A dispute over a local business license renewal has concluded with an appellate court upholding a city council’s decision to deny a tattoo parlor’s operating permit, following concerns about public safety and alleged criminal activity. The case underscores how municipalities can exercise authority over business licensing when evidence suggests potential threats to community welfare.
World Class Tattoos LLC and its licensing agent, Francisco V. Flores, Jr., filed an appeal in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on April 2, 2026, challenging the City of Milwaukee Common Council’s refusal to renew their business license. The appeal followed an earlier petition for certiorari review in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, which was also denied.
According to court documents, World Class Tattoos’ business license expired on June 30, 2023. Despite this expiration, the business continued operations until October 12, 2023, when Flores applied for renewal after being contacted by the Milwaukee Health Department. Flores attributed the lapse in licensure to an oversight.
The renewal process involved several hearings before the Licenses Committee of the Common Council. Attached to initial hearing notices was a police report detailing an April 2023 search warrant executed at World Class’s premises. Police reported finding six firearms—including one with a silencer—alongside firearm accessories and a substance testing positive for THC believed intended for distribution. Flores had a prior felony conviction at the time.
During these proceedings, Flores stated that he resided primarily in Green Bay and was not present during the police raid. He denied ownership of the firearms found in the building and explained that multiple individuals had access to the premises. Additionally, he noted that THC was discovered in a car not belonging to him or located within his establishment. Two neighboring businesses spoke in support of World Class Tattoos and Flores at these hearings.
Initially, the Licenses Committee recommended renewing World Class’s license but imposing a 45-day suspension. However, after objections from counsel representing World Class and requests from Alderman Scott Spiker for further review due to discrepancies in police reports, additional hearings were scheduled.
At subsequent hearings—where testimony from police officers involved in executing the search warrant was presented—the committee learned that criminal charges had been filed against Flores for four counts of felon in possession of a firearm. Police described their investigation into alleged narcotics trafficking linked to World Class Tattoos and explained that evidence gathered supported obtaining a search warrant.
Ultimately, after three separate hearings where both police testimony and defense arguments were heard, including challenges regarding ownership of seized items and questions about notice adequacy under municipal code requirements, the Licenses Committee recommended outright non-renewal of World Class’s business license. Their report cited concerns that “the operation results in a threat to health, safety and welfare of the public.” The Common Council subsequently voted not to renew World Class’s license despite objections from counsel.
World Class Tattoos then sought judicial review through certiorari proceedings in circuit court but did not prevail there either. On appeal before Judges White (Chief Judge), Colon (Presiding Judge), and Donald (Judge) at District I of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (Appeal No. 2025AP108), petitioners argued three main points: insufficient notice violating due process; unlawful discrimination based on pending criminal charges; and arbitrary denial without reasonable basis.
The appellate opinion rejected each argument. Regarding notice requirements under Milwaukee Code of Ordinances section 85-3 (2003), the court found that notices provided ahead of hearings were sufficiently specific—citing references to pending charges as well as attached police reports describing evidence considered relevant by authorities.
On claims alleging unlawful discrimination under Wisconsin Fair Employment Act protections related to arrest records or pending charges, judges noted that such protections apply only to individuals—not businesses—and thus did not support World Class’s claim.
Addressing allegations that denial was arbitrary or unreasonable, judges highlighted that multiple hearings occurred where petitioners could rebut allegations or explain operational safeguards going forward. The committee issued findings supporting its recommendation against renewal based on perceived risks posed by continued operation.
In affirming lower court decisions and upholding municipal authority over licensing matters involving public safety considerations, judges cited precedent establishing deference toward local government determinations unless shown to be arbitrary or unsupported by evidence: “there is a presumption of correctness and validity to a municipality’s decision.”
Attorneys representing World Class Tattoos are not named explicitly within this document; however, Judge Thomas J. McAdams presided over circuit court proceedings referenced herein under case number 2024CV3206.
