Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/08/2003

Home

06/17×200~ 14:54 LRL~ OFF]CE 2140 4TH RUE -~ 427554~ N0.574 P06 Stev~ M. T~. ul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. C9-02-t365, Court of Appeals ?ublbhed...' Page 5 of ~ selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise cfa constitutional right. Hyland, 43l N.W.2d at 872-73 (quotation omitted). Therefore, to prevail in a diseriminatory, enforcemen! claim, appellant must allege facts showing both that he was singled out for enfomement and that his selection was im, idious or in bad faith. Id. at 873. Appellant argues that he was singled out for prosecution because another helicopter pilot in Ham Lake was "grandfathered in" under the exemption in the ordinance. The record indicates that the Ham Lake resident who was "grandfathered in" received a favorable determination letter' from the FAA on December 9, 1996, and that the individual complied w/th all the conditions ou.llined in the FAA letter by December 20, 1999. But here, the omnibus court found that appellant's FAA approval letter was "replete with conditional language that makes the operation of his heliport contingent on the fulfillment of specific criteria," and concluded that appellant did not comply with the conditions of fl~e FAA. letter because he failed to "post the requ/recI warning signs * * * "The finding of the omnibus court that appellant was not in compliance with the conditions of the FAA approval letter is supported by the record and therefore not clearly erroneous. Thus, we accept the omnibus court's finding that appellant did not meet the requirements oft. he exemption. See State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277, 286 (Minn. 1995) (reviewing court accepts hetual findings unless clearly erroneous). Specifically, 'appellant's FAA approval letter states that signs must be maintained around the take off/landing area. The plain language of the letter indicates that more than one sign was necessary for compliance. Moreover, appellant testified at the omnibus heating that the take off/landing area could be approached from more than one direction. Appellant was not sin.sled out for prosecution. Rather, he was prosecuted because he did not meet the conditions of the FAA approval letter and consequently, did uo'r meel the requirements for the exemption from the ordinance. Thus, the ordinance was not discriminatofily enforced against appellant. 2. Facial Unconstitutionality , Appellan:t also argues that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional because the only purpose behind the ordinance was to prohibit appellant from operating a helicopter within city limits and therefore, no http://www, lawlibrary.state.nm.us/arcbive/ctappub/O303/op021365-311.htm 6110/03