2021-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) graphic signs. Appellant, however, refused to N.W.2d 460, 464 (Minn.App.1990). The burden leave the area and stayed in front of Webber's of proving the need of such a law rests with the residence. He stated "I am not a part of the government. Id. (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. group" and "\[t\]his is a public street." Appellant 414, 426, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 1894, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 then commenced marching in one place as though (1988)). he was walking but did not physically leave the I. Overbreadth street in the area in front of Webber's residence. Webber signed a certificate of arrest by private In the area of freedom of expression, it is citizen, and a deputy took appellant into custody well-established that an overbroad for violating the targeted residential picketing ordinance. See White Bear Township, Minn., Page 645 Ordinance No. 63. regulation may be subject to facial review and The trial court denied appellant's motion to invalidation even though the application in a dismiss and held that the ordinance was particular case may be constitutionally constitutional. Based on stipulated facts, the trial unobjectionable. Forsyth County, Ga. v. court adjudicated appellant guilty of violating Nationalist Movement, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. Ordinance No. 63 and ordered him to pay a $60 2395, 2400-01, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992). fine plus a surcharge. Permitting a facial challenge to allegedly overbroad legislation is an exception to general ISSUES standing principles. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L.Ed.2d 1. Is the Town of White Bear, Minn., 830 (1973). The exception is "based on an Ordinance No. 63 (1990), prohibiting targeted appreciation that the very existence of some residential picketing, facially unconstitutional on broadly written laws has the potential to chill the the grounds of overbreadth? expressive activity of others not before the court." 2. Is the Town of White Bear, Minn., Forsyth County, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2401. Ordinance No. 63 (1990), prohibiting targeted In order to invalidate a statute or ordinance residential picketing, facially unconstitutional on its face, the overbreadth not only must be real, under the void for vagueness doctrine? but "substantial." Board of Airport Comm'rs v. ANALYSISJews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 2572, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). The At issue in this case is a municipal ordinance requirement that the overbreadth be substantial prohibiting focused, or targeted residential arose from the Court's recognition that striking an 1 picketing. The constitutionality of an ordinance ordinance on overbreadth grounds imposed is a question of law. See Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. "manifestly, strong medicine." Id. (quoting Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613, 93 S.Ct. at 2916). The 527, 529 (Minn.1985) (construction of a statute is Court has required that there be a "realistic clearly a question of law fully reviewable by an danger that the statute itself will significantly appellate court); State v. Clarke Plumbing & compromise recognized First Amendment Heating, Inc., 238 Minn. 192, 197, 56 N.W.2d 667, protections of parties not before the Court" to 671 (1952) (whether an ordinance is facially challenge legislation on overbreadth constitutionally valid is a question of law). grounds. Members of City Council of Los Angeles Although ordinances are ordinarily afforded a v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801, 104 presumption of constitutionality, ordinances S.Ct. 2118, 2126, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). restricting First Amendment rights are not so presumed. Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456