*1 this, jurispru- all of our a result of As ALL FOR PARKS ALLIANCE Justice has become what in this area

dence CHANGE, Appellant, inof his dissent Harry Blackmun warned tendency on emerging “an in Place: v. Terry convert the the Court to part of MANUFACTURED HOUS- UNIPROP that the general into a statement decision ING COMMUNITIES INCOME only requires Fourth Amendment FUND, Village, Respon- d/b/a Place, at 462 U.S. be reasonable.” seizure dent. (Blackmun, J., dissent- 103 S.Ct. No. A05-912. Blackmun contrary, Justice ing). To continued: Supreme Court of Minnesota. in speaks the Fourth

While May 2007. from unreasonable sei- terms of freedom Rehearing Aug. Denied zures, does not leave the Amendment of most seizures to the reasonableness government judgment of courts Amend- the Framers of the

officers: the interests involved

ment balanced only a is reasonable

decided that seizure judicial warrant based supported by

if a cause. probable 722, 103 wrong were S.Ct. 2637. We

Id. to the Terry balancing test apply Carter, wrong to and the court is

search well. balancing a test this case as

apply departure a significant

This case marks jurisprudence be-

from our constitutional time the court has

cause it is the first private resi-

authorized the search of proba- than anything based on less

dence exigent circum- cause the absence

ble It that takes us departure

stances. Fourth Amend- a road that erodes

down in one’s home. That is protections

ment unwilling go I am down.

road respectfully

I dissent.

MEYER, (dissenting). J. Page. join

I the dissent of Justice *2 placed

whether the limits on noncommercial court park are “reasonable limits as to under place and manner” Minn.Stat. O’Neil, Hunt, Barry A. Valer- Kay Nord *3 affirm. 327C.13 We Cole, Lommen, Nelson, Sims, King & ie MN, P.A., Ap- for Minneapolis, Ardmor consists of 339 home Stageberg, sites, approximately 280 of which were oc- pellant. at the time trial. Park cupied Ardmor Johnson, Bonner, III, Robyn K. F. John by a governed residents are set of cove- DeVincke, & Borhart F. Bonner Thomas covering things occupancy nants such as MN, LLP, Respondent. Minneapolis, for limits, maintenance, pets, home and use of Nelson, American Civil Liberties Teresa community facilities. Prior to the institu- MN, MN, Paul, Elizabeth St. Union lawsuit, park’s tion of this covenants Melton, McIntosh, Foley & Mans- Ailana “peddling, soliciting or conduct- prohibited PLLP, MN, field, for amicus Minneapolis, enterprise profes- commercial of MN. American Civil Liberties Union park regulate sion” within the but did not Paul, MN, for Timothy Thompson, L. St. speech or solicitation. noncommercial Project. Housing amicus Preservation 15, 2003, two volunteers for April On park. APAC visited the APAC is organization formed nonprofit Minnesota to educate residents of manufactured OPINION parks rights home about under flyers, law. The volunteers left Minnesota MEYER, Justice. English Spanish, and on residents’ door- Uniprop Manufactured Respondent steps describing APAC and its services oper- Income Fund Housing Communities announcing upcoming informational park home in Lake- ates a manufactured APAC, con- meetings, to be conducted ville, Minnesota, Village. known Ardmor as rights residents of manufac- cerning the leafleting In to informational law. parks tured home under Minnesota by appellant All Parks Alliance park Village’s manager confronted the (APAC), Change respondent volunteers, soliciting told them banning a rule instituted in the and called permitted except between park within the solicitation would police when the volunteers Lakeville Monday p.m., 11 a.m. and 6 the hours of accord. not leave of their own addition, respondent In through Friday. residents, APAC In volunteers for “no-contact” list of June instituted a flyers pass out management again of- visited park’s maintained in the The trial, again were told to leave. the district court fice. After court map volunteers a manager gave the APAC during the time which non- ordered that distribute park so that APAC could permitted be ex- of the commercial solicitation mail, map did by direct but the Saturdays, and extended its leaflets to include panded occu- which home sites were p.m. between not indicate period the solicitation names of map give appeals pied, nor did May August. The court flyers the ad- mailed list and the residents. APAC affirmed both the “no-contact” 70 of the map, but at least dis- dresses on period established solicitation returned as undeliverable. mailings were are asked to decide trict court. We February APAC filed suit to review the “no-contact” list an respondent Uniprop seeking community or- office in advance. against it to distribute leaflets and permitting der trial, After a court the district court right its of free ex- otherwise “exercise limiting found that the new rule noncom- pression” park “during regular speech unreasonably curtailed mercial early evenings.” hours business presented APAC’s outreach efforts and park manage- claimed that APAC also impediment forming unreasonable a res- actions violated Minn.Stat. ment’s ' ident association. The court found that which bars manufactured home Uniprop’s promoting interest residents’ prohibiting owners from the exercise quiet peaceful community use of the right of free for noncom- *4 compelling, that but concluded purposes parks, permits mercial within but narrowly new rule was not drawn park owners to enforce rules set “rea- achieve end. The court further con- time, place sonable limits as to and man- cluded that the new rule was not reason- speech. ner” of noncommercial APAC “in that it able would restrict APAC from injunction, sought damages an actual being directly able to contact residents (its the amount of costs of the $590.16 during the times which residents are residents), costs, mailing leaflet home, likely Saturdays most to be i.e. on fees, investigation attorney and reasonable during day.” permanently The court 8.31, §§ fees under Minn.Stat. 327C.15 and enjoined Uniprop interfering from with 3(a) (2006). subds. 1 and APAC also during APAC’s activities the hours of 11 injunction barring Uniprop moved for a.m. p.m., Monday Saturday, to 6 through preventing from leafleting, from can- September April year. 1 to 30 of each vassing, organizing residents of the 1May August Between the solici- 2, 2004, park. By April order filed on hour, period tation was extended one temporary district court issued a restrain- p.m. 7 But the district upheld court ing barring Uniprop order from interfer- institution of the no-contact list and or- leafleting, with canvassing, APAC’s Uniprop provide dered it to APAC on organizing of residents between the day every the first other month. Final- Monday hours of 9 a.m. p.m., and 8 ly, the district court awarded APAC mone- through Saturday. The matter was set for tary damages the amount of $590.16 trial in November 2004. fees, costs, attorney its and disbursements. In August Uniprop distributed to appeal, On the court appeals affirmed. park residents a notice of change. rule All Parks Alliance Change Uniprop v. Under the revised rule: “Leafleting and Cmtys. Hous. Income canvassing permitted Monday Manufactured Fund, A05-912, No. 2006 WL 618932 through Friday between the hours of 11:00 2006). Mar.14, (Minn.App. The court re a.m. and p.m. 6:00 the Ardmor jected argument APAC’s that Minn.Stat. community for noncommercial purposes § addition, incorporates 327C.13 First only.” In instituted a principles. reject Id. at *4. The court also comprised “no-contact” list of “those resi- argument dents that ed APAC’s that there were oth any have chosen not to allow er which leafleting, canvassing means the district court could door to door solic- kind, protected itation of regardless purpose, rights have residents’ that would at their home site.” The have been required any less restrictive of APAC’s abili leaflets, individual wishing ty to distribute to solicit residents. Id. *5. The court canvass, or solicit door-to-door within the requires concluded that section 327C.13 con- part covenants are considered limitations on noncommercial only that reasonable, and the court con- tract between the resident and be speech (2006). imposed by the dis- that the limits under Minn.Stat. 327C.02 But cluded Id. dispute trict court were reasonable. parties because the did authority blue-pen- of the district court to are asked to decide whether We rule, cil the we are not asked to court on by the district placed the limits blue-pencil decide whether the doctrine ex- solicitation within beyond noncompete agreements to tends place limits as to are “reasonable contracts, types express and we other Be manner” under Minn.Stat. 327C.13. opinion subject. no on the following a before us cause this case comes trial, ordinarily be our review would court In order to decide whether the evi determining whether limited to limits on noncommercial as rewrit fairly supported the dis dence as whole reasonable, by the district court are we ten judg of law and trict court’s conclusions scope must first determine the of “reason v. Viking Sprinkler Automatic Co. ment. time, place able limits as to and manner.” Co., 250, 256, Minn. Prot. Viking Fire statutory interpretation, inqui our first But neither 159 N.W.2d ry ambiguous. is whether the statute is *5 challenged any of in this case has party (2006); § Minn.Stat. 645.16 Zurich Am. fact. Ac findings district court’s of the 64, Bjelland, v. 710 N.W.2d 68 Ins. Co. review is further limited cordingly, our (Minn.2006). A if it ambiguous statute is court’s conclusions of whether the district than reasonably susceptible is to more one by findings of fact supported law are its Tech., interpretation. Hutchinson Inc. v. court erred in its and whether the district Revenue, 1, 698 N.W.2d 8 Comm’r of The of the application of law. conclusions (Minn.2005). subject facts is to de undisputed law to case, in this The statute issue Liberty novo review. Boubelik v. State 327C.13, provides: Minn.Stat. (Minn.1996). Bank, 393, 402 553 N.W.2d adopt or prohibit No owner shall challenged appeal party Neither or other any prohibiting residents authority of the district court to rewrite or organizing, as- persons peacefully by park “blue-pencil” the rule as instituted sembling, canvassing, leafletting or oth- therefore assume management, and we park exercising erwise within the (without deciding) altering that in the rule for noncommer- right of free properly. court acted We have may adopt A owner purposes. cial judicial approved of the modifi previously that set reasonable and enforce rules fit the noncompete agreements cation of time, place and manner. limits as Inc., See, e.g., Hilligoss Cargill, law. v. 142, (Minn.2002); provides no defini- 147 n. Da Section 327C.13 itself 649 N.W.2d 8 Davies, time, place limits as to Inc. 298 tion of “reasonable Agency, vies & Davies v. (Minn.1980). the in- determining and manner.” But 131 n. 1 We did N.W.2d as to what consti- tent of the theory blue-penciling on the so time, place as to enforcing tutes “reasonable limits merely the court “is agreement not limited to the rath and manner” we are legal parts of a contract divisible alone. Rath- language of section 327C.13 making er than a new contract Bothman, er, light of its interpret each section v. 257 N.W.2d we parties.” Bess (Minn.1977) sections, Corbin, surrounding in order to avoid (citing 794 6A 1390). Contracts, conflicting interpretations of statute. The Ardmor 194 Schroedl, agreement. rental Family Group original Ins. v. 616 Section

Am. (Minn.2000). 327C.01, (2006), particu- subd. defines “substan- N.W.2d lar, tial modification”: statutory definitions of words used authorita- in the statute furnish elsewhere any “Substantial modification” means legislature’s intent and of the tive evidence (a) change significantly in a rule which: Minneapolis Bd. Ed. meaning. See of of any diminishes or eliminates material 202, 210, Sand, 227 Minn. 34 N.W.2d v. (b) owner; obligation signifi- 689, 694 cantly diminishes eliminates ma- 327C, Chapter titled “Manufactured right, privilege terial or freedom of ac- Rentals,” Home Park Lot includes several (c) resident; tion of a involves a inform provisions meaning significant expense new for a resident. time, place “reasonable limits as to together, Taken provisions these First, 327C.01, section subd. manner.” chapter 327C mean that the limits on (2006), defines “reasonable rule” as solicitation and other park rule: speech within Ardmor Park must be rea (a) designed promote which (as 327C.01, sonable defined section convenience, safety, or welfare 8) represent subd. and cannot a “substan residents, promote good appearance tial modification” of residents’ rental and facilitate the operation efficient (as agreements defined park, protect preserve 11). Specifically, any placed subd. limits premises, or make a fair distribution of by Uniprop on solicitation and other non facilities; services (1) park: commercial (b) reasonably which is related to the designed must be promote either *6 purpose adopted; for which it is convenience, safety, or welfare of the resi (c) retaliatory unjustifi- which is not or dents, promote good appearance and ably discriminatory nature; and operation facilitate the of the protect (d) sufficiently which is explicit prohi- preserve park premises, and or make a bition, direction, or limitation of conduct facilities; fair distribution of services and fairly to inform the resident of what to (2) reasonably must be pur related to the do or not comply. to do to (3) pose they for which adopted; were Second, 327C.02, (2006), sections subd. retaliatory unjustifiably must not be or 327C.05, (4) (2006), nature; and subd. 1 bar a discriminatory in must be suffi owner adopting enforcing ciently direction, from unrea- explicit prohibition, 327C.05, sonable rules. Section fairly subd. 3 limitation of conduct to inform resi (2006), a court allows to declare unreason- dents of comply; what to do or not to do to (5) any park able rule “if the court that finds and cannot significantly diminish or the rule fails to meet the standard of sec- eliminate material right, privilege, or 327C.01, 8,” tion subdivision referring to freedom of action of a resident. If the the definition of “reasonable Final- placed by rule.” limits Uniprop on noncommer 327C.02, ly, subd. a park speech bars cial within do not owner enforcing a rule that satisfy is these requirements, the statute “substantial modification” of the resident’s renders them unenforceable.1 urges apply 1. APAC apply us to First Amendment princi- to do so. We First Amendment principles actors,” analysis park’s to ples only our of the restric to "state and there is no tions speech. on noncommercial We decline indication factual on this record that dispute not allow. APAC did not that meaning of did Having ascertained time, by Uniprop and place promulgated as to the rule as limits “reasonable manner,” court’s sufficiently fairly review the district to inform resi- explicit we undisput to the comply, of those limits to and there- application dents of what to do facts, court found them. prong as the district the statu- ed fore satisfied the fourth limits that the district court’s conclude tory We standard. solicitation on Having found that the time limits estab- Village are reasonable as to

within Ardmor by Uniprop for noncommercial lished manner under Minn.Stat. place and speech and solicitation within the § 327C.13. reasonably purpose were not related to the First, park’s as to whether limits, blue-pen- the district court the conven “designed promote rule was to that, in ciled the rule to achieve limits residents, ience, of the safety, or welfare view, district court’s were reasonable. and facilitate promote good appearance expanded periods during The court park, protect operation the efficient speech and solicita- which noncommercial park premises, or make preserve in the permitted tion are include facilities,” fair distribution of services during hour the summer months an extra subd. required as Minn.Stat. canvassing permitted solicitation and 8(a), court concluded Uni- addition, Saturdays. uphold- while “quiet promoting interest in prop’s list, ing the institution of the “no-contact” community” was “com use of the peaceful required Uniprop provide the court prong of the pelling.” But on the second year. six times a copy of the list to APAC test, “reasonably rule was re whether the concerns Finally, APAC’s purpose to the for which lated being improperly residents were adopted,” approved the district court “no-con- persuaded sign coerced or by Uniprop instituted but “no-contact” list list, allowed specifically tact” the court promulgated time limits as found that the evidentiary for an hear- petition APAC narrowly drawn” to by Uniprop were “not units had occupied once 25% of the they were purpose achieve the for which the list. signed on to not claim that Uni- adopted. APAC did *7 that appeals the court of agree We with the rule in retaliation prop promulgated by the district court the rule as rewritten within the the third for its activities on the imposes reasonable limits statutory Although standard. prong the manner of noncommercial place, and at trial that the a witness testified Park. therefore within Ardmor We speech rule was instituted APAC’s respect with appeals affirm the court park, Uniprop the had activities within limits any previously barred solicitation Park, and we solicitation within Therefore, per a rule any APAC at time. by the that the limits as rewritten hold residents, park mitting APAC solicit limits as to court are “reasonable district during periods, limited cannot be even time, place and manner” under Minn.Stat. “retaliatory,” gen as that term is seen as § subd. construed, per rule erally because new something Uniprop previously that Affirmed. mitted bama, L.Ed. 326 U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 a "state actor” in the should be considered (1946). "company way town” was same that v. Ala- deemed to be a state actor in Marsh Although Uniprop PAGE, (dissenting). ness of rule. Justice here, at the press argument does not court did not make the district While court, Uniprop argued ap- district that to Uniprop’s that rules violat- finding explicit ply principles First Amendment to deter- 327C.13, in order for the district ed section the statute mine whether its rule violates Uniprop’s rule re- have amended court to result in a constitutional violation. would speech, it had to stricting noncommercial in vio- Uniprop’s that rule was have found review of a lower court’s construc- Our statutory Absent a lation of the statute. tion of a statute is de novo. Olmanson v. violation, had no authori- court County, LeSueur 693 N.W.2d upholding rule. ty modify the (Minn.2005). object interpreta- all “The modification of the rule as district court’s tion and construction of laws is to ascer- on noncommercial reasonable restriction tain and effectuate the intention of the by necessity court concludes speech, this legislature.” Minn.Stat. 645.16 adopted by Uniprop that the rule violated applica- “When the words of a law in their against un- prohibition section 327C.13’s existing tion to an situation are clear and time, place, reasonable and manner re- ambiguity, free from all the letter of the right expression on the to free strictions law disregarded shall not be under the purposes. agree for noncommercial I with pretext Id. How- pursuing spirit.” conclusion, agree but I implicit do ever, ambiguity when there is we ascertain with this court’s conclusion that the dis- legislature’s considering intent trict court’s modifications to the rule cure following factors: that violation. (1) necessity the occasion and (2006)

Minnesota Statutes 327C.13 law; provides that: (2) the circumstances under which it prohibit adopt

No owner shall enacted; prohibiting residents or other (3) remedied; the mischief to be persons peacefully organizing, as- (4) attained; object to be sembling, canvassing, leafletting oth- (5) law, any, if including former exercising erwise upon other laws the same or similar right of free for noncommer- subjects; purposes. may adopt cial A owner (6) the consequences particular of a and enforce rules that set reasonable interpretation; time, place limits as to and manner. (7) contemporaneous legislative argues enacting APAC history; and 327C.13 intended First (8) legislative and in- administrative principles apply in deter- *8 terpretations of the statute. mining whether a park manufactured own- so, er’s rule violates expression. doing free APAC MinmStat. 645.16. In the stat- that, argues further applying in First ute’s phrases words and are to be “con- principles Amendment according grammar to the facts of this strued to rules of case, restriction, Uniprop’s even according approved as modi- to their common and court, by fied the usage; district cannot stand. but technical phrases words and Uniprop argues that acquired its rule does not vio- and such others as have a special * * * late the statute and that legislature meaning the did are according construed to not intend for principles special First Amendment such meaning.” Minn.Stat. to apply reviewing legislature when 645.08 reasonable- When

197 private ordinary a land owner or an art that have “accumulated terms of uses landlord, meaning park of centu tradition and owner has come to legal knows and practice, presumably private government. it resemble Park ries of at ideas that were spectrum the cluster of rules control a wide of resi- adopts conduct, in body word ranging length tached to each borrowed from the dent taken and learning from which was grass may grow, that be allowed to to convey will to the meaning its use a homemaker can earn whether some U.S., 342 judicial mind.” Morissette v. by babysitting neighbor- extra income 263, 240, 246, 96 L.Ed. 288 72 S.Ct. children, U.S. many can people hood how (1952); & P.R. Co. v. Sib see also Minn. short, in In private live each home. (Minn.1858) 1, 13, 19, 2 2 Minn. Gil. 8 ley, park mayor owner is like an unelected (“When peculiar phrases terms of art or community. a bedroom used, supposed they are are it must be Id. at 1. by per in as understood used the sense acquainted familiar and with such

sons legislative history, Given the it is clear terms.”). that the occasion for the 1982 amendments 327C, chapter including the enactment 1973, legislature enacted an act continuing of section arose out of regulating manufactured home lot rentals. legislative concerns about the imbalance of 18, 1973, 1-7, §§ 1973 May Act of ch. (codified power park between manufactured home at Minn.Stat. Minn. Laws 567-69 (1974)). It park it owners residents. is also clear §§ Because of what 327.41-47 that legislature sought the mischief the “major power,” legis- termed abuses of remedy power by was the abuse of manu- chapter lature amended 327 1979. See Merriam, park object Memoran- factured home owners and the Office of Sen. Gene No.1918, Leg., rectify re. 1982 Minn. to be obtained was to the imbalance dum S.F. chapter legislature again 2. The amended between manufactured home owners what Finally, 1982 to address Senator Gene residents. it is clear Merriam, that, sponsors one of the of the senate legislative history from the in enact- bill, Id.; “major problems.” deemed see rectifying a tool for section 327C.13 as 22, 1982, imbalance, Act of March ch. 1982 Minn. legislature that intended to Laws 938-72. The 1982 amendments subject placed speech by restrictions study out of an interim conducted grew princi- park owners First that Housing amendments, the House Subcommittee on As an author of the ples. by more public hearings included attended explained pro- Senator Merriam produced which more people, than 800 posed amendments were public testimony. than 15 hours of Office connected to reports power of abuses of Merriam, Gene Memorandum re. Sen. private government.” “form of Id. at this No.1918, Leg., Minn. at 3. The S.F. manufactured 2. He further described amendments reflect the concerns being akin to the home owners as public hearings. at the voiced citizens communi- mayor “unelected of bedroom background amending chapter As strongly at 1. These references ty.” Id. 327C, noted: Senator Merriam enacting section 327C.13 suggest intended for the First

The manufactured home owner *9 apply.1 suggestion That is simply status. Not Amendment to also has unusual Supreme park, the U.S. Although manufactured home the First Amendment does expressly recognized right expression a state govern the to free within Court has Lake, 146, 150,247 language in the Bear 311 Minn. N.W.2d by the used buttressed 901, (1976)). ability to adopt The statute. time, that set reasonable rules enforce that, in lim- placing It is no coincidence and manner restrictions on free ex place, manufactured home rights of its on pression is a benefit conferred section rights with the of to interfere park owners Thus, prevail, Uniprop in order to 327C.13. words, residents, used proving has the burden of that its rule is concepts directly derived phrases, and reasonable. jurisprudence. from First words, concepts embod- phrases, Minnesota Statutes subd. 8 The “noncommercial,” (2006), expression,” in “free defines what constitutes reason- ied organizing, assembling, can- rule under 327C.13. Under “peacefully able section 8, and “reasonable limits vassing, leafletting,” subdivision “reasonable rule” means time, manner,” place and when used rule that meets all four of the follow- as to expres- ing requirements: in reference to limitations on free sion, all terms of art with special are (a) designed promote it is the conven- Ac- meaning under the First Amendment. ience, residents, safety, or of the welfare I would hold that cordingly, promote good appearance and facili- application extends the 327C.13 operation tate the efficient to manufactured home First Amendment protect preserve park premises, parks. or make fair distribution of services facilities; view, however, my this case does not analyze (b) turn on whether we the rule under it reasonably pur- related to the I the First Amendment. conclude that the pose adopted; for which it is rule as modified is unreasonable and vio- (c) retaliatory unjustifiably it is not lates the statute no matter what standard nature; discriminatory matter, apply. preliminary we As a as I (d) fairly informs the resident of what statute, proving read the the burden of comply. to do or not to do to reasonableness of the restriction at issue “ presented, Uniprop’s On the record with Uniprop. this case lies ‘[T]he fails this definition. generally proof burden of rests on the one who problem seeks to show he is entitled to the The here is that has ” statutory provision.’ of a showing benefits Rehn v. failed to meet its burden of (Minn.1997) Fischley, reasonably 557 N.W.2d pur- its rule is related to the (quoting Application In re City pose adopted. Uniprop White for which it was authority police power provision

has the to exercise its that a of the California Constitution providing public right engage with a sovereign right provide right to free expression privately shopping free at a owned expression by way of its state constitution or mall did not to a amount constitutional tak- by statutory provision. Shopping PruneYard ing. Although Id. at 100 S.Ct. 2035. Robins, 74, 81, Ctr. v. 447 U.S. 100 S.Ct. provision infringed right on the mall owners' is, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 "It exclude, provision did not amount to a course, well established that a State in the taking constitutional because the exercise of police power may adopt exercise of its reason- property sig- free on mall did not private property long able restrictions on so nificantly property value diminish the and the taking as the restrictions do not amount to a property right owners maintained the just compensation without or contravene adopt place, regulations and manner provision.” other constitutional federal Id. that would minimize interference with com- Supreme The Court concluded in PruneYard mercial functions. Id. *10 village’s community covenants.2 That its rule adopting reasons for asserts two (1) pro- only by restricted business activities speech: limiting noncommercial n enjoyment reg- No covenant or other rule peaceful residents’ residents. mote the (2) expression its in- with- to further ulated the exercise of free property; their Therefore, maintaining neighborhood. Village. a safe in Ardmor when Ard- terest in management that the reasons as- had question There is no mor APAC removed are, abstract, in in by Uniprop park, from the did so violation of serted contemplated by regulations.3 Ardmor’s own rules and Af- type 327C.01, subdivision enacting management in ter Ardmor had APAC re- 8(a). However, evidence in park, there is no moved from the APAC obtained a Village injunction indicating temporary enjoining Uniprop record that Ardmor enjoyment of peaceful denying park. lacked it access to the residents injunction property or that the was unsafe to that and APAC’s their leafleting. canvassing litigation, Uniprop a result of or amended the communi- as record any ty is there evidence covenants for Ardmor to limit Nor canvassing speech, Manager that such or leaflet- noncommercial as suggesting peaceful McGaffey a threat to residents’ admitted: ing was property safety or the enjoyment [Question]: policy Now the new fact Indeed, evidence park. of the there is no prompted by happened what with demonstrating explaining in the record or APAC, correct? limiting canvassing leafleting pro- or how Correct. [Answer]: enjoyment or peaceful motes residents’ [Question]: you And I think this showing public safety. furthers Absent —there I think from are also other solicitors. and how problems to be remedied your depositions some Jehovah Witness by Uniprop reme- imposed the restrictions people park? have been out to the say dy impossible those it is problems, the restrictions on free Correct. [Answer]: reasonably purpose are related to the [Question]: policy But wasn’t they adopted required which were as of the meat salesmen changed because 8(b). subd. Minn.Stat. or the Jehovah Witnesses were Uniprop’s restrictions on noncommercial correct? speech also fail as unreasonable under sub- No, they prompt did not us to [Answer]: 8(c) they retaliatory are division because change policy. our began nature. At the time APAC distrib- information of restrict- uting organizing adopted purpose about its ef- A rule ability like Village, only organization rule lim- of an forts Ardmor to manu- provides at Ardmor was contained in APAC that information iting speech McGaffey prohibited canvassing leafleting. 2. conduct in the Ardmor door The list Community following: Covenants includes the prohibiting can- further testified that the rule Peddling, soliciting "Business Activities: or applied vassing leafleting within the enterprise pro- conducting commercial way in the same to commercial noncom- fession, anywhere a Resident purposes. evidence in mercial There is no Community permitted.” is not support McGaffey's testimony the record that, at the time APACwas first removed from trial, During Village Manager Mary Ardmor Village, place had a rule in Ardmor manage- McGaffey testified that when Ardmor soliciting can- prohibiting noncommercial park it did ment had APACremoved from the vassing. pursuant policy prohibiting door-to- so *11 trick- neighborhood group, in a watch and park residents about factured home seeking go door-to-door or-treaters without indication residents rights as in manner it the same Halloween with has interfered organization that the cannot be what the restricts APAC. This enjoyment of their quiet the residents’ it enacted legislature had in mind when illegal or otherwise engaged property, section 327C.13. activities, or created unsafe disruptive manufactured home condition in the reasons, all of the I conclude For above per se unreasonable. retaliatory and rules, modified Uniprop’s even as court’s modifications to Uni- The district court, and in are unreasonable change that fact. rule does prop’s of section 327C.13. violation Further, un- Uniprop’s restrictions are Therefore, respectfully I dissent. ability they impede the reasonable because ANDERSON, H., (dissenting). Paul J. organizations and like it to com-

of APAC rights municate with residents about their join Page. I the dissent of Justice parks. in manufactured home as residents type are the of com- Such communications legislature had in mind

munication the chapter 327C’s free ex-

when enacted

pression provisions. To allow the owner adopt a rule a manufactured home HAEG, Respondent, Tamara Joan purpose restricting specifically v. ability residents to receive Vast SEKO WORLDWIDE d/b/a rights effectively about their information Relator, Logistics, purposes frustrates the of section 327C.13. contrary Uniprop’s

Because rule is to the intent of the and frustrates the Plan, Assigned Minnesota Risk adm’d purposes Uniprop’s of section Berkley Administrators, Risk rule, modified, even as cannot be allowed Respondent, to stand. Finally, the restrictions contained Un- Radiology, Regions Hospital, St. Paul

iprop’s rights rule violate residents’ under Service, North Memorial Ambulance they section 327C.13 because close off the City Associates, and Twin Anesthesia possibility anonymous sponta- of both Intervenors. rule, speech. Uniprop’s any- neous Under No. A07-258. seeking engage one in free canvassing involving leafleting within Supreme Court of Minnesota. present must first himself May park management herself to to view the Puklich, Gary Meyer, Meyer, L. Mer- Beyond no-contact stifling anonymity list. Prairie, MN, Johnson, riam & Eden spontaneity, Uniprop’s restrictions are Respondent. stunning cutting their overbreadth. Wittwer, Stewart, Kris A. Zlimen & anonymous spontaneous speech, off Ltd., MN, Jungers, Minneapolis, for Rela- Uniprop’s politicians seeking rule restricts tor/Respondent. votes, go door-to-door to solicit resi- speak dents would in opposition who out Heacox, Hartman, Cosgriff, Roderick C. park management, neigh- actions of Koshmrl, Johnson, P.A., Cosgriff, & Saint borhood soliciting participation association Paul, MN, for Intervenors.