State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko
2017 WL 239945
Minn.2017Background
- Renee Vasko owned property in Lester Prairie where the municipal code prohibited keeping junked, abandoned, or inoperative vehicles on private property for more than 30 days without a special use permit (LPMC § 5.5.1.2).
- During a blight inspection Chief Carlson observed Vasko’s maroon Oldsmobile in her front yard with registration tabs expired in 2012. He attempted contact by knock, regular mail, certified mail (returned), and finally posted a notice on her door instructing her to remedy the condition within 10 days and stating the city could tow the car after 30 days of service.
- The city towed the car on October 24, 2014. The State charged Vasko with violating LPMC § 5.5.1.2; the prosecutor certified the charge as a petty misdemeanor.
- At trial Vasko (pro se) testified she moved the car into an empty garage about a week after the posted notice and later moved it out so a mechanic could tow it; she also introduced an alleged October 10 letter granting yard parking permission. The district court rejected her testimony and found her guilty.
- A divided court of appeals reversed, holding the ordinance ambiguous and construing notice requirements in Vasko’s favor; the State petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vasko) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the ordinance is ambiguous | LPMC § 5.5.1.2 is unambiguous on its face and prohibits keeping an abandoned vehicle >30 days w/o a permit; no notice requirement applies | The interaction between § 5.5.1.2 (30-day prohibition) and § 5.5.2 (10-day notice) makes the ordinance ambiguous; a condition becomes a blight only after 30 days, then the city must give 10 days’ notice | Court: Not ambiguous. §§ 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 are separate, self-contained misdemeanors; the § 5.5.2 notice requirement does not apply to § 5.5.1.2 |
| 2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to convict under § 5.5.1.2 | Chief Carlson’s multiple observations, expired tabs, lack of garage storage, Vasko’s admission she did not obtain a special permit suffice to prove an abandoned vehicle was kept >30 days | Vasko argued car was not required by state law to be registered (not used on public roads) and that she stored the car in a garage for part of the period; she also claimed city permission | Court: Sufficient evidence. Vehicle met LPMC definition of “abandoned” (no current tabs; not stored in garage); state law deems vehicles in owner possession to be “using” public streets for registration purposes; credibility findings favored the State |
| 3. Whether appellate court could sua sponte interpret ordinance | State: Court may interpret ordinance when necessary to resolve sufficiency claim | Vasko: N/A (pro se insufficiency claim prompted interpretation) | Court: Appellate court properly examined ordinance interpretation because meaning is integral to insufficiency review |
| 4. Whether remaining constitutional or preemption challenges should be resolved now | State: Procedural posture controls; issues not raised below may be forfeited | Vasko: Raised preemption and vagueness before this Court | Court: Declined to address preemption and vagueness because raised for first time on appeal; remanded for consideration of other preserved issues by court of appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (appellate courts must decide cases in accordance with law even if parties fail to raise issues)
- State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014) (statutory interpretation is required when evaluating insufficiency-of-the-evidence claims in criminal cases)
- Dupey v. State, 868 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. 2015) (first step in statutory/ordinance interpretation is examining plain language for ambiguity)
- Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth. v. U-Haul Co. of Minn., 787 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. 2010) (same rules apply to interpretation of ordinances as to statutes)
- Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. 2006) (courts will not read omitted provisions into statutes/ordinances)
- State v. Cox, 278 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: affirm if district court reasonably could find guilt)
- State v. Barshaw, 879 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing court defers to district court credibility determinations)