09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The 1 Icnorat>Ic CLcvc Smith Minnesota House of Representatives October 2, 2003 Page 10 would be consistent with the recent legislation standardize the court system throughout the state.47 intende to consolidate. unify, and Although the legislature did not completely follow the recommendation of the committee, and continued the practice of using judicial officers, th committee's recommendation appears to be instructive in dealing with administrative penalt es. A person who violates an ordinance has the right to have the issue heard by a judge or other person under judicial supervision.48 The proposed administrative hearing puts ju icial power into the hands of neutrals that are not within the supervisory power of th Minnesota Supreme Court.49 Although such a practice could be authorized by the legisl Lure, as was done with Minn. Stat. Chps. 492 and 493 (1982), it appears that the pract ce cannot bc authorized by an individual city.5° In summary, the Minnesota Constitution seems to require tat the court system bear all cases for a decision to be binding on the parties. It appears that the legislature could pass laws allowing municipalities to hear administrative penal cases, consistent with the Constitution. However, a municipality's ability to hear su•h cases must come expressly from the legislature. 2. Prior Legislative Action • In the past, the Minnesota Legislature provided for ordinance violation and traffic violation bureaus.5' These bureaus appear to have been express auth orization for cities to issue and adjudicate penalties for ordinance violations. These statute were repealed in 1983, thus eliminating the violation bureaus.52 47 Id. °s See In re: Iloitnberg v. Holmberg. 588 N.W.2d 720, 726 (Minn. 1 Minn. 468, 478, 48 N.W,2d 738, 795 (1951)( "Protection of the public subject to court supervision are permitted to practice law" ), The administrative hcarings empower nonattorncys to engage in tl c court's exclusive power to supervise the practice of law, See id. Th unwilling to allow persons to practice law outside of its supervision. ;e 234 Minn. 468, 478, 48 N.W.2d 788. 795 (1951)("Protection of the pub is not subject to court supervision are permitted to practice law ")). Th' "sacrifice its supervisory powers.in the pursuit of efficiency." Id. Se It should bc noted that even if a municipality could set up such defendant is provided all the protection of criminal procedure. State 1950). 51 See Minn. Stat. § 492 (1982)( "The council of any city, however o court in that municipality having jurisdiction over traffic offenses to c assist the court in disposing of violations of traffic law or ordinances council of any city, however organized, may by ordinance authorize the establish an ordinance violations burer.0 to assist the court in disposing building, construction, c' =?ration, or nr,:Htcnance; fire a• ,.rc prevent: zoning ") Sz See 1983 Minn. L. 20. 99) quoting Gardner v. Conway, 234 set at naught if laymen who are not practice of law, infringing on the Minnesota Supreme Court has been id. (quoting Gardner v. Conway, is set at naught if laymen who are Minnesota Supreme Court will not bureaus, they must insure that the Hoben. 96 N.W.2d 813, 319 (Minn. anized, by ordinance authorize the ablish a traffic violations bureau to See Minn. Stat. § 493 (1982)( "The ourt or courts in that municipality to violations of ordinances relating to t; public health and sanitation; and c f