CC_Minutes_2006_1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 3, 2006 Page 2 of6 The purpose of this letter is to set forth legal issues that might arise in revisiting the Code violations in question so that each of you may give those whatever consideration you deem is appropriate in making your decision in this matter. As you will recall, the matter of Liquor Code violations, and the manner in which the City deals with them, was raised as a result of some Code compliance checks that were done last year. These checks found failures to comply with the Liquor Code restrictions at the Green Mill Restaurant and Bar, the Roseville VFW Post #7555, and the Old Chicago restaurant. My review of the matter indicated that on October 28, 2005, the City Manager wrote letters to each establishment imposing a penalty which at least in part was less severe than that dictated by the City Code. In the case of each violation, the Code would have imposed a presumptive penalty of $500 and a one day liquor license suspension. In the case of Old Chicago and the Green Mill, Mr. Beets amended that to a $500 fine, a $500 charitable contribution, and required each restaurant to participate in the Roseville Manager and Server Training Program. For the VFW Post, the City Manager imposed a $500 fine, a requirement that the VFW Post enroll in the Roseville Manager and Server Training Program, and a requirement that they remain violation- free for one year. Basically, each restaurant avoided the one day liquor license suspension, but had other consequences that would not otherwise had occasioned had they been sanctioned strictly according to the presumptive schedule set forth in the Code. As you know, there was a complaint that was lodged against the City Manager that the actions taken by him were contrary to the Roseville City Code. The matter was sent out to a Conflict Prosecutor, Steven M. Tallen, to determine whether criminal prosecution was warranted. Mr. Tallen did a thorough evaluation and determined that criminal prosecution was not warranted. Part ofthe rationale was that it was clear that the City Manager believed, and the Conflict Prosecutor found that there was some authority that past practice supported the City Manager in this belief, that he had the implicit authority from the Council to handle Liquor Code violation matters himself or through an agent, rather than requiring each hearing to be held before the Council. These facts are important, as they give rise to certain arguments that a party could make in litigation, or in a contested case matter. The question that was initially raised, at least by myself in my mind, was whether the principle of double jeopardy prevents a city council from rehearing a decision previously made by an agent of the city council? The double jeopardy clause of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, basically state that no person shall be put in jeopardy of punishment more than once for the same offense. In general, double jeopardy clauses apply to criminal prosecutions, and not civil penalties. See,~, State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1998); Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997). Thus, while courts generally state that multiple