Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DOHERTY <br />RUMBLE <br />& BUTLER <br /> <br />.OFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br /> <br />JU~J ? 2 t999 <br /> <br />3500 Fifth Street Towers <br />i50 South Fifth Street <br />\1inneapolis, \Iinnesota 55402-1235 <br />Telephone (612) 677-4500 <br />FAX (612) 677-4800 <br />www.drblaw.com <br /> <br />Attorneys at Law <br /> <br />Writer"s direct dial number: <br /> <br />June 21, 1999 <br /> <br />(612) 677-4533 <br />MWlsog@drblaw.com <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Zerwas <br />Police Chief <br />City of Elk River <br />P.O, Box 490 <br />Elk River, MN 55330--0490 <br /> <br />Re: Elk River Trespass Notice Ordinance <br /> <br />Dear Tom: <br /> <br />You have asked that Doherty, Rumble & Butler review a letter submitted by the St. Cloud Area Legal <br />Services Association regarding the proposed trespass ordinance for the City of Elk River. We have <br />undertaken an analysis of that letter and have concluded the following: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The principal concern set forth in the Legal Services letter is that use of the notices may violate the <br />due process rights of alleged trespassers. The letter sets forth no legal support for that assertion, but <br />rather, makes general conclusory statements. A review of Minnesota case law on this issue reveals <br />that no court has addressed whether a trespass notice ordinance similar to the one proposed in Elk <br />River violates the due process rights of an alleged trespasser. On the other hand, several cases have <br />examined situations in which trespass notices have been issued. In one case the use of a trespass <br />notice was overturned as unconstitutional, but in that case, an alleged trespasser was issued a trespass <br />notice for one building which was a part of a larger overall complex of buildings, On a later date, the <br />police attempted to enforce the trespass ordinance against the individual but at a different building <br />with a different address which was also in the same complex, The court simply struck the application <br />of the trespass notice in that specific circumstance by noting that technically, the defendant had only <br />been issued a notice with respect to one address within the complex. Other cases have also examined <br />situations in which trespass notices were issued. In none of those cases have the Minnesota courts <br />expressed concern over the due process implications of the trespass notice. <br /> <br />The Legal Services letter undoubtedly raises a potential concern with the use of the trespass <br />ordinance by pointing out that state action is relied upon to enforce the trespass notice subsequent <br />to its issuance by a private landlord or tenant. No court has expressly ruled upon that issue. There <br />is a possibility that an individual could challenge the constitutionality of this ordinance, and that a <br />court could find a violation of due process. Enforcement of the ordinance would subsequently be <br />. rendered impossible. If the City desires to incorporate a tool such as this, we believe the attached <br /> <br />MunsoG 592827.1 <br /> <br />St.P:lill - :\1illiIt'ilpoii:J . [lel/i.'CI' . v'/d:JhiilgtOIl, D.C. <br />