2003_0731.special_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 1 D. Other Miscellaneous Issues We believe that the analysis thus far answers many of the questions that were posited to us by Council Member Schroeder.9 The first and second questions related to whether Chapter 105 covered legal defense fees, and whether it covers both civil and criminal cases. Chapter 105 does cover legal defense fees, and it does cover both civil and criminal cases. The language of Code § 105.02 is broad enough to encompass both. Another of Council Member Schroeder' s questions was whether there was a need for any additional provisions as to when the City Attorney shall bring a reimbursement claim directly to the judge at the direction of the requestor. we believe that is answered within the body of this opinion, but nonetheless wish to be clear on this question. Minn. Stat. § 465.76 Puts the decision on reimbursement squarely on the shoulders of the Council. It is not a decision for a court to make unless the majority of the members of the body have a pecuniary interest in the outcome. Deep in mind that with limited exceptions I G there was no provision in Minnesota law for the payment of criminal defense expenses until the Passage of that act in 1984. we believe that a provision that would bypass the procedure set forth by statute, which is the only authority to pay criminal defense casts, is in conflict with Minnesota law and would thus be invalid. The discretionary authority to make payment for such expenses is 61early and unequivocally vested with the governing body of a municipality. P An attempt to bypass that cannot reasonably said to be "'additional and complimentary to, or ; aid in furtherance of, the statute." That would be the standard by which conflicts are determined. Putting that aside, the specific answer to Council Member chroeder's question is that we do not believe any additional provisions to Chapter 105 would be necessary for a requestor of reimbursement to mare a claim directly to a judge. Minn. Stat. § 465.76 already indicates when a request for criminal reimbursement is decided by a judge. Minn. Stat. § 3 17A.521 also provides a procedure for when a matter goes to a judge. (The exception is that it does not involve the City Attorney). And, when dealing with requests for reimbursement, defense and/or indemnity involving civil claims for damages against an employee or officer of the City under Minn. Stat. § 466.07, because payment is mandatory under certain circumstances, any person denied defense or indemnification can seek judicial review of that decision. This could 9 Insofar as this opinion deals with the questions posed by him, Council Member Schroeder requested an opportunity to see this opinion prior to its receipt by other members. A copy was e- mailed to him on Sunday, July 27. 10 In Opp. Att'y Gen. 125 -A -25 (July 28} 1980), the Attorney General of Minnesota expressly ruled that there was no power for a county to reimburse for the defense of criminal charges that were not within the parameter of Minn. Stat, § § 471.86 n (relating to firefighters) and 471.44, (relating to certain actions against sheriffs or deputy sheriffs). The Attorney General looped at Minnesota law and indicated that the authority to defend or reimburse a county official or employee in a criminal action cannot be reasonably %mplied from Minnesota Statutes. The passage of Minn. stat. § 465.76 may be a direct result of such opinions, and thus represents the only authority under law by which such reimbursement can occur.