|
Minu.\Oin*n WESTKKN KKrOltTEll. 2J SKIilES-nane*. Number 312, f 2Ki) (f)ec. 2.I), which provides;0 person owning, opcraUng, having urge of or occupying any buiMing or x'mbes sliall keep or allow to be kept
<br />ly animal whkb shall by any oowc dis-
<br />irb the peace and quiet of any persons
<br />. the vicinity thereof.
<br />wo da>*9 later another complaint was
<br />ic about appelhiit's dog by a second
<br />vidual. The same community officer
<br />iped near appeibnt's hotoe and lisiened
<br />about 10 minutes while the dog borkwl
<br />officer testified that on lliia second
<br />ksion he ooald hear barking and also "a
<br />‘ling or whining type noise.’' The offi-
<br />further testified that it was s higher
<br />|uency and the "frequency and consist-
<br />V* were disturbing." He testified that
<br />dog barked about every 10 seconds for
<br />roximately 10 minutes,
<br />he officer then issued s formal citation
<br />i|)pellant for violating the Edina ordi-
<br />ce. At trial neither of (he original com-
<br />.nants were called, and the city's rase
<br />Lcd on solely on the officer's testimony,
<br />pr trial to the court, appellant was con
<br />ed of violating Uie fldina ordinance and
<br />essed a $30 fine, plus court costs.
<br />ISSUE
<br />>oes Edina City Ordinance, Numl»cr 312.
<br />9(j>. as applied to appellant, violaU: due
<br />«v8S of law?
<br />ANALYSIS
<br />V]ilicllinl MSStrXs that Edina Gty Onli-
<br />»cc. Number 312. $ 29(j}, is unconsblu-
<br />tially vague as applied to him and Ihcrci-
<br />deprives him of due process of law.
<br />1,2] Tilt Edina ordinance musi meet
<br />e process standards of dennilcncss un-
<br />r both the Um'ied States Constitution and
<br />* liinnesou Constitulicn. State v,
<br />•icslroffU 3T1 N.W.2d 5*25, 528 (Minn.
<br />85). Persons of common inlclligcncc
<br />The entire onliaiace readi:
<br />Kr» penofi. im any public or private place,
<br />♦hall miage ia. or prepare, aiicmpl. offer of
<br />threaten to engsgc In, or aiaiit nr conspire
<br />u'iih another to enfaff in or conf»tTr.^tr
<br />roust not be left to guess at ll>e meaning of the ordinance nor differ as tn its applica- tiofi. /(I The purposes of the void for vagueness doctrine are to ptit people on notice of what conduct is prohibiietl aiKl, more importantly, to discourage arbitrary
<br />and discfiminatoo* enforcement. Ao-
<br />lendcT i*. Ixmon, dSl VS. 352. 357, 103
<br />S.CL 1855, IH5H, 75 L.l-M,2d SK)3 (1583).
<br />|3I When fundamc rights are not
<br />involved, as here, vagueness cliallcnges
<br />must l« esamirKJtl in light of the defen-
<br />lUnt's actual comlucL State r. Becker. 351
<br />N.W.2d 323, 925 (Minn. 1981). Appclhml
<br />must show that the ordinancsc **lucks speci*
<br />fjci^ as to his own behavior and not as to
<br />some hypothetical situation.** Stale v. Ka-
<br />ger. 382 N.W.2d 287. 289 (Minn.CUVpp.
<br />1986), peL for rtf. denied (Minn. April 24,
<br />1986). Appeliani must prove a constitu
<br />tional violation lieyond a reasonable doubt
<br />Kio Vista Son^FrofU Housing Corp. v.
<br />County of Ramsey, 335 N.\V.*2d 242, 245
<br />(Minn.1983) appeal dismissed, 464 US.
<br />10;i3, 104 S.Ct. 690, 79 LEd.Zd 158 (1984).
<br />I-I I Respondent contends the phrase
<br />**disturb tiie peace and (iuiec‘ has a well
<br />accepted, generally understood meaning so
<br />that when applied to appellant's conduct, it
<br />meets tlie constitutional slamlard. \Yc dis
<br />agree. Respondent cites three cases for
<br />Rupport. In Stale v. Johnson. 282 Minn.
<br />15:1, 163 N.W.2d 750 (1968). Vietnam war
<br />protesters disrupted the Miniica|iolb Aqua-
<br />tcnnial parade by climbing lamp posts,
<br />Rhoutirig, and distributing Icanets.
<br />Charged with violating a MinneaiwUs onli-
<br />nance that punishes **conduct which disr
<br />Curbs the peace and ifuiel,** Uie protesters
<br />clialicnged Uic ordinance on vagueness
<br />grounds.' The supreme court rejected the
<br />challenge, reasoning that the defendants
<br />w*ere aware of the nature of the cliargcd
<br />offense, that is. creatirg traffic congestion
<br />during a parade. Johnson. 282 Minn, at
<br />159, 163 N.W.2J at 754. Similarly, in an-
<br />rofidticl. art of violence, or any olher conducl
<br />which diuurbi ihc peace and quiet of sooih^
<br />MTC for parlicipaJinK in a rcc50Kn>rcd aiWclic
<br />contcsi. Johniott, 2S2 Minn INS n. I. 163
<br />N.W.M at 7S3 n. I (qi»o4inx MinncApolis Code
<br />• I
<br />.-■•i
<br />•*.
<br />•
<br />• d
<br />*
<br />.-jl
<br />= 1'
<br />• • --4
<br />•F
<br />* •
<br />•i."
<br /><1
<br />f t f ft tn ri« /i\
<br />. .
<br />C
<br />/I
<br />•V
<br />.1
<br />r .
<br />•Vt
<br />ft.
<br />:
<br />. \
<br />CITY OF KIHNA v. DHKIIKR0«c u N.WJJ 411 IVWt 623olhcr case. Iho supreme court affirmed a ronversaUM?^Uo^ indu.le i--rson$ conviction under llic same ordinance wlicn I who. because of Uieir love of peu, have ak the defendant enlere<I a church during a / extremely liigh tolerance for barking dogs‘ * 4 *______ ____a_reverential part of the service. beraU-d a clergyman, and refused to leave. Stale r. Ohan. 287 Mini*. :WX). 301-€2. 178 N.W.2J
<br />230, 2:11 (1070). Finally, in 1973 the au-
<br />preme court rejected a vagueness challenge
<br />to MinmStaL § 009.703(3), the unlawfu) as
<br />serably aUtule, when protesters disrupted
<br />operation of a restaurant by blocking en
<br />trances and damaging properly.* Stale r.
<br />flipp, 2M Minn. 81. 89-90. 213 N.W.2d CIO.
<br />6i:,-l6 (1073).
<br />Respondent's reliance on these eases is
<br />mispbiccd Unlike Johnson. Olson, and
<br />llipp where clear observable dev.^jit con-
<br />and mewing cals, or do we go by the iun dards of those who aUoagly dislike any prt wUliin a rcaidcnlial area? T)*e ordinanev
<br />as written gives no gnidanoe to the ^t
<br />owner, the neighbor, or tlio investigating
<br />officer an to what is allowable barking and
<br />wliat » not. I —
<br />Ucsidcs failing la pul appellant on notice
<br />of wlal fxmduct is prohibited, the ordi
<br />nance invilea arbitrary eoforoemcni. A
<br />city may enforce ordinances that reason
<br />ably specify what conduct is prohibited.
<br />However, it may not enforce an ordinance
<br />Hipp where clear observable dev.^jit c^- violation may entirely depend upon
<br />duct occurred, appellant's compliance with not a police officer is annoyed."
<br />the ordinance hinged on the officer’s per- rinri^nniL 402 HA 611. 6U. 91
<br />w ^rW------------- •
<br />the ordinance hinged on the officer’s per
<br />sonal sense of annoyance over t)»e sound of
<br />a natural act, a dog barking, niockiiig
<br />traffic, disrupting a cburch bcrvice, or in
<br />terfering with a business are unusual acts,
<br />and may be understood by ordinary people
<br />of otMumon intelligence as disturbing the
<br />peace. Here appellant wav k-fl to guess
<br />wlicthcr his dog'.v barking dLsturlicd others
<br />Coates V. Cinrinnati, 402 UA 611, 614,91
<br />S.Ct 1686. 1C88. 29 KEd.2d 214 (1971).
<br />Yet this is precisely what this Edina ordi
<br />nance does. Decausc tlie <.ity failed U» in
<br />troduce any evidence from the original
<br />complainants who reported appellant’s dog
<br />barking, the question whether appellant vr
<br />elated tl»o ordinance depended entirely on
<br />the officer's IhreshhokI of aniKqrance.*
<br />ta U.C «o.itr. I*. .nlnuiH. o«.nttUn« >k. Edi~
<br />K. JH.1.1 u. d.. P~- cniM Ui« l«vel «fl,o dog • l»rk ......... „ mom kb
<br />Wig. ____________________________ -
<br />Tlie key woidS'lii ttie ordinance are "by
<br />any i*oisc disturb the peace and quiet of
<br />any persons in Uie viciiiity." Who does
<br />llial mean? Does that include several
<br />month oW babies which may easily lie dis
<br />turbed and cry at any .strange sound?
<br />Does it include the ekkrly or anyone wlm Ls
<br />extremely sensitive and claims to be dis
<br />turbed by any noise above Uie normal hum
<br />^ The sialule pravuics in part:
<br />When thrre nr mofr penkons a«mb)r. each
<br />person is fuihy of unlawful assembly which is
<br />a niisdcmcant>r, if il»c assembly is; * * *
<br />Without lawful purpoie. but llte participanls
<br />so conduct themselves in a hsortlctly manner
<br />as lo disturb or ihfcalcn Ihc public pcaor.
<br />IHpp. 29S Minn. al S2. 213 N.WJd M 612
<br />(qualing Minn.SiaL § 609.705(3».
<br />X Edina Cily Of Jtnaooe Mumber 312. 5 2*)(k)
<br />proridcf ihal before an officer may Irsue a
<br />citaiion he umisi personally invcsIiRatc the cir
<br />cumstances fr»rinin*{ ih^ hacK of the mmplaini.
<br />As reMMindcm es|»l.iineJ ii. ihis riN|uirrmrnt is
<br />...I.,.-.. i» «..»• •!.« »»r -»
<br />cess of law and therefore we reverue his
<br />conviction.
<br />Wc noio that Uw WasliingUMi Supreme
<br />Court recently addressed this same issue
<br />involvin;? simflnr facU and s paralM ordi-
<br />nance. See City of Spokitne p. AtscAer,
<br />no \Viuh.2d 541, 754 VM 1241 (1988). In
<br />'ischrr. ihc ordinance provided for convic-
<br />a dog were permitted to **ikstuHi or
<br />another person or neighbor by fre-
<br />policr officer between two acighbofs and. in
<br />ihetwy. shouia help irrcea nuisance calls from
<br />neighbors involved in a petty backyard tfiiciuic.
<br />However, when the pnarcuting ambnrilies
<br />made ilic dodvfon not fo call either of the two
<br />original mmpUinadiis tn identify by diieci evi*
<br />tience what they heard and csbserv^ ihe city.
<br />even iliougli encouraging poliSencss and gaod
<br />manners between ocigbbori^ defibmiely de
<br />prived Itself cl Its best cvidctior. fVoieniling
<br />auilioriiies always have the privUege of except
<br />ing wiinciset from tlirir case In chief, but they
<br />at<o aet^pt ilie risk that their exw
<br />weaker.
<br />II
<br />/*r
<br />I • -».4
|