Memo-Lawful Gambling Policy
-::.,
I Community Services Department I
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Hopkins City Council
Jim Genellie
October 10, 1997
Lawful Gambling Policy
The City Council adopted its policy on lawful gambling, Legislative Policy 4-A, in August
of 1987. The policy was amended in 1994 to require organizations seeking license
renewals to provide additional information to the City.
Currently there are five organizations licensed to conduct gambling in the City of
Hopkins:
.
ORGANIZATION LOCATION
Hopkins Elks 30 8th Avenue South
VFW Post 425 100 Shady Oak Road
American Legion Post 320 10 12th Avenue South
Hopkins Jaycees 66th Avenue North
Mainstreet Bar & Grill
Lindees
Mitch's Tavern
M.T. Bears
Raspberry Festival Archies Liquors
Hopkins Family Recreation (Hopkins Bowl)
Raspberries Bar & Grill (Hopkins House)
Bingo is currently being conducted three times a week by the Elks. The Jaycees are
licensed to conduct bingo at Lindees. \
1
.
.
.
Since 1987 millions of dollars have been gambled in Hopkins and millions of dollars
have been contributed to the City, School District, local sports programs, and local
charities. Charitable contributions have also been made outside the Hopkins area.
To give the Council an idea of where the money goes I have prepared the following
summary based upon the years 1993 and 1994. These years were chosen because the
City has received audits for these years from all the local organizations that conduct
lawful gambling.
Total Amount Wagered
Prizes
Net
34,980,683
29,102,704
5,877,979
83.2%
% of Net
Expenses 2,376,273 40.4%
Cost of games 652,535 11.1 %
Compensation & payroll taxes 1,295,941 22.0%
Acccounting &Jegal 69,075 1.2%
Insurance 19,839 0.3%
Bank charges & supplies 27,693 0.5%
Maintenance 85,108 1.4%
Utilities 20,280 0.3%
Rent 144,840 2.5%
Rent-Storage 8,685 0.1 %
Rubbish Removal 10,033 0.2%
Misc. 42,244 0.7%
Taxes 2,240,999 38.1 %
Other 27,550 0.5%
Lawful Expenditures 1,334,534 22.7%
As you can see $35,000,000 was wagered in during these two years. Over 83% of this
amount was returned as prizes. This left approximately $5.9 million dollars available for
expenses, taxes and charitable giving.
Over 40% of this amount went to expenses, with the largest expenses being payroll and
the cost of the games themselves. 38% of the Net went to pay taxes, primarily to the
State of Minnesota. This left almost 23%, or $1.3 million, available to be spent on lawful
expenditures. I am preparing a summary of where these expenditures were made.
This summary will be available at the Worksession.
Although I do not have details for every year since 1987, a reasonable estimate of
charitable dollars raised in Hopkins during the last ten years would be over $6,000,000.
The majority of this money is contributed to local organizations and individuals.
2
.
.
.
The City Council has indicated that it wants to reexamine the current policy on lawful
gambling with the possibility of amending the policy. What changes could the Council
make in the current policy?
1. The City could prohibit lawful gambling in the City of Hopkins.
2. The City Council may institute a local gambling tax. The tax may be imposed only if
the amount to be received by the City is necessary to cover the cost incurred by the
City to regulate lawful gambling. The tax imposed may not exceed 3% of the gross
receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling, less prizes actually paid
out by the organization. A city may not use this money for any purpose other than
for the purpose of regulating lawful gambling. A tax imposed is in lieu of all other
local taxes and local investigation fees on lawful gambling.i
3. The City can require that licensed organizations contribute 10% of their net profits
derived from lawful gambling to a fund, administered and regulated by the City, for
disbursement by the City for any lawful purpose.ii
4. The City may, by ordinance, require that a licensed organization, conducting lawful
gambling within its jurisdiction, expend all or a portion of its expenditures for lawful
purposes within the city's "trade area". Such an ordinance must define the city's
trade area and must specify the percentage of lawful purpose expenditures that
must be expended within the trade area. A trade area must include each city
contiguous to the defining city.iii
5. Additional restrictions that the City could adopt include, but are not limited to:
. prohibit the use of paddlewheels (M.S. 349.213, Subd. 1 c);
. limit the number of bingo occasions;
. limit bingo to premises owned by the organization;
. limit the number of locations where an organization can conduct gambling
(current locations would probably have to be grandfathered);
. limit the total number of premises permits allowed in the City of Hopkins;
. require organizations seeking licenses to make copies for the City of all
documentation required by the State of Minnesota.
Limits on Local Regulation
1. The city may not require an organization to make specific expenditures of more than
10% of its net profits derived from lawful gambling. (See #3 above)
2. The city may not require an organization conducting lawful gambling within its
jurisdiction to make an expenditure to the city as a condition to operate within that
city.
3. A more stringent regulation or prohibition of lawful gambling adopted by a city must
apply equally to all forms of lawful gambling within a jurisdiction.
3
.
.
..
4. The State of Minnesota controls the amount of rent that may be paid to lease space
for lawful gambling.
MN Rules, Chapter 7861
The amount of rent an organization may pay for the conduct of lawful gambling may
not exceed:
(1) $1,000 per month for all forms of lawful gambling other than bingo;
(2) for bingo and all other gambling activities which occur during that bingo
occasion, $200 for leased premises of not more than 6,000 square feet, $300 for
leased premises of not more than 12,000 square feet, and $400 for leased premises
of more than 12,000 square feet; and
(3) an organization may not use nongambling funds to directly or indirectly
supplement rent above the amounts provided in this subpart.
Attachments:
. Legislative Policy 4-A
4
.
,.
M.S. 349.213, Subd. 3. Local gambling tax. A statutory or home rule charter city that has one or
more licensed organizations operating lawful gambling, and a county that has one or more licensed
organizations outside incorporated areas operating lawful gambling, may impose a local gambling tax on
each licensed organization within the city's or county's jurisdiction. The tax may be imposed only if the
amount to be received by the city or county is necessary to cover the costs incurred by the city or county
to regulate lawful gambling. The tax imposed by this subdivision may not exceed three percent of the
gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the
organization. A city or county may not use money collected under this subdivision for any purpose other
than to regulate lawful gambling. A tax imposed under this subdivision is in lieu of all other local taxes
and local investigation fees on lawful gambling. A city or county that imposes a tax under this subdivision
shall annually, by March 15, file a report with the board in a form prescribed by the board showing (1) the
amount of revenue produced by the tax during the preceding calendar year, and (2) the use of the
proceeds of the tax.
ii 349.213 Local authority. Subdivision 1. Local regulation. (a) A statutory or home rule city or
county has the authority to adopt more stringent regulation of lawful gambling within its jurisdiction,
including the prohibition of lawful gambling, and may require a permit for the conduct of gambling exempt
from licensing under section 349.166. The fee for a permit issued under this subdivision may not exceed
$100. The authority granted by this subdivision does not include the authority to require a license or
permit to conduct gambling by organizations or sales by distributors licensed by the board. The authority
granted by this subdivision does not include the puthority to require an organization to make specific
expenditures of more than ten percent from its net profits derived from lawful gambling. For the purposes
of this subdivision, net profits are gross profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses and paid in
taxes assessed on lawful gambling. A statutory or home rule charter city or a county may not require an
organization conducting lawful gambling within its jurisdiction to make an expenditure to the city or county
as a condition to operate within that city or county, except as authorized under section 349.16,
subdivision 8, or 297E.02; provided, however, that an ordinance requirement that such organizations
must contribute ten percent of their net profits derived from lawful gambling conducted at premises within
the city's or county's jurisdiction to a fund administered and regulated by the responsible local unit of
government without cost to such fund, for disbursement by the responsible local unit of government of the
receipts for lawful purposes, is not considered an expenditure to the city or county nor a tax under section
297E.02, and is valid and lawful. .
Hi M.S. 349.213, Subd. 1 b. A statutory or home rule city or county may by ordinance require that a
licensed organization conducting lawful gambling within its jurisdiction expend all or a portion of its
expenditures for lawful purposes on lawful purposes conducted or located within the city's or county's
trade area. Such an ordinance must be limited to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived
from lawful gambling conducted at premises within the city's or county's jurisdiction, must define the city's
or county's trade area, and must specify the percentage of lawful purpose expenditures which must be
expended within the trade area. A trade area defined by a city under this subdivision must include each
city contiguous to the defining city.
5
-,
.
.'
e
.
Phone: (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD (651) 281-1290
Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org/
Lea911e of Minnesota Cities
Cities promotin9 excellence
Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003
"Conceal-and-Carry Law" -- What It Means For Cities
Introduction
Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently signed into law a bill that reduces local authority over issuance of
concealed handgun permits and is expected to significantly increase the number of permit- ,
holders. The Minnesota Personal Protection Act, (Senate 'File 842, will be 2003 Minn. Sess. Law,
Chap. 28), passed in the House on an 88-46 vote and in the Senate on a 37-30 vote, and was
signed into law by Gov. Pawlenty on April 28. It removes all authority from police chiefs to
issue conceal and carry permits, and mandates that sheriffs issue permits to all applicants except
those convicted of serious crimes. The law also prohibits cities from prohibiting guns on city
property, except in limited circumstances.
More than 300 organizations, including city councils, statewide police associations, churches and
health and education groups, opposed the legislation, arguing that the new law would put an
estimated 90,000 additional concealed weapons onto the streets. Currently, fewer than 12,000
individuals have permits to carry concealed weapons.
Proponents of the bill argued that sheriffs and police chiefs had too much discretionary authority,
and that applicants should decide for themselves if they need to carry a concealed weapon. Three
groups supported the legislation: the National Rifle Association, Concealed Carry Reform Now~
and the Republican Party of Minnesota.
An amendment offered in the House on behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities would have
allowed public facilities, such as city halls, parks, and recreation centers, to prohibit concealed
weapons on the premises. The amendment failed on a vote of 48-84. No similar amendment was
attempted in the Senate.
Conceal-and-carry law: What it means for cities
League staff has prepared this memorandum to help cities understand some of the most
significant implications of the new law. In addition, links to related information are provided at
the end of the memo. The League will continue to supplement this memorandum as additional
information is gathered about how the law is being interpreted by affected groups. Please let us
know ifthere are additional questions you would like us to address.
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122. www.lmnc.org
.
.
'.
2
Can cities prohibit guns on city property?
No, with some limited exceptions. While the law allows private property owners, who follow a
specific set of procedures, to request that guns not be brought into a "private establishment," the
law does not generally afford cities the same ability. For example, a private business may
prohibit the carrying of guns on its premises if the business "prominently" posts a "conspicuous"
sign at each entrance to the establishment stating that the "(NAME OF OPERATOR) BANS
GUNS IN THESE PREMISES." In addition, the business owner or their agent must personally
inform "the person of the posted request, and demand compliance." Again, cities do not have a
similar ability to "post" their facilities.
The situations in which cities may limit guns on city property appear to be limited to the
following circumstances:
. Employees. As an employer, cities "may establish policies that restrict the carry or
possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and scope of
employment." The exception does not apply to parking areas. (This exception is further
discussed below.)
. Property used for "school purposes." It is a misdemeanor for an individual to carry a
firearm on "school property." "School property" is defined as including "a public or private
elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased
or owned by the school; a child care center licensed under chapter 245A during the period
children are present and participating in child care programs; . . . and that portion of a
building or facility under the temporary, :exclusive control of a public or private school, a
school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently
posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school related use."
Accordingly, if city property is being used for any of these defined school related purposes,
guns are prohibited.
· Private use of city property. A private party that leases space in city buildings or facilities
may prohibit firearms in the leased spaced by following the posting and notice requirements'
described above. The city may also be able to condition the private use of city facilities on an
agreement to ban guns. However, as a landlord, the city may not restrict the "lawful carry or
possession of firearms by tenants or their guests."
. Persons under the influence of alcohol. A person is prohibited from carrying a pistol in a
public place while under influence of drugs or alcohol, or where the person's blood alcohol
concentration is more than 0.04. This exception may have particular applicability to
municipal liquor establishments. Consumption of one or two alcoholic beverages can often
put a person's blood alcohol level above'0.04. So, although municipal liquor stores do not
have the same ability to "post" their premises. as private establishments, it might be
permissible for a municipal liquor store (particularly on-sale facility) to adopt a policy
requiring customers to disclose whether they are carrying a gun.
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122 · www.lmnc.org
.
.
.
3
As an alternative to attempting to ban guns on city property, the city may want to consider
posting portions of city facilities as "authorized personnel only." This would make it a trespass
violation for an individual to go into areas of city hall that are not normally accessible to the
public.
In addition, the city may be able to limit weapons on city property where the city has a
reasonable basis to suspect an individual constitutes a health or safety risk. For instance if a
person has made threats in the past, it may be legitimate for the city to prohibit the individual
from possessing a gun on city property.
Finally, cities may want to draw a distinction between access to city property and access to city
services and personnel. For instance, it may be acceptable to condition participation in city
recreation programs on an agreement to disarm. If a city wants to try to argue this distinction, it
should consult with its attorney in order to develop a well-reasoned and legally defensible policy
to support such an action.
Can the city prohibit employees from bringing firearms to work with them?
If so, can the city discipline employees for violations?
Yes, the law specifically allows an employer, public or private, to "establish policies that
restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees while acting in the course and
scope of employment." The law also allows the city to discipline employees for violations of the
policy.
This means cities can establish a policy that prohibits employees from carrying or possessing .
firearms while:
- Working on city property.
-Working in any location on behalf of the city.
- Driving on city business.
- Riding as a passenger on city business.
- Performing emergency or on-call work after hours on behalf of the city.
· Attending training or conferences on behalf of the city.
(A link to a sample policy on this issue is included at the end of this memo.)
The law also states that an employer cannot prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in
a parking facility or parking area. For many employees, this means that they will leave any
firearms in their cars during the workday if the city has a policy prohibiting possession while at
work. This could raise issues of security for city parking facilities.
However, it may be difficult to enforce a policy against possessing a firearm at work if the
employee routinely uses his or her car for city business. In this case, the city may have to allow
an employee to "check" a firearm during the workday and retrieve it after work. The police
department is likely to be in the best position to deal with the duty of checking firearms. This
duty will require locking the firearms in a secure location and implementing procedures to ensure
that only appropriate city staff can retrieve them. If the police department cannot perform this
function, it would be a good idea to give the employee checking the firearms some basic training
on how to safely handle firearms.
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925~1122. www.lmnc.org
4
.
The city may also find it difficult to handle situations where an employee must respond to an
emergency after-hours. In this case, since the employee would be on duty, the city can probably
prohibit the employee from carrying a firearm in their private vehicle unless the vehicle is
merely used to drive to a city parking lot, remains in the parking lot and is not used to respond to
the call. .
Can the city restrict elected officials from carrying firearms while conducting city
business?
The law does not specifically address this issue. Therefore, it depends on whether elected
officials would be considered "employees" of the city under this particular law. This
determination could be different from city to city, depending on a number of factors.
For example, some cities have specifically taken actions to designate their elected officials as
"employees" in order to offer them certain types of benefits, such as workers' compensation
coverage, group health and life insurance, and coverage in pension and retirement plans. These
cities are more likely to be able to make an argument that the elected officials should be treated
as employees under this law.
.
On the other hand, many state and federal employment laws tend to exempt elected officials
from coverage. For example, elected officials are not considered employees for purposes of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs minimum wage and overtime. They are also
specifically exempt from the state law that defines public employees for purposes of collective
bargaining rights.
The best practice is for the city to examine how it has treated elected officials in the past on
various types of issues and remain consistent with those practices. For example, if the city has
designated elected officials as employees for purposes of workers' compensation coverage and
other benefits, it should probably designate them as employees for purposes of this law as well.
Can the city restrict volunteers from carrying firearms when performing duties on
behalf of the city?
Probably not, but a city is not required to use volunteers who carry handguns. A true
"volunteer" probably cannot be restricted from carrying firearms on the basis of being an
employee of the city. However, the city may be able to adopt a policy stating that it will not use
volunteers unless they sign an agreement that they will not carry a firearm while acting on behalf
of the city.
In defining city volunteers, the city should take a particularly careful look at its volunteer
firefighters. Many fire departments in the state compensate their volunteer firefighters in a
manner that would probably be seen by the Department of Labor as making them ineligible for
volunteer status under wage and hour laws. The city should attempt to be consistent in its
definition of volunteer firefighters either as true volunteers or as "paid on call" city employees.
.
If the city detennines that its volunteer firefighters are actually employees, they can be included
in the city's general policy prohibiting employees from carrying firearms while on duty. A
similar argument could possibly be made with respect to positions such as ambulance attendants,
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122. www.lmnc.org
5
.
first responders, police reserves, and emergency response volunteers, all of whom are
categorized as employees under Minnesota's workers compensation laws. Ifthey are true
volunteers, the city may be able to require them to sign an agreement that they will not carry a
firearm while acting on behalf of the city. Included with this information is a link to a Fact Sheet
that describes factors to look at in determining whether an individual truly is a volunteer for
purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
What additional enforcement obligations does the,law impose on local law
enforcement officials?
Crimes under the law. The following is a list of some of the crimes under the new law:
· It is a gross misdemeanor for a person to carry a pistol in a public place without a permit.
· It is a petty misdemeanor for a person authorized to carry a gun to not have the "permit card"
in immediate possession. The charge must be dismissed if the person later demonstrates in
court or in tpe office ofthe arresting officer that the person was authorized to carry the pistol
at the time of the alleged violation. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture
of the person's gun.
· It is a petty misdemeanor for a permit holder to fail to notify the issuing sheriff of a change
of address or a lost or destroyed card. A violation of this provision does not result in a
forfeiture of the person's gun.
· It is a misdemeanor for a person with a permit to carry or possess a firearm on school
property. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun.
· The law continues to make it a felony for a person without a permit to carry or possess a
fireann "while knowingly" on school property.
· It is a petty misdemeanor to remain at a "private establishment" that has banned weapons.
The private establishment must properly post the establishment as banning guns, must have
personally informed the individual that the establishment bans guns, and must have asked the
individual to comply. A violation of this provision does not result in a forfeiture of the
person's gun. The owner of a private establishment may not ban guns in a parking facility or
parking area.
· The law creates a new set of crimes known as "carrying while under the influence of alcohol
or a controlled substance." The processes and procedures are very similar to those for driving
while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The one notable difference is
that it is a misdemeanor for a person to carry a pistol in a public place when the person's
alcohol concentration is less than 0.10, but more than 0.04. A violation of the 0.04 limit does
not result in a forfeiture of the person's gun.
Contracts with County Sheriff to conduct permitting activities. The law removes pennit
issuance responsibility from local police chiefs and places it with the county sheriffs. A sheriff
may contract with a police chief to process permits, but "the sheriff remains the issuing authority
and the police chief acts as the sheriffs agent." The obligations associated with taking
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 . (651) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122 · www.lmnc.org
6
.
applications, conducting background checks, and issuing the permits are significant.
Accordingly, the League recommends that cities carefully consider the risks and benefits before
entering into such contracts. We would also recommend that the contract make it clear that the
county would cover the liability for police chiefs' action. There is potential liability if the chiefs
do not follow procedures such as the mandatory background checks.
Notice to police chiefs of permit applications. When an application for a pennit is filed with
the county sheriff, the sheriff is required to notify the chief of police of the municipality where
the applicant resides. The chief of police is then authorized, but not required, to provide "any
information relevant to the issuance of the permit." While the law does not impose an obligation
to provide information, local law enforcement officials may want to adopt policies that articulate
what sources of information they will review in responding to notification 'of a permit application
from a county sheriff. .
Responsibilities of prosecutors. When a person is charged with an offense that would, upon
conviction, prohibit the person from possessing a firearm, the prosecuting attorney is required to
ascertain whether the person is a permit holder. If the person is a permit holder, the prosecutor is
required to notify the issuing sheriff that the person has been charged with a prohibiting offense.
The prosecutor must also notify the sheriff of the final disposition of the case. In addition to the
felony charges that would trigger this reporting obligation for county attorneys, local prosecutors
will also have this obligation for certain offenses such as Minn. Stat. Sec. 518B. 14, violations of
orders for protection; Sec. 609.2242 subd. 3, domestic assault; and Sec. 609.749, subd. 8,
harassment, and stalking. There could be potential liability to the city and its prosecutor if these
responsibilities are not carried out. .
.
What authority do cities have to regulate handguns? .
Not much. The law provides that "this section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and
procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff,
police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or
body acting under color of law or government authority may change, modify, or supplement
these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise ofa permit to carry."
In addition, Minn. Stat. Section 471.633 states that: "The legislature preempts all authority of a
home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal
corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate
firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order,
ordinance or regulation by them except that:
(a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge
of firearms; and
(b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.
Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void."
These two statutes severely limit a city's ability to regulate the carrying of handguns. The only
possible exceptions appear to be the ability to adopt local regulations limiting the brandishing
and discharge of weapons within the city and the possible ability to regulate establishments
. where handguns may be present. For instance, because the law makes it a crime to possess a
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122. www.lmnc.org
7
pistol while under the influence of alcohol, the city may be able to adopt an amendment to its
liquor regulations, requiring all liquor license holders to ban handguns.
How are permit-application data classified under the MN Government Data
Practices Act?
All permit-application data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide
systems are classified as private. (M.S. 13.87, subd. 2.) As a result, only the applicant and
individuals within the state or local governmental entity whose work assignments reasonably
require access will be able to access this data. (M.S. 13.02, subd. 12; M. Rule 1205.0400, subp.
2.)
Will law enforcement agencies be able to verify whether permits are valid?
Yes. The commissioner of public safety is required to maintain an automated database of persons
authorized to carry pistols under this new law that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. (M.S. 624.714, subd. 15.) This database will only be available to law enforcement
agencies, including prosecutors verifying the validity of permits.
Will any permit data be available to the public?
Yes. On an annual basis, beginning March 1,2004, the cOp1missioner of public safety must
report to the Legislature specific data regarding permits issued under the new law. (M.S.
624.714, subd. 20.) Sheriffs and police chiefs are specifically permitted to release private data to
the department of public safety for this purpose. The report will be available to the public at its
actual cost of duplication. The report will not contain any personally identifiable data. For
example, although the report will contain the number of permits applied for, issued, suspended,
revoked, and denied, it will only be categorized by the age, sex, and zip code of the applicant or
permit holder. (See M.S. 624.714, subd. 20 for a complete list of information required in the
report. )
Does the new law increase municipal liability exposure in any way?
Yes. There are a number of ways in which municipal liability exposure may be increased as a
result of the new law:
Immunity. The law includes an "immunity" section, but it likely does not protect the city from
all possible claims or lawsuits that may be brought as a result of the law. The immunity states
that" . . . a police chief, any employee ... of a police chief involved in the permit issuing
process, is not liable for damages resulting or arising from acts with a firearm committed by a
permit holder unless the person had actual knowledge at the time the permit was issued or the
instruction was given that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm." So
there is protection from claims or lawsuits where the permit holder shoots someone and the
injured party tries to sue the city for the information that it gave to the county to issue the pennit.
.
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122. www.lmnc.org
8
.
This immunity does not apply if it can be shown that the city employee had actual knowledge
that the applicant was prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Therefore, if the police knew
that the applicant was dangerous or mentally ill and did not say anything to the sheriff after being
notified, there may be potential liability.
The immunity also does not specifically apply to cities. Cities would have to argue that they are
immune through vicarious immunity because of the actions of their employees.
Finally, the immunity does not apply to lawsuits not involving acts with a firearm such as a
defamation lawsuit as discussed below.
Defamation. Under the new law (Minn. Stat. Sec. 624.714 subd. 4 (b)), after notification by the
sheriff of a person's application for a permit, the local police chief may provide relevant
information on the issuance of the permit.
There is a potential for defamation claims by the applicant. Defamation is where you tell
someone something in writing (libel) or orally (slander) that is proved to be false and resulted in
damages to the person's reputation or in obtaining some benefit (such as a gun permit). In this
situation, damages could also be argued to include physical injury if the person can show that if
they had had a gun, they would not have been injured.
.
Injuries to third parties. If a person or a city employee carrying a gun with a permit uses the
gun to hurt someone on city premises, the city could be liable for those injuries. Under common
law, the city could be liable if the city knew that the person or the employee was dangerous for
other rea~ons. Carrying a gun legally with a permit would not give the city sufficient reason to
act on the person's ability to be on the city premises. There must have been some other action
indicating danger, such 3:s a threat or a fight.
If the city had such knowledge, it had a duty to protect other users by kicking the dangerous
person out of the building or premises at that time or for a period of time. If the city didn't do
this, there could be potential liability for negligent supervision of the premises. There also is the
argument that the dangerous action was foreseeable because of the past acts of the person. LMC
recommends that you have a procedure in place for expelling people or employees who may be a
danger to other users of the city premises. The procedure should afford some level of due
process.
Training by city. If the city provides training through a certified instructor to people who apply
for permits and later use the firearm, is there liability for the city? The certified instructor
individually would be immune from these types of claims and the city could argue vicarious
immunity if the instructor was working in the course of his or her city employment. As stated
before, the immunity doesn't apply if the instructor had actual knowledge that the person was not
eligible for a permit at time of application.
.
Chemical testing. Under Minn. Stat. 624.7143, there is a specific procedure established for
chemical testing to determine if a person is carrying a firearm while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Is there liability if city police do not follow this procedure? Potentially, if it
resulted in wrongful revocation of a permit or wrongful conviction.
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122 · www.lmnc.org
9
Links to Related Information:
· LMC Sample Policy Prohibiting Fireanl1s at Work (pdf document)
· LMC Fact Sheet #3: Police and Fire Employees Fair Labor Standards Act (pdf document)
.
(5-8-03)
145 University Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044. (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122 · www.lmnc.org
.
POLICY PROHIBITING FIREARMS AT WORK
The City of hereby establishes a policy prohibiting all employees,
except sworn employees of the Police Department, from carrying or possessing firearms
while acting in the course and scope of employment for the city. The possession or
carrying of a firearm by employees other than sworn Police Officers is prohibited while
working on city property or while working in any location on behalf of the city. This
includes but is not limited to:
· Driving on city business;
· Riding as a passenger in a car or any type of mass transit on city business;
· Working at city hall or any other city-owned work site;
· Working off-site on behalf ofthe city;
· Performing emergency or on:-call work after normal business hours and on weekends;
· We>rking at private residences and at businesses on behalf of the city;
· Attending training or conferences on behalf of the city;
.
An exception to this policy is that city employees may carry and possess firearms in
city-owned parking areas if they have obtained the appropriate permit(s). Therefore, if a
city employee must drive his or her personal vehicle on city business, he or she may
check a firearm with the city Police Department during the workday and retrieve it after
work. The Police Department will establish procedures to ensure that the firearm is
locked up and is not able to be retrieved by anyone other than the owner/employee.
When responding to on-call work from home after regular work hours, an employee is
prohibited from bringing a firearm in their private vehicle unless the vehicle remains in
a parking lot and is not needed in order to respond to the call.
Violations of this policy are subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the city's
disciplinary procedures policy.
")
.
HOfk.t;~
ADl\fiNISTRATIVE POLICY 8-F
Adopted 7/1/2001
Violence Prevention Policy
The City of Hopkins is committed to preventing workplace violence and to maintaining a safe
work environment free from violence, threats of violence, harassment, intimidation, and other
disruptive behavior.
Section I-Conduct
All employees, volunteers, residents, and customers should be treated with courtesy and respect
at all times. Violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior will not be
tolerated; all reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with appropriately.
Employees are expected to refrain from fighting, "horseplay," or other conduct that may be
dangerous to others. Specific examples of prohibited conduct would include, but not be limited
to. hitting or shoving an individual, or causing the employee to feel they were about to be struck;
threats of violence or harassment, including making oral or written harassing or threatening
statements; harassing surveillance also know as stalking; intimidating or attempting to coerce an
employee to do wrongful or illegal acts. Individuals who commit such acts may be removed from
the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both.
.
These rules of conduct also apply to residents and other individuals who interact with City
employees. Individuals who violate these rules may be removed or barred from City property
and may be subject to climinal penalties. )
Section 2-Emplovee Reportine Requirements
If an act of violence constitutes an emergency - CALL 911 (or 9-911 if using a telephone that is
an extension of the City's telephone system.)
All threats of violence, both direct and indirect, should be reported as soon as possible to your
immediate supervisor or any other member of management. This includes threats by employees,
as well as threats by customers, vendors, solicitors, or other members of the public. When
reporting a threat of violence, you should be as specific as possible.
All suspicious individuals or activities should also be reported as soon as possible to a supervisor
or the Police Dispatcher. Do not place yourself in peril. If you see or hear a commotion or
disturbance near your workstation, do not try to intercede or see what is happening.
The City encourages employees to bring their disputes or differences with other employees to the
attention of their supervisors or the Personnel Department before the situation escalates into
potential violence. The City is eager to assist in the resolution of employee disputes, and will not
discipline employees for raising such concerns.
.
1
.
.
.
Adopted 711 /200 1
Weapons
Employees who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon must first disclose to the City
management their intent to carry a concealed weapon before bringing it into the workplace.
Order for Protection
Whenever an employee obtains an Order for Protection (OFP), and the employee feels the person
they are seeking protection from may appear at their workplace, they are encouraged to notify
their supervisor. The reporting employee may request the supervisor to handle this information
in a confidential manner. The supervisor must notify the Chief of Police and a determination
will be made in cooperation with the reporting employee if security concerns require additional
staff to be notified of the presence of an active OFP.
Section 3-Follow up Reports and Investieation
Any violent act involving a City employee will be reported to the Department Head responsible
for that area of City operations. The Department Head may request an investigation be
conducted by the Police Department. The Chief of Police may refer that investigation to another
law enforcement agency ifhe/she feels it would be in the best interest of the City of Hopkins to
do so.
Any threat made against an employee of the City of Hopkins that is based upon the employee's
position shall be the investigative responsibility of the Hopkins Police Department no matter
where the threat originated from or was received.
The City will promptly and thoroughly investigate all reports of threats, actual violence and
suspicious individuals or activities. The identity of the individual making a report will be
protected as much as is practical. In order to maintain workplace safety and the integrity of its
investigation, the City may suspend employees, either with or without pay, pending
investigation.
Anyone determined to be responsible for threats of violence, or actual violence, or other conduct
that is in violation of these guidelines will be subject to prompt disciplinary action up to and
including termination of employment.
2