|
James Monge
<br /> Neutral
<br />As of: June 25, 2019 4:34 PM Z
<br />Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead
<br />United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
<br />January 10, 2013, Decided; January 11, 2013, Filed
<br />Civil File No. 12-171 (MJD/LIB)
<br />Reporter
<br />2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392 *
<br />DISC & TAPE, INC., d/b/a Discontent; STACEY
<br />ANTHONY; RUSSELL STEELE; and JESSICA WOLF,
<br />Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF MOORHEAD, Minnesota, a
<br />municipal corporation, Defendant.
<br />Prior History: Disc & Tape, Inc. v. City of Moorhead,
<br />2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22195 (D. Minn., Feb. 22, 2012)
<br />Core Terms
<br />Ordinance, drug paraphernalia, pipes, smoking,
<br />controlled substance, businesses, enforce an ordinance,
<br />objects, tobacco, designed for use, summary judgment,
<br />illegal drug, announced, inventory, police officer,
<br />modified, Records, arrest
<br />Counsel: [*1] Randall D. B. Tigue and Rachel K.
<br />Nelson, Randall Tigue Law Office, PA, Counsel for
<br />Plaintiffs.
<br />James J. Thomson, Mary D. Tietjen, and Peter G.
<br />Mikhail, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Counsel for
<br />Defendant.
<br />Judges: Michael J. Davis, Chief United States District
<br />Judge.
<br />Opinion by: Michael J. Davis
<br />Opinion
<br />MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
<br />I. INTRODUCTION
<br />This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion
<br />for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 30] The Court
<br />heard oral argument on November 21, 2012. For the
<br />reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's
<br />motion.
<br />II. BACKGROUND
<br />A. Factual Background
<br />1. Origin of the Ordinance
<br />Plaintiff Disc & Tape, Inc. formerly operated a store
<br />known as "Discontent" in Moorhead, Minnesota. (Tepley
<br />Aff. ¶¶ 1-2.) Discontent regularly sold novelties, tobacco,
<br />smoking herbs, and smoking paraphernalia. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5.)
<br />In early 2011, Defendant City of Moorhead, Minnesota
<br />("the City") began to consider passing a drug
<br />paraphernalia ordinance. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 2.) The
<br />ordinance was considered because the City had
<br />received information from nearby law enforcement
<br />agencies about illegal drug products from Moorhead.
<br />(Id.) Moorhead Police Chief David Ebinger decided that
<br />the City needed a drug paraphernalia ordinance [*2] to
<br />clarify the legality of certain items not covered by
<br />Minnesota state law and to create uniformity in the drug
<br />paraphernalia laws in the Fargo-Moorhead area. (Id.)
<br />On September 21, 2011, the Moorhead Police
<br />Department and the Clay County Attorney's Office held
<br />a meeting with Moorhead business owners who would
<br />likely be impacted by the proposed drug paraphernalia
<br />ordinance. (Def. Ex. 1, Sept. 12, 2011 Letters to
<br />Businesses; Ebinger Aff. ¶ 3.) Representatives of
<br />Discontent attended, along with representatives from
<br />other businesses. (Ebinger Aff. ¶ 3.) Ebinger and a
<br />representative from the Clay County Attorney's Office
<br />explained the proposed ordinance and its possible
<br />impact on the businesses in attendance; provided a
<br />general idea of the items that the police department
<br />thought would be included in the phrase "drug
<br />paraphernalia;" and opined on the types of items that
|