2021-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) length of time" or "one who resides in a place, one be persuaded to stay away. Such an individual who dwells in a place for a period of some would be just as much captive as if in the home duration." Webster's Third New International when the focused picketing commenced. See Dictionary 1931 (1961). "Resident" is also defined Frisby, 487 U.S. at 488, 108 S.Ct. at 2504. as "one who resides in a particular place The targeted picketing ordinance of the Town permanently or for an extended period." of White Bear is narrowly tailored to protect American Heritage Dictionary of the English unwilling occupants of a single residential Language 1535 (3d ed. 1992). dwelling. The ordinance eliminates no more than In view of the recognized definitions of the exact source of the "evil" it "resident" and "occupant," we believe that Page 649 "occupant," as used in the White Bear ordinance, means an individual with a legal right to possess seeks to remedy. See id. at 485, 108 S.Ct. at 2503. or to control the single residential dwelling. A guest, visitor, or contractor would not come D. Alternative Means of Expression within the definition of "occupant" because those persons would not have some legal right to The Frisby Court, after narrowly construing possess or control the residence. Whether the the Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance "to prohibit ordinance used "resident" or "occupant," its only picketing focused on, or taking place in front protection would extend to those other than a fee of, a particular residence," id. at 482, 108 S.Ct. at owner and would cover those who had some legal 2501, had no difficulty in determining that the right to possess or control the residence. ordinance left open alternative channels of communication. The Court held that the Our interpretation of "occupant" as one who ordinance did not prohibit general marching has some legal right to possess or control the through neighborhoods, walking a route in front premises answers, we believe, appellant's of an entire block of houses, or distributing concerns that the White Bear ordinance is not literature door-to-door or through the mail. Id. at narrowly enough drafted to protect only 483, 108 S.Ct. at 2502. "unwilling" listeners. The words "unless the occupant consents" inform the potential We agree with the Town of White Bear that defendant that one not having the status of an Ordinance No. 63 permits general dissemination "occupant," even though that one be a "willing" of ideas protected by the First Amendment. listener, has no power to consent. Because the prohibition is limited to targeted picketing focused on and taking place in front of a We also reject appellant's argument that the single residential dwelling, picketers may enter, ordinance is overbroad because it would be alone or in groups, residential White Bear violated regardless of whether the occupant was neighborhoods, march the public streets, home. Whether or not an occupant is home, the distribute literature, and go door-to-door to government has an interest in prohibiting proselytize their views. Sufficient alternative targeted residential picketing that invades the channels of communication remain open under sanctity of the home. To somehow justify the Ordinance No. 63, as fully as they did under the intrusion simply because the resident is not home Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance found to be would be to say that the "evil" of targeted constitutional in Frisby. See id. residential picketing only results if someone is home. Although we recognize that the ordinance In summary, the Town of White Bear has is intended to protect residential privacy and demonstrated the need for Ordinance No. 63. See recipients unwilling to receive the Goward, 456 N.W.2d at 464. The ordinance is communication, an occupant returning home to content-neutral, narrowly tailored to promote a find picketers focused on his or her home might