Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Los Angeles v. Alameda Books Nos. 11-245, 11-379. Document related to that litigation, the 9th Circuit opinion, and a summary of the issues involved can be found at SCOTUS Blog here.
Supreme Court asked to revisit City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. concerning regulation of sexually oriented businesses
SCOTUSblog reports that City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court again.
A Milpitas man who used a computer to paste photos of his 13-year-old daughter’s head onto bodies of women in graphic poses shouldn’t have been convicted of possessing child pornography because the pictures didn’t show minors engaging in sex acts, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday
Alameda Books Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 09-55367 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011)
“The City Council on Tuesday will consider an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on permits for adult businesses following the rezoning of land from business park to homes and commercial uses.”
U.S. v. Yang, No. 1:09-CR-00168 AWI, 2010 WL 2011561 (E.D. Cal. May 19. 2010)
Gilroy Dispatch: “Gilroy’s City Council on Monday unanimously approved revisions to an adult entertainment ordinance, outlawing full nudity at adult businesses among other restrictions.”
In People v. David Lawrence Dyke, A117955 (Cal. Super. April 9, 2009), Mr. Dyke appeals his conviction via jury trial for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor in violation of Pen. Code,1 § 288.2, subd. (a). His daughter’s friend (A.S.), aged 16, testified that Dyke had, in the course of “flipping through the television channels,” allowed two pornographic scenes to linger on the television for about 1-8 minutes and 45 seconds, respectively. Dyke was also convicted for misdemeanor sexual battery for his actions subsequent to the issue on appeal.
Crime Impact Studies by Municipal and State Governments on Harmful Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses.
Cali. court rules that “knowing possession” encompasses automatic downloads in “temporary internet files”
The Court held (1) that the “defendant personally possessed the child pornography files on his family’s computer” and (2) that “an image displayed on a computer screen, as opposed to the underlying file, may be knowingly possessed or controlled in violation of child pornography statute.”