CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBIA JIMINEZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Miami appeals a declaratory judgment that struck down a municipal ordinance prohibiting female employees in drinking establishments from accepting beverages paid for by customers. The appellate court reverses, holding the ordinance is a constitutional exercise of police power designed to prevent immoral conduct associated with "B-girl" operations.
The ordinance is constitutional because it has a rational relation to public health, morals, safety, and general welfare, and is reasonably designed to address the "B-girl" evil and associated immoral conduct in drinking establishments. The restriction is permissible as a condition of operating a licensed establishment.
“The municipal ability to legislate, that is to limit individual rights is directly proportional to the strength of the danger to the public.”
Establishes the foundational principle that municipal police power is measured by the threat posed to the public
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami enacted an ordinance making it unlawful for female employees (hostesses, waitresses, entertainers) in establishments serving alcohol…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rational Relation Test cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Miami appeals a final declaratory decree which declares unconstitutional and enjoins the enforcement of the following city ordinance, which is section 4 — 10 of the Code of the City of Miami:
“Sec. 4-10. Female employees not to be served drinks paid for by customers.
“It shall be unlawful for any hostess, waitress, female entertainer or female employee in a place dispensing alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises to be served any beverage, whether an alcoholic beverage or otherwise, for which a customer or patron in such establishment pays. (Ord. 5160 § 2, 11-17-54.)”
The final decree appealed is in part as follows:
“Ordered, adjudged and decreed that Section 4-10 of the City of Miami Code be, and the same is hereby declared wholly unconstitutional and without force and effect of law, for reason that said ordinance is so loosely or broadly drawn as to bring within its. scope matters which are not properly subject to police regulations and prohibitions, and would, by its very language, in its enforcement apply to situations not connected with a question of public health, welfare, or morals, thereby being an improper, unreasonable, and arbitrary exercise of the police-power by the defendants herein; and it is further * *
The municipal ability to legislate, that is to limit individual rights is directly proportional to the strength of the danger to the public. This court will take judicial notice of the fact that the frequency of immoral acts in connection with the-operation of drinking establishments is such-that they often constitute a grave threat to, the public welfare and municipal life. It follows that the regulation of the contact between female employees and the public in, drinking establishments is a proper matter-of municipal legislation. It requires very little thought to recognize that this is a difficult field for the exercise of police-power. Moreover, those who operate suchi establishments do so under a license grant*111ed as a privilege by the State. If the rights of these licensees and their employees are sometimes necessarily abridged in order to properly regulate these licensees, it is an unfortunate but necessary adjunct to the carrying out of a proper municipal police function. Cf. Rodriguez v. Jones, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 278, 279.
The Supreme Court of Florida in City of Miami v. Kayfetz, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 798, 801, 802, speaking of the test to be applied upon consideration of the constitutionality of a similar ordinance, said that the test was: “ * * * whether it has a rational relation to the public health, morals, safety or general welfare and is reasonably designed to correct a condition adversely affecting the public good. And the test must be applied in view of the character or nature of the condition to be remedied and all circumstances relating thereto.” We hold that the test has been more than adequately met in the present instance. The ordinance, which in plain and simple terms prohibits females employed in drinking establishments from accepting drinks paid for by the customers, strikes at the heart of the “B-girl” evil which was recognized by the Supreme Court of Florida in the Kayfetz opinion in the following language found on page 803:
“It is through this operation, and the mingling and fraternizing by the female employees and entertainers with the patrons, that the immoral acts discussed by the City Manager and the Mayor find their beginning.”
The question is not whether one can imagine a situation where the subject ordinance would be an unnecessary restriction upon the rights of a female employee in a liquor establishment, but the question is whether the restriction is shown to be unrelated to the public danger inherent in the operation of this type of business. See In re Tahiti Bar, Inc., 395 Pa. 355, 150 A.2d 112.
No such showing having been made in this case, the final decree is without support in the law and is reversed upon authority of City of Miami v. Kayfetz, supra.
Reversed.
'HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aniceto P. Santiago v. State, 478 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1985)…take judicial notice of qualitative factors of an offense in reaching his decision. Sterling Village Condominium Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Mitchum v. State, 251 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Although these cases are valid authority for the theory of judicial notice, they have no bearing on the permissiveness of considering factors relating to the instant offense as prohibited by the sentencing guidelines (adopted in…
-
The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF LEE Cnty. v. Dexterhouse, 348 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…rel. Gross, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So. 2d 60 (Fla.1946), the court found that ordinance was not in conflict with the provisions of the Beverage Act, noting that the state plan of regulation did not cover that area. Similarly, in City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So. 2d 109 (Fla.3d DCA 1961), the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a City of Miami ordinance prohibiting female employees in drinking establishments from accepting drinks paid for by customers. When Pickett, Nelson and Jiminez were decided, the Beverage A…
-
City OF Miami Springs v. J.J.T., Inc., 437 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…434 U.S. 1046, 98 S.Ct. 891, 54 L.Ed.2d 797 (1978) (same); and as not being improper exercises of the police power, Nelson v. State ex rel. Gross, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So. 2d 60 (1946) (ordinance forbidding female bartenders); City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (ordinance prohibiting female bar employees from accepting drinks paid for by customers); Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker, 670 F. 2d 943 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 132, 74 L.Ed.2d 113 (1982) (ordinance…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Irwin Kayfetz, 92 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1957)
- Rodriguez v. Jones, 64 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1953)