<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Court: 9th Circuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/court-9th-circuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit reinstates L.A. SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/28/09-55367.pdf"><em>Alameda Books Inc. v. City of Los Angeles</em></a>, No. 09-55367 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/28/9th-circuit-reinstates-l-a-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: OR statutes that criminalize giving sexually-explicit material to minors are unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/20/9th-circuit-or-statutes-that-criminalize-giving-sexually-explicit-material-to-minors-are-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/20/9th-circuit-or-statutes-that-criminalize-giving-sexually-explicit-material-to-minors-are-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: ACLU of Oregon v. Kroger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Powell's Books v. Kroger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/20/09-35153.pdf"><em>Powell's Books, Inc. v. Kroger</em> and <em>ACLU of Oregon v. Kroger</em></a>, No. 09-35153, 09-35154 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/20/9th-circuit-or-statutes-that-criminalize-giving-sexually-explicit-material-to-minors-are-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: Possession is lesser-included offense of receipt</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/14/9th-circuit-possession-is-lesser-included-offense-of-receipt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/14/9th-circuit-possession-is-lesser-included-offense-of-receipt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 22:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nevada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Latham</strong></em>, No. 09-10099, 2010 WL 1936279 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/14/9th-circuit-possession-is-lesser-included-offense-of-receipt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: Nevada has right to restrict brothel advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nevada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Prostitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Trafficking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coyote Publishing, Inc. v. Miller, No. 07-16633 (9th Cir. March 11, 2010)
At issue in this case is whether Nevada's "restrictions on advertising by legal brothels" violate the First Amendment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit panel: Indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude in California</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/10/06-70219.pdf">Nunez v. Holder</a></em>, No. 06-70219 (9th Cir. Feb.  10, 2010)

Indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude in California.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit reject&#8217;s 9th Circuit&#8217;s Kilbride decision and upholds application of local community standards to Internet obscenity prosecution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kilbride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf"><em>United States v. Little</em></a>, No. 08-15964 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: Cell phones, internet, condoms implicate interstate commerce in enticement of minor to prostitution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/9th-circuit-cell-phones-internet-condoms-implicate-interstate-commerce-in-enticement-of-minor-to-prostitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/9th-circuit-cell-phones-internet-condoms-implicate-interstate-commerce-in-enticement-of-minor-to-prostitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:56:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Prostitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Santos</em>, No. 08-10406, 2009 WL 3748191 (9th Cir., Nov. 10, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/10/9th-circuit-cell-phones-internet-condoms-implicate-interstate-commerce-in-enticement-of-minor-to-prostitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit: National community standard must be applied in regulating Internet obscenity</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/28/9th-circuit-national-community-standard-must-be-applied-in-regulating-internet-obscenity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/28/9th-circuit-national-community-standard-must-be-applied-in-regulating-internet-obscenity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kilbride]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20091028.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Kilbride</em></a>, No. 07-10528 (9th Cir., Oct 28, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/28/9th-circuit-national-community-standard-must-be-applied-in-regulating-internet-obscenity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit enacts Miranda-like code for computer search and seizure</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/26/9th-circuit-enacts-miranda-like-code-for-computer-search-and-seizure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/26/9th-circuit-enacts-miranda-like-code-for-computer-search-and-seizure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1251308337.shtml">At The Volokh Conspiracy</a>, Orin Kerr links to the 9th Circuit's decision in <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/26/05-10067eb.pdf"><em>United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing</em></a>, No. 05-10067 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2009) and writes: "The majority opinion, by Judge Alex Kozinski, announces a laundry list of brand-new rules, introduced with no citations to any authority, that henceforth the government must follow when executing warrants for digital information."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/26/9th-circuit-enacts-miranda-like-code-for-computer-search-and-seizure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit Authorities for Various SOB Ordinance Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/07/9th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/07/9th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Memos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Amortization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Interior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): No-Touch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Limitations on hours of operation Fantasyland Video Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F. 3d 996 (9th Cir. 2007) Prohibition on nude performance City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) 18-inch raised stage requirement Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F. 2d [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/07/9th-circuit-authorities-for-various-sob-ordinance-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

