2021-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) significant government interest, and leaves open facie showing of a violation of the ordinance. The alternative means of communication. See Perry, ordinance, therefore, does not give the 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 955. Neither the government unbridled discretion to arbitrarily or selection of the word "occupant" nor the concept discriminatorily enforce the ordinance. See id. of "activity" as narrowly construed here causes Ordinance No. 63 provides fair notice that all the ordinance to be substantively overbroad targeted residential picketing is prohibited. The under Broadrick. Under Frisby, White Bear ordinance is not void for vagueness. Ordinance No. 63 is a facially constitutional DECISION governmental regulation of the time, place or manner of speech. Town of White Bear, Minn., Ordinance No. 63 is facially constitutional. II. Affirmed. Finally, appellant contends that Town of White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is void for --------------- vagueness. We disagree. The void-for-vagueness doctrine, based upon due process, 1 In 1990, the Town of White Bear enacted an ordinance regulating targeted residential requires that a penal statute define the criminal picketing. The ordinance, in full, provided as offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary follows: people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage SECTION 1. DEFINITION. For the purpose of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. this Ordinance, "targeted residential picketing" means an activity focused on a single residential Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 dwelling without the consent of the dwelling's S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). In the occupant. First Amendment context, the Court has "taken special care to insist on fair warning when a SECTION 2. TARGETED RESIDENTIAL statute regulates expression." Marks v. United PICKETING. The Town of White Bear has an States, 430 U.S. 188, 196, 97 S.Ct. 990, 995, 51 interest in the protection of residential privacy L.Ed.2d 260 (1977). within the Town of White Bear and protecting the well-being, tranquility and privacy of the home Here, the ordinance prohibits all targeted which is certainly of the highest order in a free residential picketing unless the occupant of a and civilized society. The Town Board of the Town single residential dwelling has consented. of White Bear further finds that, without resorting Although appellant attempts to argue the to targeted residential picketing, ample ordinance is vague because a picketer will never opportunities exist for those otherwise engaged in know if an occupant will object to the content of targeted residential picketing to exercise the message, the language of the ordinance is constitutionally protected freedom of speech and clear and unambiguous. Because of the particular expression. intrusiveness that results from targeted residential picketing, such picketing is presumed SECTION 3. PROHIBITED. No person shall to be without the consent of the occupant and the engage in targeted residential picketing within the ordinance sufficiently gives notice to picketers Town of White Bear. that focused picketing on a residence is prohibited under the law. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 SECTION 4. PENALTY. Every person convicted of S.Ct. at 1858. Should an occupant consent to the a violation of any provision of this Ordinance picketers' presence before his or her residence, shall be punished as provided in Ordinance No. the municipality will be unable to make a prima 26.