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 who occupies a particular place or premises [such as a] tenant [or a] resident. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1560 (1961). Similarly, an "occupant" is one that occupies a position or place * * * one who has certain legal rights to or control over the premises occupied. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1251 (3d ed. 1992). "Resident," on the other hand, means a "dweller, habitant or occupant." Black's Law Dictionary 1309 (6th ed. 1990). Webster's defines "resident" as "having an abode for a continued length of time" or "one who resides in a place, one who dwells in a place for a period of some duration." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1931 (196i). "Resident" is also defined as "one who resides in a particular place permanently or for an extended period." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1535 (3d ed. 1992). In view of the recognized definitions of "resident" and "occupant," we believe that "occupant," as used in the White Bear ordinance, means an individual with a legal right to possess or to control the single residential dwelling. A guest, visitor, or contractor would not come within the definition of "occupant" because those persons would not have some legal right to possess or control the residence. Whether the ordinance used "resident" or "occupant," its protection would extend to those other than a fee owner and would cover those who had some legal right to possess or control the residence. Our interpretation of "occupant" as one who has some legal right to possess or control the premises answers, we believe, appellant's concerns that the White Bear ordinance is not narrowly enough drafted to protect only "unwilling" listeners. The words "unless the occupant consents" inform the potential defendant that one not having the status of an "occupant," even though that one be a "willing" listener, has no power to consent. We also reject appellant's argument that the ordinance is overbroad because it would be violated regardless of whether the occupant was home. Whether or not an occupant is home, the government has an interest in prohibiting targeted residential picketing that invades the sanctity of the home. To somehow justify the intrusion simply because the resident is not home would be to say that the "evil" of targeted residential picketing only results if someone is home. Although we recognize that the ordinance is intended to protect residential privacy and recipients unwilling to receive the communication, an occupant returning home to find picketers focused on his or her home might be persuaded to stay https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-356.html 8/12