Laserfiche WebLink
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) <br />SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. Should any section, that it drafted Ordinance No. 63 mindful of <br />subdivision, clause, or other provision of this Justice Stevens' concern. <br />Ordinance be held to be invalid by any court of <br />5 Appellant argues that the ordinance's use of <br />competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not <br />"occupant" extends its protection to visitors, <br />affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or <br />guests, or even contractors working in a single <br />any part thereof, other than the part held to be <br />residential dwelling and other individuals who <br />invalid. <br />have a "substantially lessened privacy interest." <br />SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance <br />shall take effect and be in force from and after its <br />passage and publication. <br />Town of White Bear, Minn., Ordinance No. 63 <br />(1990). <br />2 "Activity" is defined as a "specified pursuit in <br />which a person partakes." American Heritage <br />Dictionary of the English Language 18 (3d ed. <br />1992). In Frisby, after construing the Brookfield <br />ordinance to limit picketing focused on a <br />particular residence, the Court noted that its <br />construction was "in line with viewing the <br />ordinance as limited to activity focused on a <br />single residence." Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482, 108 <br />S.Ct. at 2501 (emphasis added). <br />3 We believe that implicitly the ordinance <br />requires that the dwelling be used for residential, <br />not business or other pecuniary, purposes when <br />the picketing occurs. The ordinance expressly <br />states that it is intended to protect residential <br />privacy. In Town of Barrington v. Blake, 568 A.2d <br />1015 (R.I.1990), the Rhode Island court applied <br />Frisby and held constitutional a targeted <br />residential picketing ordinance which prohibited <br />picketing taking place in front of or adjacent to <br />property used for residential purposes "except <br />where such picketing relates to a use or activity <br />being carried on within such property." Id. 568 <br />A.2d at 1017-18. The court noted that the <br />exemption narrowed the scope of the Barrington <br />ordinance beyond Frisby. Id. 568 A.2d at 1021. <br />4 A dissent in Frisby noted that the plain <br />language of the Brookfield ordinance applied to <br />communications "to willing and indifferent <br />recipients as well as to the unwilling." Frisby, 487 <br />U.S. at 497, 108 S.Ct. at 2509 (Stevens, J., <br />dissenting). The Town of White Bear represents <br /> <br />