Defendant was convicted of violating a city ordinance requiring managers of sexually-oriented businesses to possess a permit. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Evidence was sufficient to support conviction, and
- Ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague.
Ordinance requiring managers of sexually-oriented businesses to possess a permit was not unconstitutionally vague. Ordinance described with specificity that managers were required to hold a permit and described conduct that was required to demonstrate that a person was acting as a manager, ordinance set forth punishment for its violation, and ordinance provisions related clearly and directly to regulation of a sexually-oriented business enterprise and provided guidance to law enforcement and the general public concerning what type of conduct was prohibited and how ordinance would be enforced.