## Facts

- Voyeur Dorm, L.C. operated a subscription website transmitting continuous live video of women living at a single-family house in Tampa, Florida, zoned RS-60 (single-family residential).
- The house contained numerous internet cameras in multiple rooms, including bedrooms and bathrooms; the video feed was accessible only to paying online subscribers.
- The women living in the house were treated as employees under contracts describing the premises as a stage/filming location and disclaiming any expectation of privacy.
- Subscribers paid monthly fees to view the live stream and to interact through online chat; the operation generated substantial revenue.
- No members of the public physically visited the residence to view the content; viewing occurred only remotely via the internet.
- The City’s zoning coordinator issued a written determination that the use constituted an “adult use business” prohibited in the RS-60 district and directed cessation at that location.
- The property owners appealed to the City’s variance/review board, which upheld the coordinator’s decision.
- Voyeur Dorm pursued judicial review and filed a federal action; the district court upheld the City’s interpretation and entered judgment for the City.

## Issues

1. Whether Tampa’s adult-entertainment zoning provisions applied to a residence that served as an internet-content production site when the public did not attend the site to receive adult entertainment.
2. Whether, under the City Code’s definitions, the residence “offered adult entertainment to the public” at the regulated location.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for the City and remanded.
- The court held that, under the City Code’s text, the residence was not an adult entertainment establishment because it did not offer adult entertainment to the public at that location.
- Because the code did not apply to the property on these facts, the court resolved the case on ordinance interpretation grounds without reaching broader constitutional questions.

## Legal Principles

- An adult-use zoning ordinance that regulates sites which “offer adult entertainment to the public” requires that the public receive the adult entertainment at the regulated premises.
- A location used only to produce or transmit content, without on-site public attendance or exhibition, is not necessarily an adult-entertainment establishment under ordinances drafted for physical venues.
- Courts will apply the ordinary meaning and evident purpose of local zoning text and will not expand an ordinance to cover new technology absent clear language.
- When a dispute can be resolved by construing the governing ordinance, courts may avoid deciding constitutional claims as unnecessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Tampa could not apply its adult-use zoning scheme to shut down the residential property because the public did not obtain adult entertainment at the house itself; the residence functioned as a production site, not a public adult-entertainment venue under the City Code’s definitions.


Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001)