Ciolek & Wicklund file complaint against City of Toledo re: Convenience Store legislation
This in via email from the law offices of Ciolek & Wicklund:
CITY OF TOLEDO WANTS CONVENIENCE STORE OWNERS TO DO POLICE WORK
On April 2, 2008, Scott A. Ciolek of Ciolek & Wicklund filed a complaint in the United States District Court of Northern Ohio, Western Division, on behalf of Midwestern Retailers Association, LTD. against the City of Toledo. Midwestern Retailers Association, LTD. seeks declaratory and equitable relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the City of Toledo, due to their enactment of an ordinance which violates the Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Ohio law.
On December 11, 2007, the Toledo City Council passed Ordinance No. 797-07. The effect of this ordinance is that the Toledo City Council has transferred police responsibilities from the government to private businesses. As a result, a business owner will be held accountable for “problems” that are specifically listed in 721.15, such as, drug-dealing, gambling, and prostitution. However, business owners are not granted authority to take action to personally stop any of these activities. Unless the city of Toledo intends to force business owners to take up arms and dispense vigilante justice, then the most responsible action business owners could take to curb illegal activities on their property would be to notify the police of the activity.
Ordinance No. 797-07 has flouted the law in several ways, such as:
First, 721.04(b)(5) states that “an authorized City official” can request the surveillance video and it must be turned over to the official within eight hours. In this regard, the City of Toledo has created an unconstitutional condition by granting licenses to operate a convenience store on condition that licensees surrender their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. This provision is reminiscent of a “general warrant,” which is specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Second, this ordinance requires licensees to surrender their Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. By releasing surveillance tapes to the city without knowing why the tape is being requested, the business owner could be forced into a direct violation of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Third, a licensee must accept a significant infringement of their Fifth Amendment right to just compensation for regulatory takings.
Fourth, the ordinance transfers numerous law enforcement responsibilities onto licensees, thus creating a condition of involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Finally, provisions of the ordinance are vague and fail to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is actually forbidden by the ordinance, creating the possibility of arbitrary and erratic enforcement.
These enumerated issues represent only a portion of the actual legal problems present in this case. In conclusion, the enactment of this ordinance is well outside the perimeters of the Constitution and should be abolished.
For all counts see the complaint.
For more information visit: ORD-797-07.blogspot.com
Boy, these fellas are bound and determined to get somebody to notice ‘em, aren’t they? Anyone want to offer a guess as to their next “public interest” crusade? A cancer clinic seeking to overturn the smoking ban cuz its cutting into their business? How about a brain damaged motorcyclist who, goddamnit, is *still* against helmet laws? How is it that Jon Stainbrook hasn’t hired these guys yet?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:48 amWell, they are making use of technology to get information out there – not only in release form but by using blogger:
http://trashtax.blogspot.com/
http://ciolekandwicklund.blogspot.com/
April 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pmI’m not sure about how well the 13th Amendment fits… but the others make sense.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:06 pmInvoluntary servitude
April 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pmdefinition of involuntary servitude for those wondering how it might apply.
Yes…I google so you don’t have to
April 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pmThe firm with regards to the trash tax raises some interesting wording of the legislation and interesting mechanics of the legislation.
If one looks at other cities legislation and compares them to here, the differences are quite noticeable and point to a rush to put something in place and not a well thought out plan to deal with the why’s and wherefores.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm