The language of the instant ordinance differs in certain respects, but the differences do not render the instant ordinance impermissibly vague. 3d 113, 125-129, the court held that a similar ordinance of the City of Westminster was not unconstitutionally vague. The trial court granted the injunction primarily on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. ![]() The ordinance describes drug paraphernalia, when displayed, grouped, advertised or promoted for sale, to include "ny item, whether useful for non-drug related purposes or not, which is displayed, grouped with other items, advertised or promoted in a manner to reasonably suggest its usefulness in the growing, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, preserving, inhaling, injecting or ingesting of marijuana, hashish, cocaine, or any controlled substance" and "ny item, whether useful for non-drug related purposes or not, which is designed, decorated, or adorned in a manner to reasonably suggest its usefulness" in the above manner. The ordinance prohibits a drug paraphernalia store permitting a minor, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, to be in any area of the store where the minor may view drug paraphernalia, or selling paraphernalia to a minor. ![]() The ordinance in question regulates the display to minors of drug paraphernalia for sale. The County of Los Angeles appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of Los Angeles County Ordinance No. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Appellants.Ĭaton & Glazer, Robert Stanley Florey III, Luke McKissack, Glassman & Browning, Anthony Michael Glassman, Jane D. (Opinion by Ashby, J., with Stephens, Acting P. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants. ![]() LICORICE PIZZA RECORDS & TAPES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |