My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/18/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2006
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 07/18/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:47:12 PM
Creation date
7/14/2006 2:56:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
07/18/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />Administrative Penalties in Minnesota <br />ACBA, Government Section <br /> <br />November 14, 1996 <br /> <br />that the authority to do the greater implies the authority to do the lesser. <br />Under Minnesota law, a misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of up to <br />$700 and/or 90 days injail, plus the cost of prosecution. Thus, as long as <br />the administrative penalty sought is less, there is implied authority to <br />impose it. <br /> <br />The real question becomes, what level of penalty can be imposed and still <br />be less than a misdemeanor. A straight fine of no more than $700 would <br />satisfy the test, but the answer is less clear when fines exceed $700. <br />Because jail time is possible, misdemeanor prosecutions are considered <br />criminal in nature. Thus arguably as jail time is not involved and the <br />offense would not be viewed as criminal in nature, any administrative fine <br />could be considered less than a misdemeanor. In any case, however, the <br />fine would have to be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the <br />offense. Excessive penalties can invalidate an ordinance. <br /> <br />Home rule charter cities are not bound to the statutory cap of Minn. Stat. S <br />412.23 I and thus appear to have even stronger arguments in favor of <br />authorizing administrative penalties. Such authorization, however, would <br />have to be contained in the city's charter, and thus a charter amendment <br />may be required. <br /> <br />V. Common <br />Concerns: <br /> <br />Because there is no express authority for administrative penalties, and <br />because there have not yet been any test cases on this matter some city <br />attorneys are reluctant to advise their cities to adopt such penalties. While <br />the League of Minnesota Cities encourages caution, the consensus of <br />League attorneys who have looked at this issue, as well that of a random <br />survey of city attorneys who have dealt with it, is that there are strong <br />enough arguments in favor of the authority to impose such penalties. <br />Further, the risk of damages being awarded against a city from the use of <br />such penalties appears to be nominal. The Minnesota Attorney General <br />has also indicated his support for the use of administrative penalties. <br /> <br />Nonetheless, these concerns need to be considered so that each city <br />attorney can determine his or her comfort level in advising their individual <br />city councils. The following are some of the most common concerns and <br />the best argument a city could make in defense of administrative penalties: <br /> <br />20f2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.