Lawsuit Alleges Tattoo Parlor Rules Violate Civil Rights

Watsonville, CAA lawsuit has been filed in San Jose federal court that alleges that Watsonville's rules that govern tattoo shops violate civil rights. The lawsuit is stating that equal protection rights and free speech are violated, which would be in violation of the Constitution's 14 Amendment.

Kate Wells, a civil rights lawyer based out of Santa Cruz, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Geoffrey Wells, her son. He has been trying to open a tattoo parlor within the city for over a year. The lawsuit is also filed on behalf of potential customer Jettzen Dickel.

Wells has said that the city's regulations should not treat a tattoo parlor any different than an art gallery or a beauty salon.

After Geoffrey wells approached the city about opening a tattoo shop, the city passed an ordinance in September 2007. Previous city rules said that a tattoo artist could not issue a tattoo unless under the supervision of a physician. This rule dated back to 1962 and this is when Kate Wells approached city officials about fixing what she considered to be a free speech violation.

After months of working to fix this ordinance and two attempts by staff to come up with something that City Council would find to be palatable, the resulting 2007 ordinance came with some restrictions. The restrictions stated that tattoo parlors could not be located near schools, parks, each other, and liquor stores. There are even instances that limits tattoo parlors from locating within the downtown altogether. The ordinance also lists the training, sanitation, and permitting requirements.

However, Wells takes issue with the heavy zoning in the ordinance. The reason is because she says there are not many sites remaining where a tattoo parlor can be located, especially since homes and businesses occupy much of these areas.

Attorney for the city, Alan Smith, believes the lawsuit to be meritless. He responds to Wells' claim of lack of locations by saying there are 50 to 75 possible locations. Some of the locations are rented and some are not rented, but that there are plenty of areas to operate a tattoo shop.

Wells' lawsuit details the long history of tattooing, including its artist and social significance. It also outlines the religious significance that it has to some and many cultures. She points out that body art has been displayed in many galleries and notes that the community has not objected to the presence of a tattoo shop. In the end, she states that the city ordinance signifies discrimination because there are no restriction on art studios that use canvas instead of skin and beauty salons that use permanent dyes for hair coloring.

Wells said she did all she could to avoid litigation with the city. She even kept quiet about the suit after she filed it in March 2008 so that the city would have a chance to rectify the situation before it became public.

Since this case is unique and there are no case laws that are based on the questions that she has raised, this case will set a precedent.