Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Administrative Penalties in Minnesota <br />ACBA, Government Section <br /> <br />November 14, 1996 <br /> <br />Concern City Argument <br />Lack of Authority See section IV above <br />Infringes on Courts exclusive realm of Cities act in quasi-judicial roles in many <br />adjudication in violation of the Separation of situations such as zoning, license revocation, <br />Powers of both the State and Federal etc. In addition, administrative fines have <br />Constitutions. been issued by other entities such as OSHA <br /> and DOER for many years without successful <br /> challenge. Specific authority exists for fines <br /> for liquor violations and limited other local <br /> offenses. (Minn. Stat. 340A.304) <br />Equal Protection Challenge by indigent This is more an issue of implementation than <br />unable to pay fine (particularly if violator has a per se constitutionality risk. Cities <br />option to demand court process). imposing administrative penalties would need <br /> to make reasonable accommodations for those <br /> unable to afford the fine. Such <br /> accommodations could include allowing <br /> monthly installment payments. As long as <br /> the city is reasonable, there should be no <br /> problem of equal protection. (see Smith v. <br /> State 301 Minn 455, 223 N.W.2d 775 (1974)) <br /> <br />VI. Key Elements: <br /> <br />VII. Enforcement: <br /> <br />- Designate a hearing officer or panel <br />- Provide for notice requirement in the citation issued <br />- Make hearing process clear <br />- Avoid excessive fines (consider fine schedule) <br />- Provide for right of appeal <br />- Specify Exceptions <br />- (Opt-out provision) <br />- Provide hearing officers with clear guidelines and instruct on the <br />importance of good findings of facts <br /> <br />- Conciliation Court <br />- Debt Collection Service <br />- Penalty for late payment <br />- Separate offense for failure to pay fine <br /> <br />30f3 <br />