Ten bar owners who are taking Indianapolis to court over the a new citywide smoking ban that takes effect Friday at 6 a.m.
stand little chance of stopping the ordinance, a local law professor predicts.
The federal suits, filed over the past two weeks, claim the ordinance violates the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the
U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fourteenth Amendment provides
equal protection under the law.
The owners, who are representing themselves without an attorney, say they’re being deprived of the same rights afforded
to private clubs, which are exempt from the ban.
They also charge that the ban violates other sections of the Constitution by allowing smoking in bars in Beech Grove, Lawrence,
Speedway and Southport, also located within Marion County.
The bar owners are asking a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to halt the ban
until their arguments are heard.
The ordinance, signed by Mayor Greg Ballard April 19, expands existing citywide restrictions against indoor public smoking
to include bowling alleys, hotel rooms and most bars. Tobacco shops, hookah bars, existing not-for-profit private clubs and
downtown's off-track betting parlor are exempt from the ban.
David Orentlicher, a constitutional law professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis,
said he doubts the lawsuits will succeed.
“We’ve had smoking bans in a lot of states for quite some time, and there is no question about their constitutional
validity,” he said. “You’re regulating businesses, and the Constitution allows that.”
The bar owners' Fourth Amendment argument would pertain to fair enforcement of the law rather than its passage, Orentlicher
said. And to bring a Fourteenth Amendment claim, the owners would need to argue that the ban is perhaps discriminatory by
targeting a specific race or gender.
“They would have to prove [that the city is] acting on biases rather than legitimate public policy,” Orentlicher
said. “There’s nothing in the smoking ban that suggests that.”
Rhoda Walker, who owns the Casino Lounge at 1711 E. Minnesota St., disagrees, saying that the smoking rights afforded to
private clubs and other bars within Marion County are a violation of her constitutional rights.
“You can’t give one group rights and take them away from the other group,” she said. “Why would they
come to my bar when they can go to Beech Grove and smoke.”
Other bars challenging the ban are Blue Chaparral, 5030 Southeastern Ave.; Catalina Bar, 3032 E. Washington St.; Colonial
Inn, 4343 Madison Ave.; DJ’s Lounge, 1707 Prospect St.; Dancers, 8013 W. Washington St.; Maggie’s Lounge, 453
N. Rural St.; Riff Raff’s Bar, 2409 English Ave.; Road Dog Saloon, 4861 Southeastern Ave.; and Sugar Shack, 5560 Brookville
Road
Meanwhile, City officials say they haven’t seen the lawsuits but are not surprised considering that similar challenges
have been filed in other cities with smoking bans.
“We’re confident we’re going to prevail,” said Mark Lotter, spokesman for Mayor Greg Ballard.
Tobacco specialty bars need to apply for a new license from the city’s Department of Code Enforcement to allow smoking
in their establishments. The department has identified about a dozen that should apply for the specialty license. As of Tuesday,
only three had applied, said Kate Johnson, spokeswoman for the department.
Those are Nicky Blaines at 20 N. Meridian St.; Indy Cigar Bar at 3357 E. 86th St.; and Egyptian Cafe & Hookah Bar at
6265 Carrollton Ave.
Those that fail to apply for the license will receive a “uniform traffic ticket” with a court date. The city
prosecutor will drop the charge if they apply for a license before their court date, Johnson said.
To ensure bars are complying with the ban, the city has 24 property, safety and maintenance inspectors who can investigate
violation complaints the city might receive.
The first citation is a $100 fine, the second is $200 and the third will lead to an appearance in the city’s environmental
court, where a judge might levy a $2,500 penalty.
Citations can be issued to the bar or property owner, as well as the smoker.
Although the city will rely on citizen complaints to drive enforcement, Johnson said businesses that choose to ignore the
ban won’t fly under the radar for long.
“We’ll do a lot of sweeps,” she said.

















IBJ Conversations
30 Comments
Add Comment
The "general welfare" language is in the preamble of the US Constitution. Preambles have no legal effect. the federal government doesn't have some blanket right to do something for the general welfare. Rather anything they do has to be authorized by a specific power in Article I, Section 8.
The thing here though, it isn't the federal govt that passed the law but rather the city. States and municipalities have a lot more power to adopt laws...they don't need a specific authority to do so.
Nonetheless, smoking bans have been held to be unconstitutional in some states. Most have been upheld, but to say the bans have been upheld 100% of the time is not accurate.
The IBJ reporter used David Orentlicher as a litigation expert? When is the last time he's ever tried a case...if ever? Call him an expert on litigation is a stretch.
Sorry, Charlie, smoking bans are perfectly Constitutional, and they have been upheld against numerous legal challenges, as this one will be.
People will still be able to smoke after the ban is passed. They simply will not be able to do so in a public establishment. That is how it goes.
Yes, excessive drinking is unhealthy just like smoking, but drinking, in and of itself, has no direct effect on anyone around you. Plenty of people can drink, even excessively, and then just fall asleep or sit around, etc. Of course, for those who do cause problems to others, they face legal consequences for their behavior. Similarly, if someone wants to smoke outside or in his or her own private residence or car where they are not causing an unreasonable health hazard to strangers around them, fine. But, for those who wish to go out into a public place indoor place where their smoking exposes others to carcinogens, etc., the law now restricts this behavior.
And, behavior, is a key word. Smoking is a behavior choice. If you choose to smoke, just as if you choose to engage in any other type of behavior, then you must choose to do so in a manner that is reasonably safe for those around you.
(If you suggest some type of physical harm in return, remember: we reserve to do the same in kind)
This does not make me or anyone else a "nanny-stater" and it doesn't mean that I support the current president. It does mean, however, that I understand the Constitution to allow some government regulation of private property when there is an overwhelming public health issue and where the general welfare is served by such regulation.
Also, adding volume doesn't increase an argument's persuasiveness.
2. Regardless of all you say, it is STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and you cannot change that with ALL of your Reasoning's, without a Congressional Bill, 3/4 of the States Agreeing, AND a Majority of the People (citizens) voting for it.
When you get that Done, then it is Constitutional, Until then, IT IS NOT Constitutional!
But, you apparently are going to be like our current president and NOT ALLOW the Constitution to get in your way...are you?
Second-hand smoke is clearly not healthy to breathe. Why should I have to reek of smoke and breathe toxic chemicals because of other's poor choices?
As others have said, in a decade, we will all think it was absolutely crazy that we allowed people to smoke indoors in any public place.
Remember, they used to allow smoking on planes, and in schools. This was a natural step, and I can't believe how people have lost their minds about it.
One last point, the idea that businesses suffer has never actually happened. Owners have found that their business increases once the smoking bans are enacted. Something like 25% of the population smokes, why should the majority of the public be burdened for your poor choices?
But, in the NANNY-STATE Mentality that we currently live in, governments feel they have a RIGHT to circumvent the citizens RIGHTS of Expression, but there is NO Legal Authority under the Constitution that gives them this Right.
Ballard has Overstepped his bounds by trying to enforce HIS WILL on the people in this way, and any Judge who agrees with him on this is also trouncing on his/her OATH of Office to Uphold the Constitution.
This is not "Soviet America", this is a FREE Country, and government entities need to remember that. Ballard, as a Marine Fought with his life to Uphold the Constitution, and now with this, he is attempting to Trounce that very document!
As a hospital employee, I see every single day how smoking effects the health and well being of my patients. There is a direct link between smoking and poor health. "No one cares"? Really??? We are busting our butts to get people to quit smoking becaue we care about your health. If only you cared about your health as much as you cared about complaining, you would be much healthier. Really.