Laserfiche WebLink
25 <br />Based on the two inspections, a Complaint has been filed charging Defendant with <br />two misdemeanor counts of allowing smoking where prohibited by ordinance. <br />I.I. Analysis <br />The factual basis in the Complaint is largely undisputed. Defendant has moved to <br />dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that St. Anthony's no smoking ordinance, f <br />§ 111.057, is invalid in that it forbids what a statestatute In particular, <br />Defendant argues that because the statewide smoking ban statute contains an_excepti,,,O, <br />for the sampling of tobacco products within a tobacco shop, a city ordinance may na. <br />prohibit such conduct. The Court concludes that the ordinance is consistent with state's <br />no smoking statutory scheme, and is accordingly valid. <br />The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, enacted in 1975, is contained in Minn. Stat. <br />§§ 144.411-144.417. In 2007, Minn. Stat. § 144.417 was amended to prohibit indoor <br />smoking in "public places" an([ "a place of employment." The 2007 amendment was <br />entitled the Freedom to Breath Act. Minn. Stat. § 144.412 provides that the purpose of <br />the Freedom to Breath Act is, "to protect employees and the general public from th!,` <br />hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places, places c?` <br />employment, public transportation, and at public meetings." <br />Minn. Stat, § 144.4167, entitled "Permitted Smoking," is a section of the Clean <br />Indoor Air Act which outlines several general exceptions to the statewide ban against <br />smoking in public places and places of employment. Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 144.4167 <br />provides that "[sjections 144.414 to 144.417 do not prohibit the lighting of tobacco in a <br />tobacco products shop by a customer or potential customer for the specific purpose of <br />3 <br />