The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict, and found that even if the ordinance were content neutral, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime.

There was also a 45 percent increase in part 2 crimes in Hollywood which includes, other assaults, forgery, counterfeiting, embezzlement, fraud, stolen property, prostitution, narcotics, liquor violations, gambling, and other miscellaneous misdemeanors [citation needed].

"[The City] concluded that concentrations of adult businesses are associated with higher rates of prostitution, robbery, assaults, and thefts in surrounding communities.

[Later, the city realized that its method of calculating distances created a loophole permitting the concentration of multiple adult enterprises in a single structure.

[4] "The issue is whether, in such a case, the City Council can rely on the fact that the Fourth Circuit examined and upheld a state law almost identical to the Los Angeles ordinance, or whether a study or other evidence is required demonstrating that a combination adult bookstore/arcade standing alone produces harmful secondary effects.

"[6] In a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court ruled that "the city of Los Angeles may reasonably rely on the 1977 study when enacting the present version of section 12.70(C) to demonstrate that its ban on multiple-use adult establishments serves its interest in reducing crime.

Concurring, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy concluded that Los Angeles may impose its regulation in the exercise of the zoning authority, and that the city is not, at least, to be foreclosed by summary judgment.

"[7] "The plurality wrote that 'the Los Angeles City Council is in a better position than the Judiciary to gather and evaluate data on local problems.

The district court erred by granting summary judgment on the issue whether the plaintiffs had presented "actual and convincing" evidence "casting doubt" on the city's rationale for its Ordinance.

Scalia stated "I join the plurality opinion because I think it represents a correct application of our jurisprudence concerning regulation of the "secondary effects" of pornographic speech.

On that basis, Los Angeles followed the examples of other cities in adopting a zoning ordinance requiring dispersion of adult establishments.

Kennedy drew a line stating that the effects of freedom of speech are not protected by the first amendment, creating an analogy between newspaper factories causing pollution.

Allegedly, a lesser extent of protection applies when city governments, acting within their zoning powers, inhibit the prosperity of these businesses by limiting their choice of location, hours, and modes of operation.