Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 <br />Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 7 <br />Ward v. Rock Against <br />Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. <br />Ct. 2746 (1989). <br />Cities need to be mindful that their regulations need to be: <br />•Content neutral. (A city generally cannot target or treat individuals <br />differently because of who they are or for their particular message). <br />•Narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest. <br />•Open for alternative methods for the same or similar communications to <br />occur. <br />C.Time, place, and manner <br />Ward v. Rock Against <br />Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. <br />Ct. 2746 (1989). <br />State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, <br />101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 <br />(1907). <br />Cities have some discretion in regulating the time, place, and manner in <br />which peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants operate. If a restriction is <br />not content-based, a city may impose reasonable restrictions. The city’s <br />discretion is not, however, absolute. <br />Bd. of Trs. Of State Univ. of <br />N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, <br />109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989). <br />Working America v. City of <br />Bloomington, 2015 WL <br />6756089 ---F. Supp.3d --- (8th <br />Cir. 2015). <br />Cities need to consider a restriction’s general effect and be able to <br />demonstrate a “reasonable fit” between the government’s end (i.e., to <br />preserve privacy in one’s home; prevent fraud, theft, or other crimes) and the <br />means that they have decided to use to accomplished those goals (i.e., <br />background checks, registration, or bonding). <br />Ohio Citizen Action v. City of <br />Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. <br />Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio <br />2003). <br />ACORN v. City of Frontenac, <br />714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). <br />Local restrictions are generally reviewed by the courts using a test that has <br />been defined as intermediate scrutiny (Is an important governmental interest <br />furthered substantially by the regulation used?). However if the restriction is <br />not content neutral (i.e., only applies to a particular group or specific <br />activity), it will be subject to a more stringent test known as strict scrutiny <br />(Is there a compelling governmental interest? Is the regulation narrowly <br />tailored to achieve that interest? Is that regulation the least restrictive way <br />possible to accomplish that goal?). <br />In providing time, place, or manner restrictions, the local authority <br />recognizes that sometimes it is the method, and not the activity itself, that <br />will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. By providing <br />guidelines on acceptable methods, the needs of residents and merchants (or <br />canvassers) can often be accommodated. <br />1.Time <br />Ohio Citizen Action v. City of <br />Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. <br />Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio <br />2003). <br />City of Watseka v. Illinois <br />Pub. Action Council, 796 <br />F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1986). <br />City regulations often include restrictions that limit the time during which <br />door-to-door activities may occur. For instance, regulations often prohibit <br />uninvited calls that are too early in the morning or too late at night. As with <br />all regulations, time restrictions must be reasonable, affording peddlers and <br />solicitors a reasonable period of time for their activities.