb American Art. prosecutions modeling (prostitution) operations notice of lis preliminary injunction expunged pendens, costs favor of defendants. granted from the entire under Code of Civil People “appeal judgment
Procedure section and also 904.1(a) judgment portion Code of Civil Procedure under preliminaiy injunction dissolving . the court section . . from the order of 904.1(f) post-judgment motion under Procedure section Code Civil denying plaintiff’s vacate the and enter a new judgment judgment.” *11 Facts chart,” A 553) as attached (see
The “flow p. diagram, post, Appendix 9, as into evidence exhibit No. introduced plaintiff’s depicts editors, Art’s between American ownership, interrelationship photo the “model” and the “models” department, photographers, agencies, hired American Art to conduct. sexually by engage explicit trial, court trial made 20-day following
Following nonjury fact,” all of are substantial pertinent “findings supported by evidence:
Trial Court Fact Findings of Inc., News, Inc., American Art World That defendants Enterprises, News, Towers, Inc., Press, Inc., London Inc. are Parliament Seven and News, does California that defendant World Inc. business corporations; Towers, News, as Inc. did business as Pacific defendant Seven Academy Press, in its own Press Socio and London Inc. does business and Library, name and Oxford Bindeiy; which, a commercial structure Lassen Street contain
That the offices, and facilities warehouse has contained since January Towers, Inc., Inc., Art Seven American used defendants Enterprises, by News; News, News, Inc., Inc. dba Pacific and World Parliament News, Inc., World Art a American defendants Enterprises, corporation, News, Inc., a News, Parliament a corpora- Inc. dba Pacific corporation, a Press and Socio tion, Towers, Inc. dba Library, Seven Academy venture, Remcor, Milton Remcor, a joint partnership, corporation, Parker, Wisner, Wilbur Luros, Paul Luros, B. Hulsey, Beatrice Larry Grossman, Bancroft, Rita Sohler, Bancroft, Iris Keith Stanley defendants London Green, have interests in Howard premises; Press, Inc., Press, London Inc. Oxford dba corporation, Bindery, Fred Pulster have no in the interest corporation, Lloyd premises; That American Towers, Art Inc. and Seven dba Inc. Enterprises, Press and Socio are of books and Academy Library publishers maga- zines;
That Parliament is a News national distributor books and maga- zines, some which are Art American published by Enterprises Towers, Seven some which are not by published companies action; in this defendants News,
That World Inc. dba Pacific News is a local distributor of books area, some Los of which magazines Angeles published Art Towers, American and Seven and some of which are Enterprises action;3 not defendants this published companies Structure and Control Art: 3Ownership, Organization, American Witness Robert Reitman, Art American testified president as follows: up July substantially *12 Publications; that he went to work for it the when was organization known as Jaybird that it later its name to American Art changed that the Enterprises, Incorporated; were between several in operations initially the North area spread buildings Hollywood but in order consolidate the and obtain it more moved one operations under space 1972; roof to Lassen the Street in that as of premises American Art he early president Luros, took orders from Milton of the and Luros Beatrice who were the stockholders principal that he attended with the Luroses which were company; weekly meetings attended other individuals connected with other by titled and Milton Luros corporations, gave directions to all those these that one of the hewho recalled attending meetings; persons Wisner, Inc., áttended the News, was Paul weekly of Parliament meetings president scale; which distributed and sold American Art materials on a national that Howard Green was also at the that Art present weekly American was a meetings; publishing Press, the that materials were company; London bound Oxford printed by by Bindery, News; and distributed News and Pacific Parliament Milton locally by that nationally by Press, Luros was the also stockholder in London Oxford and major Parliament Bindeiy News; Grossman, that he he was told same Rita was the thought person, corporate Pacific, Parliament and and the and Luros, “Secretary and binding London printing companies, Oxford;” (Luros) and that discussions with that Milton he during explained he wanted to move the Art American Lassen Street in order operations premises in and one to have more room to consolidate bring publishing together place, under one roof. operations Iris Bancroft that she American one Witness testified was an Art or employee-editor Casebook, of its subdivisions and worked such The Elusive Foreplay, publications Game; she When Too Much Isn’t and The that Sex Orgasm, Enough, Mate-Exchange work; from Fred Fixler in connection with her requested photographs that the Art final came Fred Fixler or from American files for her photographs she in at the Street that while Lassen approval; participated profit-sharing program that in 1965or 1966 some of the rooms same building premises; Jaybird occupied Art; at Milton was in as American that Robert Reitman hired her and Luros Jaybird left American Art control of some of the that she and corporations; rejoined That the structure on the Lassen Street commercial premises, approxi- 120,000 size, feet consists warehouse facilities of mately square 100,000 feet, used approximately square receiving, storing shipping, and and books and office magazines, shredding space approximately feet, 20,000 for the used and distribution books and square publication editorial, administrative, clerical, magazines, including bookkeeping, offices,. art and and a payroll, layout photo department, including laboratories, photo library photo developing processing at least were on the persons regularly employed 1972. during period January through August Art That from American August Enterprises Januaiy through staff four of whom employed photographers, regularly photographed while that male female models various sexual engaged 1972; Lassen Street in December 1971or and that Press and January Academy were under Seven Towers which used subsidiary Socio Library companies photographs activities. of sexually explicit The internal American Art Respect Photographers'. 4Internal Operations of of American Art located at Lassen Street was department photographic operations Robert Melford namely three employed by company, testified to by photographers Kanters, librarian, Vose, C. Geraldine by Benson and Robert Phillips photo as follows: Their testimony substantially Price. that he for about three months as Vose testified worked Witness Robert Melford Street; their “main base of on Lassen for American Art out of operation” photographer that editor; Fixler, was the while he was he was hired Fred who photographic nude, soft core to hard Art the “were all but were from with American shootings core;” in Fred Fixler’s office which were attended other he attended meetings Kirk; Kanters, Utterback, Green, the the namely “Nippy” Phillips, photographers, the eroticism of called for keeping meetings mainly express purpose *13 were to be Fred Fixler who a at which they required by to standard up photographs and out the point and out the point “would hold the photographer, photograph see, the would not do this so all could so of the eroticism in picture they inadequacy same.” Art and American testified that he was a for Benson photographer Witness Phillips Kanters, Kirk; issued he checks salary by that was a by with Utterback paid worked Art his supervisor American that immediate Enterprises; Art either American Agency Fixler; Fixler; were that the “models” was furnished Fred that his film by was Fred (“models”) there were three model that normally people from agencies; obtained usually males and one two two females and one male or sometimes in each shooting, usually situations; female, that the activity a series of different would go through in which they core and hard explicit core or simulated sex to include from soft each ranged shooting Fixler, sex; handed out Fred were by film for the shootings supplied that scripts the Lassen Street the film was returned to that Street exposed the Lassen premises; at his the Fred Fixler often contacted photographer that for processing; premises normally that he paid Street from the Lassen premises; location by telephone shooting all the down way West end of the Valley $25 at “locales from the for a location shooting for to ten eight that were photographs the photographers supplying into Hollywood;” file cards “models” were on kept and that the names of the hard core-type magazines in the nude and in models also were simulating poses photographed the model sexual that the obtained models from activity; photographers defendants, owned model not the which agencies by operated California;5 were located in that all agencies Hollywood, photographs thousands; and that American Art the for their numbering paid “models” always forms which also sexual release were American activity required by signed supplied Fixler at the Art and which were returned to Fred Lassen Street premises. Kanters, C. Witness Robert as an Art testified American employed photographer, Fixler, as that hired follows: he was as a Fred substantially photographer by photo editor, 8, 1968, Luros, on and Milton owner of the a role in January company, played him; when the that located at the hiring Fulton Avenue address before the company move to the Lassen Street there was a with the counsel meeting company’s the ramifications of in sexual discussing legal that the photographing people activity; were the numbers counsel photographers line number given and a telephone legal special night bondsman; with the number of the bail that he along telephone company’s (Kanters) started material shooting sexual in middle and continued in that explicit 10, 1972; on a basis until he activity left that Fred Fixler regular company August was his immediate while he was with the that the supervisor company; photographers were sexual a shooting explicit three week approximately days (Monday, that Wednesday Friday); the other two a and Thursday) week days (Tuesday they would to the Lassen Street where “turn in to Fred report would the film” they Fixler’s the their vouchers for along “models” secretary, expense moneys paid “models;” releases by that also for signed paid company photographers and from the to locations and some of the mileage shooting photographic supplied and that their film was at the Lassen Street premises. processed equipment; Witness further Kanters testified that were received the of the from photo requests Fred editors or Fixler and that in 1972 85 to through approximately percent core; were hard were for each shootings explicit three “models” used normally hours, week; five session which lasted for a did shooting about three not days they shoot when the “heat” was on and were followed being apparently by police; that an made effort was as as many different “models” as directed get possible by Art; $25 $100 American “models” were in cash and paid release signed form American Art after each while the supplied by and that shooting; shootings he often had progress with Fred Fixler at American Art. telephone communication Witness Kanters also testified that in the fall of 1971 of his work for American part Art he “model” Patricia photographed 14-year-old F. in explicit poses Fixler, culminated in criminal the case proceedings supra, Cal.App.3d 321; that after he had case surrendered himself the Fixler on a felony pandering he continued shoot hard Art to charge meet the explicit core activities American sexually requirements American Art month. approximately magazines per Witness Kanters further testified that the “models” were obtained model through such as Photo West agencies owned Sunset International owned Irving Sofsky, *14 “Reb,” McNiff, known as Girl International Russ C. H. N. person owned Hal $25 owned and Pretty by $15 In 1972 he He Guth. used Photo West. to by personally paid agent “model.” per Price, Art, for Witness Geraldine librarian American testified that would photo “[she] a thousand and then other would stamp, say, day, days, only stamp photographs [she] 25 or 30” but that on an in each thousands of new came maybe average photographs in which hard core the full week showed explicit activity. portion range 5The Witness testified that he was the and Irving Model owner Sofsky Agencies: West; of a Photo had booked “the 14-year-old model known as that he agency operator the books for the
were taken and used illustrating exclusively at the and distributed defendants and premises magazines published did not that the from the defendants engage photographers premises; direct and for said but did with the models in sexual they pay activity in order to of defendants at the behest activity; photograph activity residences, were that models apartments private photographed on Los and occasion and commercial studios County Angeles throughout as far as San outside of Los were County away photographed Angeles the Lassen Street Francisco; were on that no models photographed their Street from the date of that the Lassen premises, premises; were used as the base |972 August Januaiy through occupation were coordinat- and their activities for said photographers, operations in the office there, i.e., were held on the ed meetings bi-weekly Fixler, at which Fred their meetings prior photographic supervisor, discussed, directions and were requirements photographic shootings film was were raw photographers’ personnel dispensed, given, model, travel, maintained, their vouchered (food, were records expenses occasion, were submitted fees) and location they, paid, agent film for returned their to used the they exposed arrange shootings, phone thereof; files on models and examined the prints processing files of as well as on the were maintained model premises, agencies maintained that Fixler phone prints; transparencies negatives, field; that all the when were contact with photographers those books and containing product magazines, including off the or hard core aforesaid shootings printed explicit distribution; for the models and returned there wigs storage Utterback in 1971 for Ranters and F. American Art Patricia to photographers model into hard core shootings to book models for that he also continued hard core activity;” the free he them “to 1972; disease and took had venereal that some of the “models” in the Fixler clinic;” him as a defendant against the criminal that following proceeding officers and with law enforcement Patricia F. he decided to cooperate case involving 1972; Ranters July photographer at the end of July during closed his business for hard core (Ranters) had booked models that he fee for some of his him a paid was in the Patricia F. case and that while knowledge; without his (Sofsky’s) “models” him to continue Fred Fixler encouraged supplying criminal proceedings American Art photographers. of a model that he was owner operator Sawitz testified Witness E. Craig International;” hundred models that he several booked as “Reb’s Sunset known agency Art models for 1972 and booked American August out of his January agency shooting explicit and Utterback Rirk Phillips, photographers puiposes business;” that photographers Art most of the that American “took up sexual activity; week week for a total of per for 3 times a each took models Utterback and Phillips and June May and continued through hard core shootings January for 85 to 90 percent models 1972; $20 and that he had sent $25 model shooting; received per that he per clinic for venereal diseases. *15 at the that from were and stored premises; equipment photographic 1972, one of the four photographers employed January through August Counties in Los and San Francisco different in Angeles sixty-six persons activities; or hard core sexual that sessions modeling typically explicit two and male as and three times a involved females a models took place week; time; that the first often involved for modeling persons meeting a that that some models had sexual venereal preexisting relationship; models; was on occasion that disease reportedly present among $35 $50 male and a female defendants paid per modeling typically session, whether actual or simulated sexual was involved activity session; that $20 were model at least per per agents paid approximately defendants off hundred were several employed by persons models; that at in August January through period in acts staff direction said they engaged explicit photographers, intercourse, oral heterosexual sexual copulation, activity,6 including masturbation, sex, homosexual sodomy, ejaculation, group that models in simulated sexual lesbian said also engaged activity; at the behest of the acts in which models that engaged activity; their or hard core defendants and agents during shootings explicit then was and the in which acts engaged prostitution. Witness Jackson testified that she into the 6The “Models”'. Deborah got modeling Press; from an ad in the Free that she for Ranters four business on posed photographer his with a
or five occasions and under direction in sexual intercourse male and engaged a female. orally copulated Trammell, 20, testified she was in the “modeling” Witness Patricia that business age Utterback, Rirk, five she had for Lee Ren years; posed “Nippy” Phillips Ranters; and oral that she shot hard core of sexual intercourse consisting copulation Bob for three, times; $50 a or five that she was session and Ranters four paid photographer them; that did Amercian Art she not releases the name of Enterprises signed having arrested;” want to that on occasions Ranters her true name “because didn’t use get [she] that she because he he was followed being by police; cancelled shootings thought twice, times, sure, modeling.” venereal disease three “contracted [she’s] in sexual Patterson that in 1971 and she was engaged Witness Susan testified $10 rate an at the 1972she was Ranters by modeling; April paid photography (Ranters’) oral direction. in sexual intercourse and under his hour to engage copulation $35 to be Adams testified that he was Ranters by photographed Witness paid Rirby into different sexual and he directed Ranters conduct was explicit engaging positions. relations testified he Ranters paid engage Witness Patterson Jeffrey street two sessions and described the arrangement following during vernacular shooting be “We knew we would for a officer: shooting statement police signed core, asked, I could more because get money hard because I always shooting, prior and said we amount of hard core. would mention and certain money, Ranters be would fucking sucking.” doing *16 That on the in business activities persons employed premises engaged concerned the and distribution books and publication magazines, of solicitation, direction, activities included the overseeing, payment, and of hundreds of of acts acts which said record-keeping prostitution were that said were distributed from the photographed; photos premises times, aforesaid books and that at all the facilities magazines; contained within the and the movable the premises property upon were used for the and distribut- premises primaiy purpose publishing books and that the facilities and on the entities ing magazines; corporate were premises physically functionally integrated; January one-third of the books and through August approximately maga- zines defendants at distributed contained published premises behavior; sexual one-third depicting photographs explicit approximately contained and/or sexual depicting nudity photographs nonexplicit one-third were books no activity; approximately paperback containing that a total million of said photographs; approximately copies all books and were stored on magazines types premises 1972; distribution were distributed from the during they wide; statewide, nationwide, and worldwide. county fact, made the above the trial court made Having findings conclusions law: following pertinent
Trial Court Law Conclusions of
1. That acts in which the models at the behest engaged defendants and their or hard core agents during explicit shootings were acts of and the in which then activity engaged prostitution;
2. That at no time “used for the 11225; within the of Penal Code section meaning prostitution” 3. That á of books used for distribution building publication is not of the Red subject magazines provisions Abatement Law.
Issues issues are: whether or not the determinative appeal hiring of “models” explicit engage purposes *17 within the constitutes such meaning photographing were 11225; Street whether or not the Lassen (2) of section of section within the for the “used meaning prostitution” 11225; Street for the use of the Lassen and whether not invokes First and distribution materials printed publication alfords the from Amendment premises immunity protections et remedial of section seq. provisions
Discussion the case of I take of the record on notice appeal judicial Fixler, 1976) den. May (petn. hg. supra, case issues in the and throws on the extent that it upon light impinges Fred Fixler was the the instant case American Art bench. In employer case. in the Fixler Utterback, II, who were defendants and Lee Harry also testified testified in the Fixler case All of the witnesses who during into evidence exhibits introduced the trial of the case at bench many in the were into evidence reference that case also introduced case. instant to the trial the case at case took
The trial Fixler place prior until after in Fixler did not become final but the decision bench case at which occurred in 1975. trial of the bench Case
The Fixler Fixler, case, In Fred Robert Ranters and Lee the Fixler Harry II, indictment, were a Utterback grand jury prosecuted following 266i, a to violate Penal Code section felony (pandering). conspiracy Defendant Fixler was editor” Art for American while “photo defendant Utterback and Ranters were photographers employed by Art, firm, core American hard defendants/re- pornographic publishing case at bench. Defendant Ranters turned state’s spondents dismissed, filed him evidence, the were and he originally against charges ". testified for prosecution. Art directed the Fixler his as editor” for American capacity “photo at which the held work of quality meetings photographers, discussed, instructions to the content of pictures gave do in case of arrest. to what should photographers the services of their photographers procured subjects one which was Photo West Model independent modeling agencies, owned various fees these Agency by Irving Sofsky,7 paid “models” for in lewd acts and engaging explibit activity ranging from masturbation to homosexual or heterosexual oral copulation sexual intercourse. “models,”
One of these Patricia F. who was 14-year-old girl *18 hired on to 15 some occasions to in the above described sexual engage for Utterback and Kanters in return for which was activity money Art, American in the case at bench. provided by defendant/respondent session, At each the F. told Patricia how to photographic photographer to do. what pose Fixler trial and Utterback were convicted of nonjury
Following violate, and of the to statute (Pen. conspiring violating, anti-pandering Code, 266i). §
The Court of affirmed. In Fixler’s and Utterback’s Appeal rejecting contention that because their intent was to some of the publish ain their in conduct was somehow photographs magazine hiring girl clothed of the First Amendment constitutional protection of freedom of the court out not all guarantee speech, pointed can conduct be labeled whenever the in the “speech” person engaging conduct intends to an idea. The court held that even thereby express defendants’ claim that intended to use in accepting they photographs a nonobscene defendants publication, obtaining photographs became definition common facts that panderers, regardless they in the sexual and that their nonparticipants activity primary motivation to it. was photograph;
I Does the “models” hiring engage explicit activity for such constitute within the purposes photographing activity prostitution section 11225? Yes. meaning of were dismissed at the and he 7Charges against Irving hearing Sofsky preliminary with law enforcement officials. who had been arrested five times for Sofsky cooperated in connection with related activities had ceased “models” for “hard pandering booking In core” June 1972 Fixler to ask he was saw him no pornography. Sofsky why (Sofsky) (Fixler) models for him reminded that he had longer booking Sofsky weekly $1,600 of some budget fees. spend agency the evidence the trial court and I concur majority opinion of fact and case law case and instant finding support the models the acts in which of law “that engaged conclusion or hard core and their of the defendants behest agents during explicit then in which and the were acts of prostitution shootings was prostitution.” engaged Los Glenn R. Souza of the witness Angeles Sergeant People’s in the administra- that he was an
Police testified investigator Department 2,000 1,500 cases of involved with between tive vice division the laws and arrests while enforcing against investigations prostitution when sex models are that in his engaged explicit opinion prostitution; that a shorthand sexual activities they engaging prostitution; definition of is “sex money;” during working prostitution Los late to late 1970 mushroomed in Angeles year *19 it conducted and that much of was “legitimate being through County; clinics, communication such as fronts” parlors, therapy “massage He further centers, studios, studios.” nude body painting modeling [and] acts are that the sexual that in his it is not testified paid necessary opinion that “models in the conduct and the for one of persons engaging activities” constitute their for [sexually prostitution.8 being explicit] paid on direct examination as follows: 8Witness Souza testified work in law “Q. with the—from your BY MR. ELDEN: Are acquainted you enforcement, business, here in Los modeling are with the so-called sex you acquainted Angeles County? Yes, “A. I am. business, words, how would “Q. when refer to the sex modeling And in own your you that, describe you Sergeant? for “A. “Q. who for sexual acts explicit publication. Sex models those being persons pose activities? it those models who for simulated pose Would also include “A. Yes. business, Now, are these—are “Q. referring when use the term sex modeling you you in? the for the that activity they engage to a business which models paid you for their police opposed “THE WITNESS: “Q. “Q. What is your opinion? “A. In “A. “Q. “A. have Yes, I do. BY MR. ELDEN: Do department Yes. BY MR. ELDEN: Are activities, to, described my say, And the main opinion, the street-walking, call-girl, whorehouse-type yes, attempts it, I would consider them is sir. prostitution? is prostitution. to deal with you difference there have an differences, is between opinion prostitution, to be paid Sergeant as whether in the sex modeling that context. Models being paid soliciting Souza, of prostitution? in the not modeling, sex ways engaging business, as the as Fixler, In defendant Fred Fixler supra, noted, was, editor” for defendant American Art in previously “photo case. The Fixler case is issue in instant this which the dispositive court said 324 and 325: “There is little as to the facts pages dispute Utterback was one of several underlying judgment. photographers American Art concern various employed Enterprises, publishes devoted to of sexual Fixler awas magazines depiction activity. ‘photo editor’ for American Art In.that he directed the Enterprises. capacity work from time time to held at which photographers meetings content of the At discussed. one quality pictures meeting Fixler instructions as to what should do gave photographers of arrest. case
“The obtained services of their photographers subjects various fees these ‘models’ modeling independent agencies paid several of sexual while engaging types activity photo- being This ran the from masturbation graphed. gamut through oral homosexual oral heterosexual and sexual copulation copulation intercourse. prostitution. “Q. Could that answer? you explain Well, “A. effort an traditional is violation. act against soliciting Soliciting It’s difficult for an officer to be a to an violation. prostitution. very party engaging *20 is is a much different in Engaging equally, illegal; prostitution, type investigation. us, “THE I’m sure I COURT: not understand. Are I sir—if do quite you telling understand, don’t, us, I that is fine. If let’s find out what it is—are in the you telling is
traditional solicitation? upon street-walker-type, emphasis “THE “THE Yes. That is the WITNESS: enforcement. principal Yes, I COURT: understand. Whereas in the of the sex investigation modeling business, it not? is Yes, “THE It WITNESS: sir. is for a or almost for a impossible stranger; impossible solicitation, an outsider to be to the therefore must stranger, party investigate you it gets because before the become aware engaging, stage police usually engaging of it. “Q. BY MR. ELDEN: Can tell us whether or not the sex would you industry modeling fall into what as a so-called front? you terming legitimate “I don’t believe there is an objection pending. “MR. BROWN No. [defense counsel]: “THE In WITNESS: it is a opinion, legitimate front for my prostitution. “Q. BY MR. ELDEN: That is what mean the term? you by Yes, one “A. “Q. “A. it is of the several fronts. legitimate fronts, some of other What are just briefly? very clinics, centers, sexual communication nude parlors, Massage therapy modeling studios, studios.” body painting
545 the use of one on was based instant essentially “The prosecution to 15 occasions to 8 Patricia, who was hired some a 14-year-old girl Ranters, for in return and one Robert Utterback money for perform Art American was which Enterprises. by provided condemns other Code section 266i
“Penal among things procuring or the for causing, another prostitution person another become a prostitute. encouraging inducing, persuading for lewdness of woman is defined as ‘Common “Prostitution gain’ ‘act or Law Diet. (4th ed.)) engaging (Black’s practice Diet, of the House for (Random English Language intercourse money.’ . lewd act between or ‘. . money ed.)) persons any (Unabridged Code, (b).) subd. (Pen. consideration.’ § other lewd acts and that Patricia can be no but “There engaged question defendants, sexual intercourse by money providing caused and induced her and directing performances, procured, money Bradshaw, v. 421 her to do so. (See Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [107 People P.2d v. 437]; v. 256]; Cal.App.2d People Montgomery, [117 People There is 789].) nothing Cal.Rptr. Courtney, Cal.App.2d [1 the ambit of law would remove this conduct from or case statute Code, because 266i) (Pen. the statute money provided § simply the defendants’ or because sexual activity nonparticipants by motivation was activity. photograph primary B intercourse A in sexual that if “It seems self-evident engage pays is not and that situation C, B then is engaging the act or A to observe stand the fact may changed by the less criminal not made A criminal act is it. any photograph Zeihm, 40 (See the act. recordation of pictorial omitted.) 528].)” (Fn. Cal.Rptr. *21 II “used the Street the Lassen Were purpose prostitution” premises of for- 11225? Yes. section within the meaning of Law of the Red Abatement Penal Code section provides Light lewdness, .. used or place purpose “Every building part: for of. or or and or building place upon eveiy prostitution, assignation, lewdness, acts of . .. occur, or are held or a assignation, is prostitution, nuisance which shall be abated and it a enjoined, whether is prevented, nuisance.” public (Italics private added.)9 I concur with that which holds that portion majority opinion where acts of are to be consummated “premises prostitution arranged elsewhere are to abatement under act.” In addition subject cases of v. Barbiere (1917) P. and 812],10 Cal.App. [166 v. (1942) 56 P.2d People McGonigle (petn. hg. 7] 4, den. Feb. cited in 1943),11 of rules majority opinion, statutory construction also that conclusion. support 9It is clear that American Art is a and the “person” Lassen Street a within the of “building” sections 11234and 11235 purview of the Red Abatement Light Law which as follows: provide “ individuals, associations, ‘Person’ as used in article this means corporations, trustees, lessees, 11234, (§ 1953, and agents added
partnerships, assignees.” Stats. ch. by 35, 1, 649.) § p. “ as used in this article means so of much ‘Building’ any structure building any 11235, kind as is or be entered (§ the same outside may entrance.” added through 1953, 35, 1, 649.) § Stats. ch. p. Barbiere, 10In the court the abatement of both a and a upheld saloon house of these two prostitution. Although were and buildings separate occupied separate pieces real circumstances were connected a property, they “[njumerous common There were passageway. to establish the tending saloon proposition business Barbiere and the of Maddalena assignation apartments were used to facilitate the business of each Barbiere, .. . .” 781.) (People The supra, Cal.App. Barbiere court held the Law, saloon itself was covered under the first of the Red provision Abatement Light at 781: is stating page inferable that the entrance fairly into the “[I]t Maddalena the saloon was apartments maintained not alone through for the purpose providing for the visitors and inmates easy unobserved access to the Maddalena apartments, which the evidence plainly enough shows conducted as a place but prostitution, also for the of readily the inmates of furnishing frequenters and wines ....” apartments liquors 11In the court held that a structure which served as a “nerve center" for McGonigle, a (albeit a bench) on much smaller scale than the case prostitution operation to at was subject the Red Abatement Law even the actual Light though acts were not prostitution conducted “nerve center.” In defendant Rose McGonigle, McGonigle appealed from a her entered under of the Red judgment against Abatement provisions 20; (Stats. 6161). Act Gen. Laws Act Deering’s trial court had p. that a hotel known as the Hotel be a ordered closed for building Stockyards period one and the furniture fixtures located therein be sold as law. year provided by Defendant number on McGonigle girls carry employed arrests, hotel. After officers made a number of defendant converted storeroom police several A into bedrooms which was referred to as the “annex.” entrance was separate “annex,” for the street number no means was provided given separate provided between the “annex” and the rest of Defendant the entire passage premises. operated from a room in the hotel where she collected the from the money prostitutes communicated with them in the “annex” frequently by knocking partition. a.thin *22 The court in the stated: “We are satisfied that appellate affirming judgment the
547 the “The rule of common as follows: 4 Penal Code section provides construed, no has are be law, statutes application strictly penal to the fair are to be construed All Code. its according this provisions and to to effect its terms, with a view their objects promote import justice.”
The the section 11225 was to attack enacting object Legislature by of a whose solution of “the treatment the sociological problem problem the the from has best mankind beginning thought puzzled world,” if not from the v. beginning society, (People organized Barbiere, 770, i.e., “the 33 775) generally supra, Cal.App. exploitation ex rel. v. Gals 27 (1972) sexual desires Hicks profit” (People Sarong 46, the 49 24]) Cal.Rptr. specifically repression [117 Cal.App.3d “lewdness, 11225.) (§ assignation, prostitution.” to effectuate the so as intent of the the
In Legislature ascertaining as to be so 11225 it “should of section produce interpreted purpose 177, 181 v. is reasonable. Simon (Ivens (1963) result Cal.App.2d that which leads to If two constructions 801].) possible, Cal.Rptr. [27 be re Kernan (1966) result should (In more reasonable adopted. Pierno v. 515].)” Cal.Rptr. (Alford [51 Cal.App.2d 682, 688 110].) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d
Here, the Lassen Street were the “nerve center” which orchestrated a vast and from which solicita- prostitution operation tion, direction, and record of hundreds of payment, overseeing, keeping acts of were conducted. American Art under photographers, Fixler, editor,” of Fred from the supervision “photo proceeded where Lassen Street three week to various locations days Art. The taken with film American supplied photographs female, “models,” hired three or four male paid photographers Art, sexual activities American at each session to in explicit engage Fred Fixler the American Art under the direction of photographers. with the often in direct contact sessions was during shooting Street Lassen premises. by telephone photographers Fixler, shows case evidence Cal.App.3d supra, F., There was evidence “model,” one Patricia 14-year-old girl. entire that the old is sufficient the trial court’s finding premises, evidence support annex, as well as the were used for prostitution.” of the structure part 17,20.) v. McGonigle, supra, (People *23 548
that some the “models” contacted venereal disease the sexual during activities.
It be conclude would unreasonable to intended Legislature the tentacles of the would be to only octopus subject prostitution abatement to section 11225 and excluded its effect pursuant operational head (“nerve center”) striking octopus.
Moreover, in a statute consideration be must to other construing given statutes in materia v. 248, 7 (1972) Navarro Cal.3d 273 pari (People [102 “ 137, 497 P.2d ‘. . . 481]) whole of law of Cal.Rptr. system it is so that all be harmonized and have . . effect.’ .” part may (Select Base v. Materials Board 51 Cal.2d 645 (1959) Equal. [335 P.2d v. 46 672]; (1975) Taylor People Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [120 762].)
Illustrative statutes in materia in pari respect principle acts of need not occur to be abated prostitution premises sought under the those statutes. pandering
The Martin case Cal.Rptr. Code 266i involved under-Penal section 669], prosecution (pandering). madam, The where the conviction was from her own upheld operating residence “trick” had sent men (where found), books subsequently over to the own statute encom- prostitute’s apartment. applicable where or allowed. The passed any place encouraged court at true said: be that the may phraseology pages “[I]t the section is more consonant with the old-fashioned houses of ill fame of the ‘crib intent [citation], house’ is variety legislative clearly for, those who would provide proscriptions against, punishments batten the weaknesses of others. Since the activities of the modern upon ‘madam’ still fall within both letter of the statute and its obvious intent, she is answerable thereto.
“The fact that in this communications and day telephonic rapid automotive travel the madam’s be her own ‘parlour’ may apartment books,’ and ‘trick and the ‘cribs’ of the equipped telephone from whose mentally, morally spiritually bankrupt girls degradation she seeks to be their profit may private apartments spread throughout her renders actions no less identifiable city, despicable pandering.” *24 (a 804 238 v. (1965) 328] In Schultz Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d [48 People under a call had the 2661), case under girl § police pandering pre 1969 customer, an "she a After liaison with in a her hotel. phoned surveillance “ ‘ and ... said, am all finished of another town “[I] apartment part ’ ” held The court 809.) I am back.” at {Id., reviewing right p. coming a a of was the hotel room “house that not prostitution place only at but also “defendant’s 813) where was allowed” {id., p. prostitution . . .” at (Id., was . was a where encouraged prostitution apartment place 813.) p.
In of section 11225 one look the construing applicability “[m]ust exists, law, should be context of the and where consideration uncertainty will flow the particular given consequences interpretation, Simon, 177, “take 212 into account 181)” v. (Ivens Cal.App.2d supra, view, remedied, context, the to be matters such as evils object and of same of times histoiy legislation upon subject, public 61 construction. Jacobs (Estate (1943) policy, contemporaneous Pierno, 152, 27 155 P.2d v. 454].)” (Alford supra, Cal.App.2d [142 Navarro, 688; Cal.3d see also v. Cal.App.3d People supra, 273.)
In the instant case section reflects public policy repressing nuisance it to be a the evil subject prostitution by declaring materia directed and is with other statutes in abatement in harmony pari at repression prostitution. Souza who testified described the times was Sergeant history mushroomed in late to late 1970 during year conducted
Los and that much of it through being Angeles County clinics, as fronts” such “massage therapy “legitimate parlors, studios, centers, communication nude painting modeling body [and] studios.” The court in Osuna Cal.Rptr. “ ‘The 532: fact that in said statute), page (violating pandering
599] travel the this communications and automotive rapid day telephonic own madam’s be her telephone may apartment equipped “parlor” books,” and “trick and the “cribs” the mentally, morally spiritually their she seeks to be from whose profit may girls degradation bankrupt her actions no less renders city, throughout private apartments spread or identifiable pandering.’ despicable ' short, the evil is is 'In which the statute not target of immunizedfrom
attack modern coloration.” protective plumage feathers of fine (Italics added.)
Ill
*25
either blanket or
Is the Lassen Street premises
partial immunity
afforded
11225
the remedial
section
reason
First Amend-
provisions
from
ment
No.
rights?
Therefore,
This is not an
case.
ex rel. Busch v.
obscenity
People
328,
Room Theater
17
42
550
Cal.3d
P.2d
(1976)
Projection
Cal.Rptr.
[130
cert, den.,
600],
429
922
289,
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
This case in which the of the remedial imposition of section 11225 et would no result provisions seq. way governmen- tal action which would close down or confiscate and printing presses materials. printed destroy The filed the trial on 22, court documents People through April stated;
1975, “No were even at Lassen Street and none printing presses will be stilled now. Plaintiffs Court books and encourage except order defendants, moveable magazines any selling property. time, the demise of Press in 1974 and the are Academy passage to have on the the three million that were unlikely premises publications in aid of their business in 1972. whatever corrupt Accordingly, August defendants now at Lassen be store should be publications permitted removed use of Moreover, defendants from other legal premises.” evidence at the trial with remarks of counsel presented coupled during oral on indicate that American Art has argument appeal again dispersed its activities from the Street while Lassen publication retaining an interest in the ownership property.
I would hold as a matter of law that there are no “incidental First freedoms” within the alleged restriction^] Amendment meaning 672, 367, v. United States O'Brien 391 U.S. (1968) L.Ed.2d [20 S.Ct. Crownover v. Musick 1673], Cal.3d 422-423 (1973) 681, 509 P.2d reason 497], (1) of the Cal.Rptr. present posture case, (3) (2) importance prostitution operation, magnitude nuisance, i.e., to the abatement such attaches the Legislature Fixler, v. the case Cal.App.3d supra, People prostitution,12 321. Fixler, the case of supra,
Paraphrasing opinion 325-327, 321, at I would hold that “The [Red pages Street based on use of the Lassen Abatement here was [the action] not aimed at ‘nerve center’ for and was prostitution] use communication of ideas. .. . ultimate to which any prohibiting [T]he be the acts of those prostitution] might put separate photographs [of While First Amendment considerations unrelated issues. may material the dissemination photographic regardless printed protect *26 obtained, where á the material was the manner in which of originally material, the afforded its crime committed in is obtaining protection for the crime would not be a shield dissemination against prosecution in it. committed obtaining murder, or of an actual
“The fact that a motion robbery picture rape film a full movie be exhibited as a news or length in progress may not could with the law does mean that one without impunity violating such a crime because hire another to commit simply primary crime on film. was to motivation capture v.
“As the United States Court stated United States Supreme O'Brien, 672, 679, 376 88 S.Ct. 391 L.Ed.2d at U.S. page page [20 as attaches to the abatement of such nuisances 12The the Legislature importance in sections 11226-11229. 11225is reflected described section is reason to believe that nuisance “Whenever there Section 11226 provides: district is in existence in any county, is maintained or in this article defined kept, must, California, of citizen of the State or any in the name of the attorney, people an action in to equity in his own name maintain may, resident within said county, State the or or conducting and to enjoin person the nuisance perpetually abate prevent it, owner, in or which or agent building, place, upon and the lessee maintaining (Italics exists, it. .” or . . 'maintaining permitting nuisance directly indirectly added.) when the writ of shall issue injunction 11227 temporary Section provides is satisfaction of the court. of a nuisance shown existence actions, over actions “have all excepting 11228 that such precedence Section provides on injunctions----” election contests hearings criminal proceedings, of an or order violation or disobedience injunction 11229 “Any Section provides: a fine of not is as a court by this article by punishable contempt provided expressly ($1,000), one thousand dollars ($200) by nor more than than two hundred dollars less months, nor six not less than one more than in the county jail imprisonment both.” 552 ‘We cannot the view that an limitless accept apparently variety
1673]: conduct can be labeled whenever the “speech” person engaging conduct intends an idea.’ see Silva v. (Also thereby express Municipal Court, 733 479].) 40 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [115
“No creative communication is involved in the
hiring
[hundreds
male
female
sex acts.
engage
depraved
perverted
‘models’]
The character
is
not altered
pretense
it.
v.
Minn. 104
State
N.W.2d
photographing
(Compare
Ray,
[193
315,
“The California Court held in Barrows v. Supreme Municipal 483], Cal.3d P.2d which acts Cal.Rptr. [83 law cannot be consummated without independently prohibited by sanction because occur in a theatrical merely they setting [I] conclude cannot be consummated without sanction because they occur course material be preparing may ultimately in a exhibited manner the Constitution. (See protected by People Drolet, 30 ex rel. 824]; Hicks v. Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [105 Gals, 27 414].) Sarong Cal.Rptr.
“The evidence the conclusion that Art strongly supports [American were well aware of the law . . . agents employees] prohibiting aware of the of their conduct and prostitution, illegality violate those laws. nature of the knowingly conspired [and did] [The business conducted American Art no by] [gives Enterprises special it] status (Italics added.) immunity.”
Disposition I would reverse the and order all on judgment grounds urged the matter the trial remand court conduct the appeal necessaiy relief, additional factual which will result in inquiries granting scope which, court, the wide will discretion accomplish of the Red Abatement Law 11225 et (§ purposes seq.). 1977,
A was denied December petition rehearing Court denied hearing by petition Supreme appellant’s Bird, Manuel, J., J., C. were of 1978. February opinion should be petition granted.