My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08-07-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
08-07-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 11:10:08 AM
Creation date
8/8/2017 12:09:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
08/07/2017
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 <br />Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 17 <br />Watchtower Bible & Tract <br />Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. <br />Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. <br />150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). <br />A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibits cities from even registering <br />individuals going from place to place to exercise their constitutional rights to <br />freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In that case, the city required all <br />solicitors to register and obtain a permit from the mayor’s office before <br />entering private property to promote any cause. The Court held that a <br />licensing requirement for social, political, and religious door-to-door <br />canvassing would inhibit the free exercise of a person’s right to express <br />ideas or solicit support anonymously or spontaneously. <br />City regulations must be narrowly tailored to meet their purpose of <br />protecting city residents from crimes and fraud, but cannot overreach and <br />significantly burden noncommercial solicitors and their advocacy. It is <br />unclear how far cities may go when constitutional rights and commercial <br />activity intermingle. Of particular concern is the situation where professional <br />fundraisers are used on behalf of a nonprofit, religious, or similar <br />organization. <br />Buckley v. Am. Constitutional <br />Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. <br />182, 119 S. Ct. 636 (1999). <br />ACORN v. Golden, Colorado, <br />744 F. 2d 739 (10th Cir. <br />1984). <br />While cities have taken different approaches in policing the activities of <br />non-commercial advocates, a conservative approach is practicable. These <br />types of solicitors should not be required to obtain a license; cities should <br />probably not be requiring non-commercial advocates to register. Mandatory <br />background checks are likely impermissible for non-commercial door-to- <br />door activities; identification requirements for noncommercial activists have <br />also been invalided. City regulations—requiring licensing, permitting, or <br />registration for the dissemination of ideas—will be considered inherently <br />suspect. <br />V.Local regulations <br />Apart from the Green River approach, a licensing ordinance is by far the <br />most common method used to attempt to control the activities of peddlers, <br />solicitors, and transient sellers. <br />A.City ordinances <br />Handbook, Chapter 7. <br />Hanson v. City of Granite <br />Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 1995). <br />The decision to regulate people or property, and to provide penalties for any <br />violations, should be adopted by city ordinance. As a result, the council must <br />pass, in ordinance form, all police regulations for public health, morals, <br />economic well-being, welfare, and safety. Ordinance regulations apply <br />generally within the city and are permanent and continuing in nature. <br />Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, <br />559 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. 1997). <br />Ordinances, particularly when regulating peddlers, solicitors, and transient <br />merchants, must be consistent with the constitutions and statutes of the <br />United States and Minnesota. An ordinance must not limit or deny any <br />common law or constitutional rights, or unreasonably restrain trade.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.