2021-01-27 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993) The United States Supreme Court addressed are narrowly tailored to serve a significant the facial constitutionality of an ordinance government interest, and leave open ample restricting residential picketing in Frisby v. alternative channels of communication. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d Id. 420 (1988). In Frisby, the Court found constitutional a Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance Respondent argues that White Bear that provided: Ordinance No. 63 meets all the requirements of Frisby. Appellant, conversely, would have this It is unlawful for any person to engage in court find the White Bear ordinance picketing before or about the residence or unconstitutional because it does not, in fact, dwelling of any individual in the Town of satisfy the requirements of Frisby. We agree with Brookfield. respondent that White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is Id. at 477, 108 S.Ct. at 2498. The Brookfield facially constitutional under Frisby. However, we ordinance stated that its purpose was "the believe that Frisby compels us to narrowly protection and preservation of the home" through construe the White Bear Ordinance in order to assurance "that members of the community enjoy avoid constitutional overbreadth. We address in their homes and dwellings a feeling of well-each of the Frisby factors in turn. being, tranquility, and privacy." Id. According to Page 646 the Town of Brookfield, prohibiting residential picketing was necessary because such picketing A. Content Neutrality "causes emotional disturbance and distress to the occupants * * * \[and\] has as its object the In First Amendment time, place, or manner harassing of such occupants." Id. cases, the principal inquiry in determining whether legislation is content-neutral is "whether An ordinance restricting targeted residential the government has adopted a regulation of picketing "operates at the core of the First speech because of disagreement with the message Amendment" because it prohibits picketing on it conveys." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 issues of public concern. Id. at 479, 108 S.Ct. at U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2754, 105 L.Ed.2d 2499. In Frisby, the Court stated that restrictions 661 (1989). An ordinance restricting expressive on public issue picketing are typically subject to activity is content-neutral so long as it is "justified careful scrutiny because of the importance of without reference to the content of the regulated "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on speech." Id. (quoting Clark v. Community for public issues. Id. (quoting New York Times Co. v. Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720-21, S.Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984)). 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). The Court specifically held that picketing on public streets is "the The Frisby Court accepted the determination archetype of a traditional public forum" and such of the lower courts that the Brookfield ordinance status is not lost because a public street runs was content-neutral. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482, 108 through a residential area. Id. 487 U.S. at 480, S.Ct. at 2501. Appellant argues that Carey v. 108 S.Ct. at 2500. Although in a "quintessential Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d public forum\[ \], the government may not prohibit 263 (1980) compels a conclusion that the White all communicative activity," Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Bear ordinance is not "content-neutral." We Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 disagree and find Carey distinguishable. In Carey S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983), the the regulation prohibited residential picketing government may except for peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute. Id. at enforce regulations of the time, place, and 457, 100 S.Ct. at 2288. Because the regulation in manner of expression which are content-neutral,