Laserfiche WebLink
0~?~?/~003 ~.4:54 It~ OFF]CE ~140 4TH ~UE ~ 4~554~ N0.5~4 <br /> Ste~n ~. T~ul, App~ll~, vs. State of M~esota, Respondent. C9-02-1365, Co~ ofApp~als Publish~d.,. P~ge 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> ~ere, ~ here, there is no hnd~ntal right or suspect cl~s involved, ~ or, nonce is presumed ,o be <br /> conatimfional, and the burden is on. ~¢ ohall~nger to prow a constlmtional violafon beyond a remonable <br /> doubt. Rio V~ta Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. Coun~ of Ram~, 335 N.W.2d 242, 245 (M~. 1983), appeat <br /> dismissed. 464 U.S, i033, 104 S. Ct. 690 (1984) (citation cruised). Vague statutes ~e proMbi~ed ~d~ the <br /> Due Process Cla,se of ~e Foua~th ~n~nt. State ~. N~strom, 371 N.W.2d 525, 528 (Minn. 1985). <br /> To safis~ the r¢quixements of due pro~ess, therefore, a orimhal off~ns~ must be defined wizh sufficient <br /> definiteness ~at ordin~ peopl~ c~ understand what conduct is prohibited =d in a m~r ~at does not <br /> enco~age ~bi~ =d disefimina,o~ onforeem~nt. Ci~ ofMan~to v. Fetcheahier, 363 N.W.2d 76, 78 <br /> (Mi~. App. 1985) (zRation omiRed). Moroovor, rareness must be judged in light of ~e ~nduct ~at ]s <br /> charged under the ordM~ce. Id. at 79. <br /> <br /> App~ll~t ~es ~at the ordin~oe does not conm~ any language reg~ding hll complimce with ~y <br />~idelines or recon~endafions that might be contained in an FAA approval }¢~. B~t < appellam <br />chal]cn.~ng the eomdmfonali~ of an ordnance on vagueness ~ounds "must show thc [ordinance] lacks <br />specificiW as to his o~ beha~or rather ~ some h~otheficaI situation." ~ic v. Corem 'r of Pub. Safe~, <br />455 N.W.2d 89, 92 ~in~. App. 1990) (citation cruised). Here, appell~t's behavior indicates ~at he ~Ily <br />understood hs need to comply with ~e F~ conditions to be exempt ~om ~e ordin~ce. Appell~t received <br />his le~er ~om ~e F~ on Feb~.~ 29, 2000, a day before the deadline for ~ exemption under ~e <br />ordinance. On ~at s~e day, he erected a h~dmade w~ing si~ and conducted a te~ fligh~. Additionally, <br />appell~t testified on direct examination at the omnibus hearing ~at he needed to erect a wang si~ "in <br />order to make ~hc favorable dete~inafion leKer completely leg~ for me or be in compliance with it <br />completely." ~u.s, the requirements of ~e ordinance and the F~ le~er w~e clear to appellant, ~d he <br />understood ~s need to comply wi~ ~e F~ ~ondifions in order to be "~ndfa~ged in' under ~e <br />ordinance. We thus conelude that a~ellant's ~ment ~at the ordinance is void due to rareness fails. <br /> <br /> ~e~er re~latow power is preempted by federal law is a question, of law ~d thus, ~e standard o~ <br />review is de novo. In re Speed Limit for Union Pac. R.R. Through Ci~ of Shakopee, 610 N.W.2d 677, 682 <br />(Mi~. App. 2000). Preemption claims are analyzed ~der th~ ~sumpfion. that ~e '"historic police powers o~ <br /> <br />htlp://www.laMib~.state.m.n.us/aretfivedctappub/O303/op021365-311 .htm 6/l 0/03 <br /> <br /> <br />