Lawsuit challenges crackdown on adult entertainment

Law imposes tighter restrictions on sexually oriented businesses.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- When it comes to legislation, a lawsuit against the state claims stripping and drunken driving don't mix.

The adult entertainment industry is asking a judge to invalidate a new Missouri law that imposes tight restrictions on the operation of sexually oriented businesses. The restrictions were added to a bill sponsored by House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, that originally only increased penalties for driving while intoxicated.

The Missouri Constitution limits bills to a single subject and precludes amendments that change a bill's original purpose.

The lead plaintiff in the case, which was filed Monday with the Cole County Circuit Court, is the Missouri Association of Club Executives, a trade group for adult businesses. Other plaintiffs include a Kansas City strip club, a chain of adult video stores, several strippers and an adult business patron identified by the pseudonym "John Doe."

The law is scheduled to take effect Aug. 28. The lawsuit seeks to bar enforcement until the court determines the statute's constitutionality.

The measure, which Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law last month, aims to curb the operation of sexually oriented businesses in Missouri. It bans nudity in strip clubs and requires dancers, who may appear in a semi-nude state, to stay 10 feet away from customers. Dancers and customers are to have no physical contact. The law also prohibits anyone under age 21 from working at or patronizing an adult business. Violations are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Original purpose

The lawsuit claims the coupling of the restrictions with the DWI bill altered the measure's original purpose in violation of the state constitution. Jetton's bill originally was titled "an act ... relating to intoxication-related offenses." When the Senate added provisions on adult businesses, the title was broadened to "an act ... relating to crime."

Missouri Supreme Court precedent gives legislative acts a presumption of validity. Although the court traditionally defers to the legislature in determining whether amendments to bills conform with the original purpose requirement, it has nullified legislation in situations where various provisions bear no logical relation to one another.

State Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, has said that after studying the relevant case law, he is confident the process by which the bill passed will withstand constitutional muster. Bartle sponsored the provisions related to adult entertainment.

The plaintiffs also argue the law violates the First Amendment's protection of free expression. In their petition to the court, the stripper plaintiffs claim "the human body is a beauty of nature's creation and that the open nude dancing performed by them and before consenting adults is a beneficial social activity that creates improved self-image for them and enjoyment for the person watching."

The "John Doe" plaintiff, who wishes to keep his identity private, contends he has a right to view nude dancing and that "the essential part of the message and the pleasure it brings him will be lost" if the restrictions are upheld.

Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, which defends the validity of state laws, hasn't yet submitted a response to the lawsuit. No hearing date has been set.

The case is Missouri Association of Club Executives v. State of Missouri.

(573) 635-4608