avoid ‘unbridled discretion’ in the hands of a government official.” See Café Erotica, 360 F.3d at 1282. Although the Court concluded that the Ordinance is content-discriminatory when it includes section 1.0, the Court already has determined to enjoin the enforcement of that provision. To avoid providing redundant or unnecessary relief, therefore, the Court will conduct its analysis of whether the statute constitutes an invalid prior restraint as if the Ordinance does not include section 1.0. So viewed, the Ordinance is content-neutral. When an ordinance is content-neutral, the law is clear that the absence of specific time limits is not enough to compel the conclusion that officials lack adequate standards to guide their decision making. See City of St. Petersburg, 348 F.3d at 1282 (<HOLDING>) (citing Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S.
holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that a lack of time limits in a contentneutral ordinance does not equate to unbridled discretion absent evidence of a pattern of unlawful favoritism holding that leaving the duration of the roadblock up to a twohour maximum to the officers discretion was not unbridled discretion that would render the checkpoint unconstitutional holding that a trial courts finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in a rule 32 proceeding does not necessarily equate to a finding of a violation of our ethical rules