“Based on a substantial history of heavy regulation, we conclude that the nude dancing and adult entertainment industry is closely regulated for Fourth Amendment purposes so that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist for the proprietor,” the opinion said. Constitution’s 4th Amendment.īut in upholding that part of the ordinance, the panel pointed to extensive regulation of the adult-entertainment industry.

The appeals court, which upheld a ruling by a federal district judge, also rejected a challenge to part of the ordinance allowing the city to inspect documents and worker logs “upon demand.” The club argued that the ordinance violated a prohibition on warrantless searches under the U.S. Given the significant latitude we afford policymakers, and our obligation to defer to a legislative body’s reasoned judgment, we hold that these core identification-verification and record-maintenance requirements are reasonable when measured against the statute’s aims.” “The requirement that workers or performers produce two forms of identification instead of just one - which the club says is unnecessarily burdensome - combats the ‘rampant use’ of counterfeit forms of identification on Miami Beach and reduces the likelihood that a victim of human trafficking or a minor will perform onstage.

“The ordinance’s core identification and record-keeping requirements are necessary to achieve the city’s stated and obviously important interests in preventing human trafficking and barring minors from dancing nude on a public stage,” said the 54-page main opinion, written by Judge Stanley Marcus and joined fully by Judge Richard Story and partly by Judge Kevin Newsom.

Stripes club miami beach