23/ “BARRING A PERSON FROM THEIR HOME FOR A YEAR FOR NOISE AND DRINKING”: Alice Krengel had lived in her house in West St. Paul for 20 years. Police said there had been 29 reports about noise and drinking at the house between July, 2004 and July, 2005. On 13 occasions, police responded and often transported people to detox or a hospital. Krengel twice pleaded guilty to criminal charges of public nuisance for incidents that occurred on November 14, 2004, and April 10, 2005.
On July 29, 2005, the City sent a letter advising Krengel that she had maintained or permitted a nuisance at her residence for an extended period. The City Council adopted an abatement plan with Krengel on August 22, 2005.
During the next year, there was no further nuisance activity at Krengel’s property. On June 27, 2006, the City sent another letter advising Krengel that she had maintained or permitted a nuisance at her residence for an extended period. The letter summarized the City’s evidence of four violations of the abatement plan. (The City alleged she had once brought alcohol onto the property, she had once allowed a guest to bring alcohol onto the property, she had once smelled of alcohol, and she had denied entrance to city inspectors.)
Krengel offered to extend the abatement plan but the City rejected the offer.
On August 10, 2006, the district court filed an order granting the temporary injunction, which prohibited Krengel from residing at the property, engaging in public nuisance activity at the property, and entering onto the property without prior approval of the police. The district court issued a permanent injunction on November 20, 2006.
On July 26, 2007, the City asked the district court to extend the injunction. Krengel returned to her home on August 10, 2007.
The district court denied the request because the City had not provided Krengel with written notice alleging new nuisance activity.
The City appealed the district court’s denial of its request to extend the 2006 permanent injunction. Krengel sought to overturn the permanent injunction even though her exclusion from her home had expired because she feared that the City would continue to challenge her.
The court of appeals concluded that the district court erred in issuing the permanent injunction. In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals analyzed the statutory provisions relating to injunctions, which require proof of two or more nuisance incidents “within the previous 12 months.” The court of appeals determined that because there was no evidence of nuisance activity at Krengel’s property in the 15 months prior to the hearing, a public nuisance did not exist when the permanent injunction was issued.
Justice Gildea joined a unanimous Supreme Court in holding that the year-long exclusion should not have been granted and should not be extended because of the lack of nuisance activity at the house in the period before the permanent injunction was granted.
“The district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction that barred Krengel from using her home for a year. Significantly, the City conceded at oral argument that none of the conduct at Krengel’s property after she received the initial notice in 2005 meets the statutory definition of “public nuisance.” Therefore, in light of our interpretation of the Public Nuisance Law, we conclude that the district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction.”
READ THE FULL CASE DECISION:
READ THE FULL CASE DECISION:
City
of West St. Paul, Appellant, vs. Alice Jane Krengel, Respondent.
July
16, 2009 2009-088
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/0907/OPA070310-0716.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment