CC_Minutes_2003_0127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

01/24/2003 FRI 16:48 FAX 6512278428 Hughes and Costello ~ 003/004 Regarding any possible assault offense, Minnesota Statutes s609.224, subdivision 1, states: Whoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) Commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another. No evidence exists that either Machyowsky or Sobola commited any of these prohibited acts. Neither is accused of inflicting, or attempting to inflict, bodily harm upon the other. Furthermore, no evidence exists that either Machyowsky's or Sobola's actions placed the other in fear of immediate bodily harm. Accordingly, no probable cause exists that an assault occurred. Regarding any possible disorderly conduct offense, Minnesota Statutes ~60g.72 states: Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or (2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or (3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. Of the above prohibitions, only part (2) could possibly be applicable to this incident, because it occurred during a public meeting of the Roseville City Council. There [s no allegation of brawling or fighting, nor is there any allegation of the conduct or language described in part (3). Actions and conduct during a public meeting must be considered relative to the constitutional rights of the actor, including those of free speech, petition and assembly. A certain amount of speech and activity is allowed during a public meeting in light of these important constitutional rights. Therefore, Machyowsky's and Sobola's conduct must be considered relative to the overall nature of the meeting in question. Within that context, their conduct cannot be called so disruptive as to have disturbed the meeting involved. Accordingly, neither Machyowsky's or Sabala's actions can be considered a criminal disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. S609.72. ') .....