08/25/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Criminal Justice Policy Review Volume 19 Number 2 Rural Hots pots June 2008 153.163 O 2008 Sage Publications The Case of Adult Businesses 10.1177/08874034083151 pub.co' http://cjp,sagepub.com Richard McCleary hosted at y http://online.sagepub.com University of Califonria, Irvine A recent U.S. Tenth Circuit decision questions whether the routine activity theory of hotspots applies to adult businesses located in sparsely populated rural areas.Although few criminologists are interested in urban—rural differences, the Tenth Circuit decision makes this topic acutely relevant to policy makers and courts.To address the threshold question,the hotspot theory is analyzed to demonstrate its generality to urban,suburban, and rural locations.The results of a corroborating case study are then presented.When an adult entertainment business opens on an interstate highway off-ramp to a small rural village,total crime rises by 60%.Alternative explanations related to uncontrolled threats to internal validity are considered and ruled out. After reporting the results of the case study,the consequences of the theory and results for policy makers and courts are discussed. Keywords: secondary effects;hotspots;ambient crime risk;adult businesses; rural crime Expressive activities that occu r inside adult entertainment businesses, including cabarets that feature live nude or seminude dancing, x-rated video arcades, and bookstores, enjoy First Amendment protection. Courts have ruled that governments may regulate these businesses, so long as the regulations are aimed at mitigating the businesses'potential adverse "secondary effects" (Andrew, 2002). To defend an ordinance, a government must produce evidence to show that the businesses are associated with secondary effects such as ambient noise, litter, and in particular, crime. The government's evidence need not satisfy arbitrary standards of methodological rigor. On the contrary, the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres holds that governments may rely on any evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city addresses:'Taking advan- tage of this evidentiary standard,few governments conduct local secondary effects studies; most rely on the large body of studies conducted in other places and times. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary standard 16 years later.Though reaffirming the modest "reasonably believed to be relevant"Renton standard, in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, the Court allowed adult businesses to challenge Author's Note:Paul Brantingham,Marcus Pelson,and Alan Weinstein read early drafts.The author also benefited from conversations with the late Dennis W.("Denn")Roncek.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard McCleary, School of Social Ecology, Irvine, CA 62697-7080; e-mail: mccleary@uci.edu. 153 Downloaded from http:'%cjpsagnpGi[ yrl$IIY�O>1LIFORNIA IRVINE on May 25,2008 ®2008 SAGE Publications.All rights rese t martial use or unauthorized distribution.