09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T6= I- 1wnora61c St<.-c S,nith Minnesota House of Representatives October 2, 2003 Page 3 preempted from regulating an area where the State has fully occupied control of the field.' It appears clear that the State has occupied the field of traffic regulation in such a manner that it preempts local governments from regulating the fielii, except in limited instances. Minnesota's traffic code is found in Minn. Stat. ch. 169.2 The traffic code specifically requires that: The provisions of [the traffic code] shall be a plicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivist ns and municipalities therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce ahy rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of [the traffic code] unlc[ss expressly authorized [therein]. Local authorities may adopt traffic regulakions which are not in conflict with the provisions of [the traffic code]; pllovided, that when any local ordinance regulating traffic covers the same subject for which a penalty is provided for in this chapter, then the penalty provided for violation of said local ordinance shall be identical w'th the penalty provided for in [the traffic code] for the same offense.3 It appears clear that the State has occupied the field of traff that it preempts local governments from regulating the field.° local authorities from exercising authority, over streets jurisdiction for parking, traffic regulation by office parades /processions, one -way street designations, stopping a imposing roadway weight restrictions .5 However, these 1' that the State has given municipalities authority to regulate must be dealt with on a State level. regulation in such a manner Chapter 169 does not prevent and highways under their or traffic- control signals, intersection designations, and ited areas are the only areas All other traffic regulations The State has also fully entered the field of traffic regulations by requiring police officers and "any other person" to use a uniform traffic ticket pres.ribed by the Commissioner of' Public Safety for violations of Chapter 169 and "ordinancek in conformity thereto.'6 The uniform traffic ticket must contain, among otter things, information about the traffic See Mangold Midwest Co. v. Richfield. 274 Minn. 347, 356, 143 law may fully occupy a particular field of legislation so that there is no ordinance attempts to impose additional regulation in that field it is v directly conflict with any express provision of the state law). See also 19 (Minn. 1954)("lt would be a strange anomaly for the legislature to therefore, provide that its application shall be uniform throughout the ste prosecute the crime as a civil offense "). The City of Minneapolis has recognized that the City cannot issue and disorderly conduct because Minn. Stat. §§ 609.605 and 609.72 (2002' 2 Chapter 169 may be cited as the Highway Traffic Regulation Act. Se Minn. Stat. § 169.022 (2002). See Mangold Ivfidwest Co. v. Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 356. 143 N.W 5 See Minn. Siat. § 169.04 (a) (2002). Local authorities may exe cise similar authority on state trunk highways w'.Cnin the limits of the city /town wilt the consent of the Commissio'. -r of Transport lion. Id. 6 See A^ t. § 169 99, subd. 1 (200 ..n is add. d). Cities �f tl. - class may use a modified uniform if ri See Minn. Stat. § 169 (2002). - 1 8 - .W.2d 813, 819 (Minn. 1966)(A state room for local regulation. If a local lid, even if it does not duplicate or State v. Hoban, 98 N.W.2d 813, 818 - define a crime. specify punishment cc, and then permit a municipality to administrative penalties for trespass already prevents that conduct. Minn. Stat, § 169.97 (2002). d 813, 319 (Minn. 1966).