CC_Minutes_2006_1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 3, 2006 Page 3 of6 punishments for the same offense are in violation of the double jeopardy clause, double jeopardy rarely attaches to civil sanctions. See,~, United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989). It is only when a civil sanction cannot be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution, that the double jeopardy clause may be invoked. It has been said in at least one Minnesota case that a disciplinary sanction is remedial if it is rationally related to a remedial goal. See In re Welfare ofE.R,G., 551 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. App. 1996). Keep in mind that we are dealing with a civil sanction under the City Code sections in question. City Code Section 302.15 indicates that it is dealing with a "civil penalty." This is consistent with Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. :'l 340A.4l5 is the provision under which the city has its authority to impose the penalties under Code Section 302.15. That statute clearly indicates that it is dealing with civil penalties. Section 302.14 of the City Ordinance indicates that the policy regarding liquor control is the interest of public welfare, which can be argued to be a remedial goal. Under the analysis of the cases set forth above, since the disciplinary sanction is rationally related to the remedial goal of public welfare, the civil penalty would not be deemed to invoke the protections of the double jeopardy clause. Under this line of authority, the double jeopardy argument would have no weight. However, that is not the end of the issue. The principle of double jeopardy has been used in other contexts, most often in employment disciplinary situations, to preclude multiple punishments for the same action. For instance, in Skeim v. Independent School District No. 115,234 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. 1975), the court recognized the importation into labor arbitration from criminal law of the concept of double jeopardy or "double punishment." The Skeim court indicated that an employee could not be punished twice for the same incident. Other court and arbitration decisions have used the principle of double jeopardy in overturning an employer's decision to discipline twice for the same infraction. See,~, Hughes v. City of Saint Paul, 273 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. 1937); ISD No. 116 v. Individual Grievant, BMS Case No. 98-TD-13 (Sept. 25, 1998). The courts have applied double jeopardy principles in other situations. For example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recognized the impropriety in the imposition of multiple fines for a single act in the case onn the Matter of Residential Building Contractors License of Beacon Builders, 1996 WL 175821 (Minn. App. 1996)(unpublished)(modifying an award of civil penalties resting on improper double counting of violations). See also State v. Schmitt, 429 N.W.2d 518 (Wis. App. 1988)(indicating a person cannot be subject to a double forfeiture ifhis conduct constituted a single violation, even when that conduct is not considered a crime). The above cases are certainly not ones that deal with liquor code violations. They are cited merely to show that double jeopardy arguments can be raised in the context of civil penalty proceedings. I am not predicting that a double jeopardy argument would be successful in precluding the City from revisiting the Code violations in question. However, neither am I saying it could not be successful. It is merely one of the arguments that might be raised in the case. And, there are some other arguments that might come into play.