|
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
<br />Carey discriminated among speech-related
<br />activities in a public forum based upon content,
<br />the Court considered whether the statute was
<br />finely tailored to serve a substantial state interest.
<br />Id. at 462-63, 100 S.Ct. at 2291. The Court
<br />determined that exempting labor picketing did
<br />not advance the state's asserted interest in
<br />protecting residential privacy, id. at 465, 100 S.Ct.
<br />at 2293, and struck the regulation as
<br />unconstitutional.
<br /> Appellant has presented no evidence that the
<br />Town of White Bear discriminatorily enacted the
<br />ordinance specifically to suppress expression
<br />espousing opposition to abortion. To the contrary,
<br />the White Bear ordinance unequivocally prohibits
<br />all targeted residential picketing regardless of the
<br />content of speech and is, therefore, content
<br />neutral. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. at
<br />2754.
<br />B. Valid Governmental Interest
<br /> In Ordinance No. 63, the Town of White Bear
<br />specifically states that it has an interest in
<br />protecting residential privacy. A similar
<br />significant governmental interest was
<br />acknowledged in Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108
<br />S.Ct. at 2502. The Court has long recognized that:
<br />Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one
<br />retreat to which men and women can repair to
<br />escape from the tribulations of their daily
<br />pursuits, is surely an important value. * * * The
<br />State's interest in protecting the well-being,
<br />tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of
<br />the highest order in a free and civilized society.
<br /> Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2295-96.
<br />Because the home is "the last citadel of the tired,
<br />the weary and the sick," Gregory v. City of
<br />Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125, 89 S.Ct. 946, 954, 22
<br />L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and is
<br />"one retreat to which men and women can repair
<br />to escape from the tribulations of their daily
<br />pursuits," Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at
<br />2295, the government may legislate to protect
<br />intrusion into the privacy of the home of
<br />unwilling listeners. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108
<br />S.Ct. at 2502. The Town of White Bear, in stating
<br />its substantial interest "in the protection of
<br />residential privacy * * * and [in] protecting the
<br />well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home
<br />which is * * * of the highest order in a free and
<br />civilized society," see Town of White Bear, Minn.,
<br />Ordinance No. 63, § 2, parallels language of the
<br />Court in Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2296
<br />(the "State's interest in protecting the well-being,
<br />tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of
<br />the highest order in a free and civilized society").
<br />Thus, the language of the White Bear Ordinance
<br />meets fully the requirement that a valid
<br />government interest be served by the regulation
<br />of expression.
<br />C. Narrow in Scope
<br /> In arguing that Ordinance No. 63
<br />unconstitutionally sweeps too broadly, appellant
<br />essentially claims that the ordinance is not
<br />narrow in scope. He raises two concerns: (1) the
<br />ordinance, in using the word "activity" in
<br />describing targeted residential picketing,
<br />Page 647
<br />includes within the sweep of regulation activity
<br />that is clearly protected by the First Amendment;
<br />and (2) the ordinance, in prohibiting expression
<br />unless the dwelling's "occupant" consents,
<br />extends beyond the protection of the unwilling
<br />listener. We believe each of these challenges must
<br />fail.
<br /> "A statute is narrowly tailored if it targets and
<br />eliminates no more than the exact source of the
<br />'evil' it seeks to remedy." Frisby, 487 U.S. at 485,
<br />108 S.Ct. at 2503 (citing Taxpayers for Vincent,
<br />466 U.S. at 808-810, 104 S.Ct. at 2130-32). Even
<br />a complete ban can be narrowly tailored if each
<br />activity within the proscription's scope is an
<br />appropriately targeted evil. Id.
<br /> Frisby held that the Brookfield ordinance was
<br />narrowly tailored despite its complete ban on
<br />focused residential picketing. The "evil" of
<br />targeted residential picketing, the presence of an
<br />unwelcome visitor at the home, which the
|