Laserfiche WebLink
^ere are no comparable constitutional issues raised by enacting or enforcement <br />0 orfeiture statutes based on violations of prostitution, gambling, or liquor taws The <br />legislature may require sexually oriented businesses which violate these laws to forfeit <br />their profits. The Working Group believes that such an expansion of forfeiture laws <br />would give prosecutors greater leverage to control the operation of those businesses <br />which pose the greatest danger to the community. <br />RECOMMENDATIQMS <br />1. The legislature should amend the present forfeiture statute to <br />Include as grounds for forfeiture all felonies and gross misdemeanors <br />pertaining to solicitation, Inducement, promotion or receiving profit from <br />prostitution and operation of a ''disorderly house." <br />• • • • • <br />. .tC <br />2. The legislature should consider the potential for a RICO-llke <br />statute with an obscenity predicate. <br />• • • <br />B- NUISANCE IM-lUNCnaMjS <br />Minnesota law enforcement authorities may obtain an Injunotion and dose down ’ <br />Olsons when a faoilily constitutes a pubiic nuisance. A public nuisance exists when ’ <br />'aws pertaining to prostHutioa gambUng or kaepitn « <br />dually house.* The Minnesota public nuisance law permits a court to ordr <br />building to be dosed tor one year. Minn. Stat {f 617S0-.87 (1988). <br />• • <br />• I-“1''^ injunctions to dose down sexuaiiy oriented businesses which repeatediy <br />violate 1^ pertaining to prosecution, gambling or disorderly conduct are potentlaliy <br />^rtol regulatory devices. The fact that a buDdtog In which prosecution or other '' <br />offenses occur houses a sexually oriented business does not shield the tadlily from ' <br />jV^loation of nuisance law based on such offenses. Arcara v. aourr Bnnw 1.1/. 473 "=■ <br />U.S. 697, 106 S. Cl 3172 (1966) (First Amendment does not shield adult bookstore' <br />£ <br />-28-