1A, Clear Channel Litigation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert H. Lynn April 15, 2008 Page 13 example, a digital display that cycles six different advertisements every six seconds will cause a highway driver traveling at 65 mph to see one full rotation of the ads. During peak traffic hours, when traffic slows, a driver could see three to five loops. ("Pixels and Prints: Outdoor's Future Fusion," September 30, 2003, Electronic Display Central.com). As the responsible federal agency recently concluded, distracting a driver for even a relatively short time (two seconds) can significantly increase the risk of accident. In April 2006, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study concluded a study on the impact of driver inattention on near-crash risk and crash risk that "glances [away from the forward roadway] totaling more than 2 seconds for any purpose increase the near-crash/crash risk by at least two times that of normal, baseline driving." ("The hnpact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the IOO-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data" (April 2006) (abstract). For all these reasons, the City may restrict the conversion of static billboards (including prior lawful nonconforming billboards) into electronic billboards to curb the risk of distraction and promote the public health, welfare or safety within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 9 462.357, subd. 1 e (b). 2. The City's Illumination Standards Are Not Preempted by State Law Plaintiff contends that it does not have to satisfY the lighting requirements of the City's Sign Code because the City's regulation is preempted by state law. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that the lighting regulations contained in the state's Outdoor Advertising Act, Minn. Stat. 9 173.16, subd. 3, supersede the City's lighting regulation and that Plaintiff's LED sign complies with the lighting requirements of subdivision 3. Complaint ~ 24-27. "Preemption is defined as 'occupying the field' in Minnesota." In re Appeal of Rocheleau, 686 N.W.2d 882, 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356, 143 N.W.2d 813, 819 (1966)). "The doctrine of preemption is premised on the right of the state to so extensively and intensively occupy a particular field or subject with state laws that there is no reason for municipal regulation." Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343, 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Mangold, 143 N.W.2d at 819). There are four factors that Minnesota courts consider in determining whether preemption has occurred: (I) the subject matter regnlated; (2) whether the subject matter is so fully covered by state law that it has become solely a matter of state concern; (3) whether any partial legislation on the subject matter evinces an intent to treat the subject matter as being solely a state concem; and (4) whether the nature of the subject matter is such that local regulation will have an adverse effect on the general state population.