2021-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) Carey discriminated among speech-related S.Ct. at 2502. The Town of White Bear, in stating activities in a public forum based upon content, its substantial interest "in the protection of the Court considered whether the statute was residential privacy * * * and \[in\] protecting the finely tailored to serve a substantial state interest. well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home Id. at 462-63, 100 S.Ct. at 2291. The Court which is * * * of the highest order in a free and determined that exempting labor picketing did civilized society," see Town of White Bear, Minn., not advance the state's asserted interest in Ordinance No. 63, § 2, parallels language of the protecting residential privacy, id. at 465, 100 S.Ct. Court in Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2296 at 2293, and struck the regulation as (the "State's interest in protecting the well-being, unconstitutional.tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society"). Appellant has presented no evidence that the Thus, the language of the White Bear Ordinance Town of White Bear discriminatorily enacted the meets fully the requirement that a valid ordinance specifically to suppress expression government interest be served by the regulation espousing opposition to abortion. To the contrary, of expression. the White Bear ordinance unequivocally prohibits all targeted residential picketing regardless of the C. Narrow in Scope content of speech and is, therefore, content In arguing that Ordinance No. 63 neutral. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. at unconstitutionally sweeps too broadly, appellant 2754. essentially claims that the ordinance is not B. Valid Governmental Interestnarrow in scope. He raises two concerns: (1) the ordinance, in using the word "activity" in In Ordinance No. 63, the Town of White Bear describing targeted residential picketing, specifically states that it has an interest in protecting residential privacy. A similar Page 647 significant governmental interest was includes within the sweep of regulation activity acknowledged in Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108 that is clearly protected by the First Amendment; S.Ct. at 2502. The Court has long recognized that: and (2) the ordinance, in prohibiting expression Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one unless the dwelling's "occupant" consents, retreat to which men and women can repair to extends beyond the protection of the unwilling escape from the tribulations of their daily listener. We believe each of these challenges must pursuits, is surely an important value. * * * The fail. State's interest in protecting the well-being, "A statute is narrowly tailored if it targets and tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of eliminates no more than the exact source of the the highest order in a free and civilized society. 'evil' it seeks to remedy." Frisby, 487 U.S. at 485, Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2295-96. 108 S.Ct. at 2503 (citing Taxpayers for Vincent, Because the home is "the last citadel of the tired, 466 U.S. at 808-810, 104 S.Ct. at 2130-32). Even the weary and the sick," Gregory v. City of a complete ban can be narrowly tailored if each Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125, 89 S.Ct. 946, 954, 22 activity within the proscription's scope is an L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and is appropriately targeted evil. Id. "one retreat to which men and women can repair Frisby held that the Brookfield ordinance was to escape from the tribulations of their daily narrowly tailored despite its complete ban on pursuits," Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at focused residential picketing. The "evil" of 2295, the government may legislate to protect targeted residential picketing, the presence of an intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome visitor at the home, which the unwilling listeners. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108