Laserfiche WebLink
F. Fingerprinting of Customers <br /> A municipality may validly require pawnbrokers to fingerprint their <br /> customers. See Miller v. Murphy, 143 Cal App. 3d 337, 191 Cal Rptr. 740 <br /> (1983);Medias v. City of Indianapolis, 216 Ind. 155, 23 N.E2d 590 <br /> (1939), see also Note, supra, 125 ALR 590. <br /> G. Regulation of Hours <br /> Cities may regulate the hours a pawnshop is open to transact business. See <br /> Solof v. City of Chattanooga, 180 Tenn. 296, 174 S.W.2d 471 (1943); <br /> Hyman v. Boldrick, 153 Ky 77, 154 S.W. 369 (1913);Butte v. Paltrovich, <br /> 30 Mont. 18, 75 P 521 (1904). See also Note, "Validity of Statute or <br /> Ordinance Fixing Closing Hours for Certain Kinds of Businesses," 55 ALR <br /> (Aft. 242 (1928 & 1994 Supp.). <br /> H. Bond Requirement <br /> Requiring pawnbrokers to furnish a bond as a condition of licensure has <br /> been upheld as valid. See Grand Rapids v. Braudy, 105 Mich 670, 64 <br /> N.W. 29 (1895). <br /> L Recordkeeping Requirements <br /> Courts have upheld ordinance provisions requiring pawnbrokers to keep a <br /> record of all property pawned, together with the names, addresses, and <br /> descriptions of persons pawning it. In addition, provisions requiring such <br /> information be forwarded to the police have been upheld against arguments <br /> of unreasonable search and seizure. See Shuman v. City of Fort Wayne, <br /> 127 Ind 109, 26 N.E. 560 (1891); Medias v. City of Indianapolis, 216 Ind <br /> • 155, 23 N.E.2d 590 (1939). See also City of St. Paul v. Lytle, 69 Minn. 1, <br /> 9 <br />