. "Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas"@en . . . "O'Connor"@en . . "1118230754"^^ . . . . "Los Angeles may reasonably rely on its 1977 study to demonstrate that its present ban on multiple use adult establishments serves its interest in reducing crime."@en . . . . . "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc."@en . "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., et al."@en . . . . . . . "--05-13"^^ . . . . . . . . "Kennedy"@en . . . . "Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc."@en . . "--12-04"^^ . . "15356"^^ . . . . . ""@en . . . . . . . "535"^^ . "172800.0"^^ . "2001"^^ . . "City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., et al."@en . . . "Scalia"@en . "2002"^^ . "33517425"^^ . . . . "Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.,"@en . "Stevens, Ginsburg; Breyer"@en . . . "425"^^ . . . "Souter"@en . . . . . . . . . "Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the seconda"@en . . "Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case on the controversial issue of adult bookstore zoning in the city of Los Angeles. Zoning laws dictated that no adult bookstores could be within five hundred feet of a public park, or religious establishment, or within 1000 feet of another adult establishment. However, Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc. were two adult stores that operated under one roof. They sued Los Angeles, stating the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court concurred with the stores, stating that the 1977 study stating there was a higher crime rate in areas with adult stores, which the law was based upon, did not support a reasonable belief that multiple-use adult establishments produce the secondary effects the city asserted as content-neutral justifications for its restrictions on adult stores. 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. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. This reversed the decision of the lower court. This case was argued on December 4, 2001; certiorari was granted on March 5, 2001. \"City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 00-799, didn't involve the kind of adult material that can be regulated by the government, but rather the extent to which cities can ban \"one-stop shopping\" sex-related businesses.\""@en .