Legal Opinion
State v. Mutschler
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided April 1, 2003No. 1 CA-CR 02-0002, 1 CA-CR 02-0003, 1 CA-CR 02-0004, 1 CA-CR 02-0005PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
IRVINE, Judge.
¶ 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether Phoenix City Code (“P.C.C.”) § 23-54 (1999) as written at the time of the defendants’ convictions was unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad. 1 For the following reasons, we find the ordinance was neither vague nor overbroad and we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 The defendants were convicted in Phoenix City Court for violating P.C.C. § 23-54. Section 23-54 prohibits persons from operating live sex act businesses. A “live sex act business” is defined as “any business in which one or more persons may view, or may…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- State v. McLambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
- State v. AlawyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McDermottCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Mutschler v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- State v. FreitagCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson CausbieCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- State v. LindnerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010