Legal Issues

    The case Kitsap County as respondent and Mattress Outlet Kevin Gould (No. 73913-7) was tried in the Supreme Court of Washington State. In the decision of the Washington State High Bench, the Court ruled on the constitutional soundness of the ruling of petitioner Kitsap County that banned the use of Mattress Outlet of workers wearing rain coats as off site advertising means. In the ruling of the Court, it found that the County Code of the County, KCC 17.445.070 , is a restriction not found in the ambit of the Constitution as it applies to restrictions of commercial speech. Kevin Gould, director of operations of Mattress for the Silverdale outlet, planned a marketing strategy that will use independent contractors to wear over sized raincoats that bear the company information, and to locate themselves on the sidewalks. These coats are also available in the store. A Code Enforcement officer cited the company for using the coats as an off site sign without the proper permits in violation of the aforementioned code of the county.

    The district court rules that the ordinances in the county on the signs issue was unclear and lacking in conformity to the Constitutional mandate, dismissing the violations as stipulated in the ordinance. Kitsap appealed to the Superior Court, which overturned the district court, finding the vagueness non existent, and the constitutional restrictions on commercial speech did cover the acts of Mattress, finding that Mattress did not have legal standing to challenge the citation.

    In the examination of the constitutionality of the complaint, the Court turned to the protection of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment, and the state constitution also guaranteeing the right to free speech. In the facts of the decision, the Court found that the requirements for commercial speech had not been infringed upon by Mattress. One, the act was in the ambit of a commercial transaction, as found in United States v.Edge Broad. Co.. Second, the speech or ad was not misleading, as cited in Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co and Natl Fedn of Retired Persons v. Ins. Commr.

    On the grounds that the ad violated standards on safety and aesthetics, the commercial ads, in the Courts opinion, were no more harmful than the other types. Also, the Court ruled that the basis of the citation did not meet the fourth requirement that the ad did not relate to the material interest of the speaker and audience as stipulated in  Cent. Hudson Gas  Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Commn.  In resolving the case, the Court ruled that the safety and the aesthetic concerns that bought about the citation on Mattress did not violate the county ordinance. The Court ruled as unconstitutional the ordinance, reversing the decision of the Superior Court while upholding the ruling of the district court.