Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/08/2003

Home

86/17/2803 14:54 LRkl OFFICE 2'140 4TH RU?_'_-_ ~ 42"7554:3 N0.574 P04 Steven M. Thul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. C9-02-].365, Court of Appeals Published. i. Page 3 of 9 On February 29, 2000, one day before the exemption deadline, appellant received a favorable determination letter from the FAA. The letter stated the FAA's position that helicopter operations could be conducted safely at appellant's heliport, provided that appellant met certain conditions. The FAA's conditions included, among others, that: (1) a nonobstmcting wind indicator be maintained adjacent to the take off]landing area; and (2) warning signs be maintained around the take off/lauding area. Also on February 29, 2000, appellant conducted a "test flight" in an effort to be "grandfathered in" according te the exzmption. Ou June 30, 2000, a complaint was filed in Anoka County District Court charging appellant with violating the ordinance. At the omnibus hearing on Match 5, 2001, the parties stipulated, that the ov3y FAA condition from the approval letter at issue was whether appellant put up adequate warning sigll, S around the take off/landing area. Appellant argued that the one homemade warning sign that he st'ack in a nearby snow bank was sufficient for compliance with the FAA condition. Appellant also argued that federal law preempts the ordinance. The district court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the charges against him, concluding that appellant violated the ordinance due to his failure to comply ~v'ith the FAA condition regarding warning signs and that the ordinance was not preempted by federal law. Appellant was convicted for violating the ordinance on. Febnmry 11, 2002, and received a stayed sentence of 30 days in jail, a stayed fine of $700, and one year of probation. Appellant appealed the conviction, but prior to adjudication, of the direct appeal, appellant petitioned th~s court for a stay to allow fox a po~teonviction.headng. The petition did not raise any substantive challenges to the conviction, but sought to supplement the district court record for purposes of appellate review of appellant's conviction. This court granted appellant's motion to stay the appeal, dismissed the case, and remanded to the district court fo~ postconviction proceedings. ThuIv. ~?tate, No. C1-02-307 (Minn. App. Apr. 3, 2002) (order). On July 16, 2002, a pogteonviction hearing was held. 'The postconviction ~oart denied appellant's petition for relief, determining that the ordinance was not void for vagueness and that enforcemen~ of the ordinance against appellant did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This appeal followed. ISS'UES J.~up :/tvavw. lawlibrary, state.mn.us/arebiv~/ctappub/O303/op021365-31 l.htrn 6/10/03