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 away. Such an individual would be just as much captive as if in the home when the focused picketing commenced. See Frisby, 487 U.S. at 488, io8 S. Ct. at 2504. The targeted picketing ordinance of the Town of White Bear is narrowly tailored to protect unwilling occupants of a single residential dwelling. The ordinance eliminates no more than the exact source of the "evil" it *649 seeks to remedy. See id. at 485, io8 S. Ct. at 2503. D. Alternative Means of Expression The Frisby Court, after narrowly construing the Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance "to prohibit only picketing focused on, or taking place in front of, a particular residence," id. at 482, io8 S. Ct. at 2501, had no difficulty in determining that the ordinance left open alternative channels of communication. The Court held that the ordinance did not prohibit general marching through neighborhoods, walking a route in front of an entire block of houses, or distributing literature door-to-door or through the mail. Id. at 483, io8 S. Ct. at 2502. We agree with the Town of White Bear that Ordinance No. 63 permits general dissemination of ideas protected by the First Amendment. Because the prohibition is limited to targeted picketing focused on and taking place in front of a single residential dwelling, picketers may enter, alone or in groups, residential White Bear neighborhoods, march the public streets, distribute literature, and go door-to-door to proselytize their views. Sufficient alternative channels of communication remain open under Ordinance No. 63, as fully as they did under the Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance found to be constitutional in Frisby. See id. In summary, the Town of White Bear has demonstrated the need for Ordinance No. 63. See Goward, 456 N.W.2d at 464. The ordinance is content -neutral, narrowly tailored to promote a significant government interest, and leaves open alternative means of communication. See Perry, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S. Ct. at 955. Neither the selection of the word "occupant" nor the concept of "activity" as narrowly construed here causes the ordinance to be substantively overbroad under Broadrick. Under Frisby, White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is a facially constitutional governmental regulation of the time, place or manner of speech. II. Finally, appellant contends that Town of White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is void for vagueness. We disagree. The void-forvagueness doctrine, based upon due process, https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-356.html 9/12