Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, Florida
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
265 F.3d 1232 (2001)

- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Voyeur Dorm (Voyeur) (plaintiff) operated a website that provided a 24-hour live Internet feed portraying the lives of the residents of a house in Tampa, Florida. Voyeur contracted with the women who lived in the house. The City of Tampa (Tampa) (defendant) determined that Voyeur had violated Tampa’s statute prohibiting adult entertainment in residential areas. Voyeur sued to overturn Tampa’s decision. The issue at trial was whether the statute applied to the activities inside Voyeur’s house. Under the statute, to be adult entertainment, the activity must take place on a premise which is offered to members of the public. Tampa argued that because Voyeur allowed members of the public to pay to watch the video feed, Voyeur’s activity was offered to the public and constituted adult entertainment under the statute. Voyeur argued that because the public was not physically invited inside the house, the statute did not apply. The lower court found that, although the public did not congregate at a specific location to enjoy the entertainment provided by Voyeur, the house still offered specific sexual activities to the public. Thus, according to the lower court, Voyeur’s sexual entertainment violated the statute. Voyeur appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dubina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.