State v. Western
| Decision Date | 30 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-90-0228-PR,CR-90-0228-PR |
| Citation | 168 Ariz. 169,812 P.2d 987 |
| Parties | , 59 USLW 2771 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Teresa Nina WESTERN, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Teresa Nina Western (defendant) was arrested while dancing partially clothed in a Scottsdale night club. She was convicted of violating Scottsdale Revised Code (S.R.C.) § 16-242 (1987). 1 Her appeal to the Maricopa County Superior Court was denied. State v. Western, Maricopa County Superior Court case No. LCA 88-00574. The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Western, No. 1 CA-CR 89-048 (Ariz.Ct.App. June 12, 1990) (memorandum decision). Defendant then petitioned this court for review, claiming that her conviction violated the first amendment to the United States Constitution. We granted review. See Rule 31.19, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. 12-120.24.
Defendant challenges the constitutionality of the Scottsdale ordinance on two grounds. First, defendant argues that the ordinance is void for vagueness because its prohibitions are not defined in a manner that would enable a person of ordinary intelligence to determine just what is prohibited. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Second, she argues that the ordinance is overbroad because it criminalizes expression protected by the first amendment. Id. at 114, 92 S.Ct. at 2302. In considering these challenges, we have looked to the ordinance as a whole but address only the questions raised and argued.
The provision defendant allegedly violated reads as follows:
Striptease performers shall not pass their hands over their bodies or the body of any other person ... in such a manner that the hands touch the body at any point, or engage in any motions simulating a sex act. Bumps and grinds shall not be made adjacent to a curtain or any other object, thing or person, nor from a reclining or horizontal position.
The record supports the finding that, while dancing, defendant touched her body and made other forbidden movements. The facts clearly support the conclusion, therefore, that defendant violated § 16-242, if the ordinance applied to her at all. But § 16-242 does not criminalize such movements unless the person making them is a "striptease" performer dancing in a "cabaret." § 16-236 (formerly § 8-301). To define these terms, we must consult other sections of the ordinance to see if § 16-242 applies to defendant.
Section 16-237 provides that the ordinance as a whole applies only to cabarets. Section 16-236 defines cabaret as
any restaurant, nightclub, bar, tavern, taproom, theatre, or private, fraternal social, golf or country club, which serves food or spirituous liquors....
(Emphasis added.) The establishment at which defendant was employed certainly qualifies as a cabaret, and the ordinance therefore applies to defendant if she is a striptease performer. Striptease is defined as
a performance, exhibition, dance or appearance in which a person appears in various degrees of undress, or removes from or places upon his or her body clothing or covering, and ... employs body motions, including but not limited to torso gyrations, bumps and grinds, or gesticulations while exhibiting his or her body in various degrees of undress.
S.R.C. § 16-236 (emphasis added).
Defendant contends that this definition of striptease is so vague and overbroad that her conviction of violating § 16-242 by passing her hands over her body, touching her body, or making prohibited movements offends the constitution.
The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment does not permit the state to deprive a person of liberty for violating a statute whose terms are "so vague, indefinite and uncertain" that their meaning cannot be reasonably ascertained. L. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 10-8, at 684 (2d ed. 1988) (); Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 2298. The United States Supreme Court listed the evils of vague laws in Grayned:
Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to " 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked."
408 U.S. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. at 2298-99 (footnotes omitted).
We apply these principles to the ordinance in question. Assuming arguendo that § 16-242 itself is not vague, defendant could be convicted of violating it only if she was a striptease performer. According to § 16-236, this is a person who "appears in various degrees of undress" and then "employs body motions, including" certain enumerated types. Combining the definitional sections of § 16-236 that are incorporated into the prohibitory section, § 16-242, we find the ordinance unconstitutionally vague with respect to both the attire and movements it prohibits.
Assume this defendant intended to include in her dance the body motions prohibited by § 16-242, but wished to avoid violating the ordinance by wearing proper attire that would not make her become a striptease performer. How would she determine what she might wear? The term "various degrees of undress" has no precise or ascertainable meaning of which this court is aware. We have been cited to no legal precedent that would help us define the term, the ordinance does not define the term, and so far as we know it has no customary or ordinary meaning, especially given modern costuming and dress. Undoubtedly, a nude dancer would be in a various degree of undress, but we are unable to say that a partially nude dancer necessarily would qualify. In short, there is no standard for determining what various degree forms the dividing line. The phrase simply fails to give the fair warning required by Grayned.
The obverse is also true. Assume a performer intended to appear totally nude. 2 Realizing that this might well constitute a various degree of undress, a performer wishing to steer clear of the ordinance would want to make sure his or her movements would not constitute striptease. How would the performer know what could or could not be done? The ordinance indicates that the performer could not "employ body motions, including but not limited to torso gyrations, bumps and grinds, or gesticulations." Surely an ordinance regulating dancing must contemplate that the performer do more than stand stock still on stage. Obviously, therefore, some body motions make one a striptease performer but others do not. However, the ordinance supplies no standard for differentiation. Again, Grayned 's requirement of fair warning is violated. 408 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 2298-99.
The problem of jury instructions illustrates the vice of the ordinance. If a person charged with violating this statute were to be tried by a jury, the judge would have to instruct the jury that the criminal provisions of § 16-242 could be applied only if the jury found that the defendant was a striptease performer. The judge would have to tell the jury that a person could be found a striptease performer only if he or she met the two-fold test of the statute by appearing in various degrees of undress and then performing the prohibited movements. But how would the judge explain what qualified as a various degree of undress or which movements would support a finding that the defendant was a striptease performer?
These indefinite provisions of the ordinance emphasize another aspect of the Grayned test. The key provisions are so nebulous and uncertain of definition that they raise substantial "dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application." 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. at 2299. This defendant is easy game--a topless dancer in a bar. Would the police as easily enter the municipal auditorium (assuming, like many, it served either food or alcohol before performance or at intermission) and seize the soprano playing Salome, perhaps arresting the rest of the cast, the orchestra, and the producer as accomplices?
We are assured at oral argument that the police would not do anything of the kind because they use their good judgment and discretion in enforcing the ordinance. No doubt this is usually correct, but it is exactly what we are cautioned against in Grayned. See also Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 575, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 1248, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) ; State v. Steiger, 162 Ariz. 138, 142, 781 P.2d 616, 620 (Ct.App.1989).
Combining the definitional sections of the ordinance with the prohibitory ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EMPRESS ADULT VIDEO AND BOOKSTORE v. Tucson
...live performances and nude dancing (collectively, nude dancing) that § 13-1422 encompasses. Empress relies on State v. Western, 168 Ariz. 169, 173, 812 P.2d 987, 991 (1991), in which our supreme court held that the First Amendment protects "non-obscene dancing at locations that do not serve......
-
State v. McLamb
...not before the court." Steiger, 162 Ariz. at 144, 781 P.2d at 622 (citation omitted) (emphasis original); see State v. Western, 168 Ariz. 169, 812 P.2d 987 (1991) (ordinance prohibiting striptease performances substantially overbroad because prohibited broad range of legitimate artistic exp......
-
State v. Evenson
...and differ as to its application." Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-31, at 1033 (2d ed.1988); State v. Western, 168 Ariz. 169, 171, 812 P.2d 987, 989 (1991). 17. Amicus Curiae also argues that The Beat is not harmful to minors as a matter of law. But Evenson did not raise......
- State v. Aguilar