My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/13/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2021
>
Agenda - Council - 04/13/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 2:56:29 PM
Creation date
4/15/2021 11:12:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/13/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1126
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10/29/2020 State v. Castellano :: 1993 :: Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia <br />requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that <br />ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not <br />encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. <br />Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983). In <br />the First Amendment context, the Court has "taken special care to insist on fair warning <br />when a statute regulates expression." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 196, 97 S. Ct. <br />990, 995, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1977). <br />Here, the ordinance prohibits all targeted residential picketing unless the occupant of a <br />single residential dwelling has consented. Although appellant attempts to argue the <br />ordinance is vague because a picketer will never know if an occupant will object to the <br />content of the message, the language of the ordinance is clear and unambiguous. Because <br />of the particular intrusiveness that results from targeted residential picketing, such <br />picketing is presumed to be without the consent of the occupant and the ordinance <br />sufficiently gives notice to picketers that focused picketing on a residence is prohibited <br />under the law. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S. Ct. at 1858. Should an occupant <br />consent to the picketers' presence before his or her residence, the municipality will be <br />unable to make a prima facie showing of a violation of the ordinance. The ordinance, <br />therefore, does not give the government unbridled discretion to arbitrarily or <br />discriminatorily enforce the ordinance. See id. Ordinance No. 63 provides fair notice that <br />all targeted residential picketing is prohibited. The ordinance is not void for vagueness. <br />DECISION <br />Town of White Bear, Minn., Ordinance No. 63 is facially constitutional. <br />Affirmed. <br />NOTES <br />[1] In 1990, the Town of White Bear enacted an ordinance regulating targeted residential <br />picketing. The ordinance, in full, provided as follows: <br />SECTION 1. DEFINITION. For the purpose of this Ordinance, "targeted residential <br />picketing" means an activity focused on a single residential dwelling without the consent of <br />the dwelling's occupant. <br />SECTION 2. TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING. The Town of White Bear has an <br />interest in the protection of residential privacy within the Town of White Bear and <br />https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-356.html 10/12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.