Sexy Baristas, Illegal in Yakima. Wa.--Anatomical Benchmarks and Such

The Yakima Herald-Republic  is reporting on the misdemeanor citations going to trial against a local coffee shop and a barista who was cited after being caught attired in a G-string and , . . . well, . . . um, nothing else. This is local reporter Chris Bristol's story:

"[Municipal Court Judge Susan Woodward]  turned away a constitutional challenge to Yakima's 2009 indecent exposure ordinance and ordered the owner of Dream Girls coffee stand to prepare for trial.  JudgeWoodard said she's studied case law on the subject and, despite concerns the case could go far on appeal, is convinced the ordinance does not violate free speech protections accorded nude or erotic dancing.

'I don't see the similarities between serving coffee ... and erotic dancing,' she said.

Dream Girls owner Cheryl Clark is fighting the ordinance in Municipal Court. In January, she was cited for violating the ordinance after one of her baristas was caught wearing a G-string -- and nothing to cover it -- on the job. The barista was also cited.

In a pretrial hearing, defense attorneys for Clark and barista Alyssa Hernandez argued the city's ordinance is too vague and therefore unconstitutional because it invites arbitrary enforcement.  At issue are some of the definitions underlying aspects of the ordinance, particularly terms like G-strings, thongs, buttocks and a corresponding one-third coverage area that is required.

Clark's attorney, Pat True, lashed out at the City Council's decision to bolster an existing indecent ordinance last year as a 'direct attack' on coffee stands like Dream Girls.  He argued that a reasonable person would have trouble figuring out if their attire violated the law and wondered aloud why police are not sending 'thong patrols to swimming pools.'  The ordinance is too vague and 'absolutely leaves open the potential for arbitrary enforcement,' which is unconstitutional, he said [ . . . ]

Assistant City Attorney Jon Seitz told the court the city's ordinance mirrors a law in Daytona Beach, Fla., that has withstood challenge and that the one-third coverage area is based on precise 'anatomical benchmarks.  Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's vague,' he said."
______________________________
I guess this business model works if you're only serving decaf.

Montana Supreme Court Rides to the Rescue of the Stumble Inn

The Missoulian.com reports on the Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a state law requirement that the poor saloon-keeps of that state be given 180 day notice of a drunk drivng crash, that could result in a dram shop action against the bar.  Here's an excerpt from the Missoulian story:

 "A sharply divided Montana Supreme Court has upheld a state law that requires someone planning to sue a bar over liability in a drunken driving crash to notify the bar within 180 days of the crash. The Supreme Court issued the 4-3 ruling on Dec. 23 in a lawsuit filed by Cary and Terra Rohlfs over a June 2006 drunken driving crash that seriously injured Cary Rohlfs. The driver, Joseph Warren, had been drinking for much of the day at the Stumble Inn in Victor. The Rohlfs sued the bar just over a year after the crash, alleging it was liable for continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously inebriated customer. A District Court dismissed the case because the bar did not receive proper notice. The Rohlfs argued the 180-day limitation, enacted by the Legislature in 2003, was prohibited by special legislation that protected bar owners and added a burden to victims of drunken driving crashes.

The majority, in an opinion written by outgoing Justice John Warner, rejected those arguments, saying it was not up to the courts to second-guess the Legislature. Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justice Jim Rice signed Warner's opinion while Justice Brian Morris concurred, but said he would have considered an appeal on the constitutionality of the law as applied in this case."

Here's the link to the Montana Supreme Court decision.

Bad Lawyer observation:  Justice Warner,  it is your job to "second-guess" the legislature.  That's what you promised to do when you said you would uphold the constitution of the State of Montana, and the United States of America. 

Taking Pictures of Illegally Parked State Trooper Cruisers, That'll Get You Searched

Michael Kidd is one of those insane men who thinks it's appropriate to photograph State Police cruisers illegally parked blocking handicapped parking spots.  Kidd pulled behind the Kanawha County Judicial Annex when he saw two police cruisers parked in the way he described.  Why he thought it was ok to photograph these vehicles--but, he got out of his car and started taking pics.  According to his civil lawsuit, Trooper Jason Garnes demanded to know what the hell he thought he was doing.  Kidd acknowledged to Trooper Garnes that he was photographing the illegally parked cruisers; this got Kidd slammed against a wall, searched and threatened.


Kidd has filed his civil lawsuit in West Virginia State court.  

Source:  http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912070737