HomeMy WebLinkAboutA019 - letter to Professor E.L. Rippie, Geiger v City of Eagan, Minnesota Ae
iAy of
AMES, Iowa
V� 50010
JOI-iN R. KLAUS (515) 232-6210
City Attorney
SANDRA M. zENK RECEIVED
Assistant Cit Attorne CITY CLEFK'S OFFICE
y y AMES,IOWA
May 8 . 1980
Professor E. L. Rippie MAY
41B LeBaron Hall
Iowa State University
Ames , Iowa 50010
In Re : Paraphernalia Ordinance Case
Geiger vs . City of Eagan, Minnesota
Dear Professor Rippie :
Find herewith $3 . 00 to cover the cost of the copy of the
decision of the 3th Circuit Court in the case of Geiger vs .
City of Eagan that you have so kindly obtained and made
available.
The case is on the question of whether or not a prelimi-
nary injunction should be issued against the City of Eagan
and is not the final decision on the merits of that city' s
paraphernalia ordinance. It does , however, pretty clearly
indicate that the City of Eagan ' s ordinance is in a lot of
trouble at the Circuit Court of Appeals .
The City of Ames ordinance is different . Most notably,
the Ames ordinance does not prohibit mere possession as did
the Eagan ordinance. Secondly, the City of Ames ordinance
does not fall into the pitfall of attempting to prohibit
anything that is " . . . suitable to be used for . . . " the tak-
ing of controlled substances or smoking of marijuana, etc.
The Ames ordinance purports to prohibit only those things
which are primarily and specially designed for the use of
controlled substances . Therefore , the Ames ordinance will
not affect a great many things which are or can be used for
illegal drug, taking.
A Combining 17ducation rnd Inn ust,-y u.ith Aiosp tality
-2-
However, it is my expectation as I have outlined to the City
Council, that the City of Ames ordinance will be extremely
vulnerable to attack on the same basis of not clearly arti-
culating exactly what is proscribed as have all the other
ordinances in this genre.
I believe the City Council is well informed of this and the
many other constitutional difficulties that will confront
its paraphernalia ordinance . The "Eagan" decision provides
no helpful information on how to make the Ames ordinance
less vulnerable . It does point up some pitfalls that the
Ames ordinances anticipated and avoided. Furthermore, the
court offers us some encouragement with this dictum:
"The City of Eagan clearly has the power through
a properly drawn ordinance to discourage the
availability of drugs and the acceptance of drug
use by prohibiting the sale of drug-related
devices . "
However, the court then declared the "Eagan" ordinance void
on its face for being so vague as to what is proscribed as
to be unconstitutional under the due process clauses of the
5th and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.
From this I conclude that the court has not barred the door
against our ordinance, but there is little cause to expect
a cordial judicial reception when we arrive.
Thanks again for your help.
Very truly yours ,
John R. Klau
City Attorney
cc Mayor Goodland
Council Members