08-07-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 11 35 A.L.R.2d 355. However, some courts in other jurisdictions have invalidated Green River ordinances when they considered: •The prohibited conduct involves lawful businesses. •Many useful articles cannot be sold except through home solicitations. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. These ordinances denounce and prohibit the habitual acts of these merchants; a single uninvited act of solicitation or peddling at a private residence may not be found to violate the intent of these ordinances. However, attempting to evade the ordinance by approaching a private residence, only asking for an invitation to come back later to sell or solicit an order for goods, has been found to be a prohibited practice. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’tt, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). It is doubtful that a Green River ordinance can prohibit constitutionally protected door-to-door advocacy. A common example of such a practice would be an individual engaged in religious-related sales, such as religious literature. G.Licensing vs. Green River State v. Northwest Airlines, 213 Minn. 395, 7 N.W.2d 691 (1942). Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S. Ct. 920 (1951). Project 80’s, Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1991). While licensing ordinances are a tested and legally sound method of regulation, Minnesota courts have never directly addressed the validity of a Green River ordinance (but there have been indirect indications that these ordinances are valid under the Minnesota Constitution). Although upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and never expressly overruled, subsequent federal courts had found Green River ordinances to be an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech (including commercial speech) and other state courts have struck down such ordinances for violating rights under state constitutions. H.Modified Green River ordinances There is an additional, alternative method of city action that both regulates the nuisance aspects prohibited by a Green River ordinance and recognizes the benefits of certain door-to-door activities. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S. Ct. 862 (1943). A modified version of the Green River ordinance authorizes homeowners to prohibit peddlers and solicitors by posting a sign indicating they do not want to be disturbed. It is a misdemeanor offense to violate that declaration. People v. Bohnke, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E. 2d 478 (1941). This type of ordinance applies to solicitors engaged in interstate commerce, as well as to peddlers or solicitors engaging in the sale or distribution of religious materials, because the critical actor (the one creating the prohibition) is the individual property owner or tenant, not the city.