09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Honorable Steve Sarirh December 1, 2003 Page.5 criminal offenses as specified by statute or modify statute penalties fur an offense. Frther, as you know, city councils arc not normally county or state law enforcement officers. It is not consistent official to direct or urge that city peace officers not enforce the judgment and ability. In addition, wbi c law enforcement substantial discretion inmaking arrest and charging decisions, a case -by -case basis in terms of factors pertaining to the evid and the nature of the offense rather than, for example, the payment directly to the city, 2. In the specific case of traffic offenses, the le field of enforcement. Minn. Stu § 169.022 (2002) provides. procedures for enforcement or orized to direct the conduct of th state public policy for a public law of the state to the best of their fficials and prosecutors exercise ose decisions should be rondo on , the culpability of rbr effendi= ffmder's willingness to make a stature has plainly preempted the The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipal ties therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or 'on in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authoriz -. herein. local authorities may adopt traffic regulations which are not in conflic with the provisions of this chapter; provided, that when any local ordinance fling traffic covers the same subject for which a penalty is provided for in ..s chapter, then the penalty provided for violation of said local ordinance shall b identical with the penalty provided for in this chapter for Me same offense. In State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436, 98 N.W2d 8I3 (1959), .e court affirmed the preemptive nature of state statutes in this area follows: The fart that the municipality is givon authori does not change the -nature and quality of the offense. was the intension of the legisla ure that the appiicaSto uniform througtout the state both as to penalties and municipality to utilize state criminal procedure in covered by § 169.03. It would be a strange anomaly crime, sprrify p'mishmcnt therefore, provide that its throughout the state., and then permit a municipality civil offense. to adopt such an ordinance wo interpret § 169.03, it of its provisions should be procedures, and requires a c prosecution of the act r the legislature to define a plication shall be uniform o prosecute that crime as a Id. at 444, 98 N.Wld at 819. See also Minn- Stat. §§ 169.1 and 169.99 (20Q2) which apecify the procedures to be followed by peace officers in comixtio with arrest of traffic violators, and the uniform form of traffic ticket, having the effect of a surninons and complaint, which must be used by all peace officers. Consequently, while cities are granted specific authority to exercise - 1 3 -