CITY OF MIAMI, PETITIONER,
v.
BOBBIE J. HOWARD, RESPONDENT
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 sought review of a circuit court decision that reversed a municipal court conviction of a bar employee for performing a strip-tease dance in violation of city ordinances. The District Court of Appeal held that the ordinance prohibits strip-tease acts performed in disjunctive form (as an 'act, skit or play') and reinstated the conviction.
The court held that the ordinance applies to strip-tease acts performed in the disjunctive form of 'act, skit or play,' and therefore a strip-tease performance qualifies as a prohibited act even when not part of a skit or play. The ordinance is a valid exercise of the city's police power to protect public morals, health, and welfare.
[1] A municipal ordinance prohibiting strip-tease acts is applicable to any "act" of disrobing or exposing body parts in a lewd or lascivious manner, not solely to acts perfo…
[2] A city may enact ordinances, in the exercise of its police power, that are reasonably designed to protect and preserve the morals, health, and welfare of the public.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While the ordinance defines strip-tease as a skit or play, it also describes it as an 'act.' The words 'act, skit or play' are stated in the ordinance in the disjunctive. The ordinance applies to an act performed, of the character prohibited as well as to a skit or to a play which may be so performed.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that the ordinance prohibits strip-tease in multiple forms, not just as part of a skit or play.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobbie Jean Howard, an employee of a licensed bar in Miami, collected one dollar from customers and performed a go-go type dance on a table while remo…
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 Public Morals cases and more on FLexlaw
By a petition for certiorari the city of Miami presents for review a judgment of the circuit court of Dade County reversing a conviction of the respondent Bobbie Jean Howard in the municipal court of the City of Miami.
The respondent, who was an employee of a licensed bar in the City of Miami,' was charged and convicted of violation of Chapter 4, Sections 10 and 11 of the City Code.1
*8At the trial m the municipal court there was competent substantial evidence to sustain the conviction. Two plainclothes police officers, who were present in the bar on the occasion in question, testified that the respondent, after collecting one dollar from each of the customers, mounted a small table or stage in front of the bar and performed a go-go type dance, to the accompaniment of juke box music. In the course thereof she removed or displaced her bikini type bottom garment. Without stating the details, we regard the evidence as showing the respondent thereby performed a strip-tease act of a kind and in a manner prohibited by the invoked sections of the City Code.
The reversal of the conviction by the circuit court appears to have been based on a conclusion reached by the court, in construing the ordinance, that such an act would not be in violation of the ordinance unless it was involved in a skit or play. While the ordinance defines strip-tease as a skit or play, it also describes it as an “act.” The words “act, skit or play” are stated in the ordinance in the disjunctive. The ordinance applies to an act performed, of the character prohibited as well as to a skit or to a play which may be so performed.
The city, in the exercise of its police power, may enact ordinances reasonably designed to protect and preserve the morals, health and welfare of the public. The ordinance involved here is one of that character. The validity of the ordinance is not challenged. We hold to be without merit the contention of the respondent that the conduct involved in this case was not an act performed m a public place, etc., in contravention of the ordinance.
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is quashed and the judgment of conviction of the respondent in the municipal court of the City of Miami is reinstated.