Agenda - Council - 04/13/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

10/29/2020 State v. Castellano :: 1993 :: Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia Ed. 2d 420 (1988). In Frisby, the Court found constitutional a Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance that provided: It is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the Town of Brookfield. Id. at 477, io8 S. Ct. at 2498. The Brookfield ordinance stated that its purpose was "the protection and preservation of the home" through assurance "that members of the community enjoy in their homes and dwellings a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy." Id. According to the Town of Brookfield, prohibiting residential picketing was necessary because such picketing "causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants * * * [and] has as its object the harassing of such occupants." Id. An ordinance restricting targeted residential picketing "operates at the core of the First Amendment" because it prohibits picketing on issues of public concern. Id. at 479, io8 S. Ct. at 2499. In Frisby, the Court stated that restrictions on public issue picketing are typically subject to careful scrutiny because of the importance of "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues. Id. (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S. Ct. 710, 720-21, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)). The Court specifically held that picketing on public streets is "the archetype of a traditional public forum" and such status is not lost because a public street runs through a residential area. Id. 487 U.S. at 480, io8 S. Ct. at 2500. Although in a "quintessential public forum[], the government may not prohibit all communicative activity," Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S. Ct. 948, 955, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1983), the government may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content -neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Id. Respondent argues that White Bear Ordinance No. 63 meets all the requirements of Frisby. Appellant, conversely, would have this court find the White Bear ordinance unconstitutional because it does not, in fact, satisfy the requirements of Frisby. We agree with respondent that White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is facially constitutional under Frisby. However, we believe that Frisby compels us to narrowly construe the White Bear Ordinance in order to avoid constitutional overbreadth. We address each of the Frisby factors in turn. *646 A. Content Neutrality https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-356.html 4/12