Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The city amended its code to prohibit sexually-oriented businesses in downtown and planned development districts and later published notice of intent to prohibit such uses in a development authority district and imposed a temporary ban on issuance of new licenses. While the ban was in place, the owner sought permission to operate a topless bar in the area. The ordinance requires the clerk to act within 20 days; the clerk rejected the application after 24 days. The amendment prohibiting the use was enacted about two weeks later. The district court rejected the owner's civil rights claims (42 U.S.C. 1983) on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The city's evidence showed that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to deal with secondary effects, blight and deterioration of property values, and leaves open reasonable opportunity to operate an adult business. Even if only 27 sites are available, rather than 39 as the district court concluded, the number is adequate in a city that had only two applications in five years. The 24-day decision period did not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint; prompt judicial review was available.

In order to participate in a pre-trial release program, the defendant agreed to random drug testing. He submitted to five tests that involved urination in full view of an employee of the private company that conducts tests for the Kentucky courts. The district court dismissed a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, first acknowledging that the company acted under color of state law. The direct observation method of urine collection was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The manner of collection is a matter of judicial administration, not law enforcement; the court's interest in ensuring accurate testing outweighs the defendant's diminished expectation of privacy. Cheating is pervasive and there is no requirement of suspicion that an individual defendant will cheat. Rejecting tort claims of false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion into solitude, the court stated that the conduct did not go beyond the bounds of decency and that the defendant had no right to privacy under the circumstances.

A neighbor reported a break-in in progress at the home of the pastor after seeing a guest loading her belongings into a car. Officers responded, questioned and detained the guest in a police car, entered the house by opening a screen door, and encountered the pastor and his wife coming down the stairs. The pastor explained the situation and asked the officers to leave. The officers requested identification and followed the pastor up the stairs. They returned with the pastor, handcuffed, claiming he had drawn a gun. The wife claims that she was in pajamas and requested that the officers not enter the bedroom, that officers prevented her from following, and that she directed officers to a picture of the pastor and herself hanging on a wall. The officers took all three to the station and searched the house. They were released several hours later. The district court dismissed the guest's unlawful arrest claim and denied the officers a summary judgment determination of qualified immunity on the wife's claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal the guest's claim and affirmed with respect to the denial of qualified immunity. Disputed facts preclude summary judgment on the either issue.