In this criminal case, the State of Minnesota (City of Lakeville) is prosecuting Sara Rechtzigel for a seat belt violation.  The prosecution admits that Rechtzigel was pulled over by the police officer on a suspicion that Rechtzigel was not wearing a seat belt.

Rechtzigel has made a motion to the Dakota County District Court that the charges should be dismissed because the prosecutor is relying on an unwritten law to permit the police officer stop based on a seat belt violation being a primary offense.  The official law, published by the Office of the Revisor, prohibits stopping an automobile for a mere seat belt violation:  a moving violation is required for a traffic stop

The Dakota County District Court judge heard the case on June 3, 2010.  A court decision is expected in July or August.

The Iowa media is beginning to cover the U.S. District Court decision in the Dorr gun case.  The Sioux City Journal covered the court's ruling here.  Another cite to an Iowa media page can be found here. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 17, 2010                                                           

CONTACT: Vince Fahnlander, 612-341-1074 

Sioux City, IA 

In a stunning verdict from the bench yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bennett announced that Osceola County, IA Sheriff Doug Weber’s denial of Paul Dorr’s concealed weapon permit in 2007 “Was the most egregious violation of the 1^st Amendment he has witnessed in his 16 years serving on the bench.” 

Paul Dorr and his son Alexander Dorr filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa in October 2008, against Sheriff Weber and Osceola County, Iowa, claiming violation of their 2^nd Amendment rights.  Sheriff Weber stated in sworn deposition testimony in November 2009 that he denied Paul Dorr’s conceal carry permit because of Paul Dorr’s speech and political activities in Osceola County.  The Dorrs then amended their claim to include a violation of their 1^st Amendment rights as well.  

When asked at trial in federal court yesterday, “What changed from 2006 (when Sheriff Weber last granted Dorr’s permit) to 2007 (when Sheriff Weber denied Dorr’s permit), Sheriff Weber admitted, “He began writing letters and handing out brochures for the Osceola County Taxpayers Association.” These are all constitutionally protected activities.  

Under cross examination by Dorr’s attorneys, Sheriff Weber could not produce evidence to support his denial of Paul Dorr’s permit.  Neither could the defendant’s only other witness, Dan DeKoter.   

Judge Bennett announced that he hadn’t passed judgment from the bench before, always taking it under consideration and issuing a written judgment later.  But in Paul Dorr’s case he ruled for the first time, from the bench, on behalf of Dorr.  

To minimize any harm to the Osceola County taxpayers, Dorr waived any claim for compensatory or punitive damages prior to the trial.  In his ruling, Judge Bennett also announced, “If I had the legal authority I would order punitive damages be paid as well.” Judge Bennett also announced that if the law permits he may order Sheriff Weber to a take a remedial class in the 1^st Amendment. 

Attorney Vince Fahnlander stated, “The judgment reinforces that the First Amendment will protect those voices that speak out against the government, and will not tolerate retaliation for speaking out on opinions against governmental authority .”   

The Dorrs were represented by attorneys Bill Mohrman and Vince Fahnlander of the Minneapolis law firm Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.

A U.S. District Judge in Sioux City, Iowa, on June 16, 2010, granted a direct verdict to Paul and Alexander Dorr in a First Amendment trial.  The case involved the Osceola County Sherrif denying conceal and carry gun permit applications to Paul Dorr because of the plaintiff's political association with the Osceola County Taxpayers Association.

Attorney Erick Kaardal explains, "This is a great neopopulist victory.  For a federal judge to recognize that government officials can not administratively punish the people for their political views is a blow to the government and great victory for the people.  It should give the people hope that the playing field can be levelled and that the people can manage their government -- without fear of retribution."

As soon as the written opinion is issued, it will be linked to this webpage.

Neopopulism.org is an anti-ideological and anti-partisan website.  Nonetheless, it is delightful to see ideological websites -- left or right, quoting this website.  Another example on a leftish blog was found here.  The website is called Democracy for California. 

Attorney Erick Kaardal debated judicial elections on May 11, 2010 at Crave Restaurant, Mall of America, Bloomington, Minnesota.  The other participants were former Governor Al Quie, Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice Barry Anderson and Minnesota GOP chairman Tony Sutton.  The sponsor was Americas Future Foundation.  The promotional flyer can be found here.

Kaardal commented, "I think the neopopulist argument on judicial elections carried the day.  Thee people understod that they must keep their democratic means, including judicial elections, in order to manage government.  Otherwise the government will manage the people."

The Sun Newspapers covered the Court of Appeals' decision in the St. Anthony School District case.  The article can be found here.

The Winona Daily News reports that a landowners' group in Houston County has threatened to sue Houston County over land use regulations.  The article can be found here.

On April 20, 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals published a decision which will lead to Minnesota's public schools being required to comply with Minnesota's Campaign Financial Reports Act and Fair Campaign Practices Act.

The published decision affirmed the Office of Administrative Hearing's dismissal of the complaint on technical grounds.  However, the Court of Appeals opinion holds that a school district or a school board may be a "committee" for purposes of Minnesota's campaign laws if it has "acted to promote or defeat a ballot question."

Attorney Erick Kaardal responds, "Good government requires change over the short term and long term.  We thank the Minnesota Court of Appeals for recognizing today in a published decision that public schools and schools board are subject to Minnesota's campaign laws when they act to promote or defeat a ballot question.  Although my clients are disappointed that the Court dismissed their claim, they are looking forward to seeing the law enforced in the future based on the Court of Appeals' decision published today."

The Star Tribune's front page covered the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in the case Wolfchild, et al. v. United States.  The article written by Kevin Diaz can be found here. 

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "My clients are very encouraged by the media coverage and interest in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Wolfchild case.  Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the decision which we were appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, actually remanded the case for further proceedings in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, we will continue the litigation there.  We are very confident that the Department of the Interior's policies will get further review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims."