Supreme Court Digest: Aug. 24, 2022

SUPREME COURT

Civil

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Patrick Chinedu Nwaneri, alleging that Nwaneri had violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by (1) submitting a faulty biometrics application for his client and failing to follow up in any way despite the known importance of biometric information to immigration proceedings, (2) failing to prepare for his client’s removal hearing or to be ready to proceed on his client’s claims for relief from removal, (3) effectively abandoning his client during the removal hearing, and (4) filing a complaint on a separate matter in the United States District Court on the morning of the removal hearing erroneously expecting to get a continuance on the removal matter, despite previous explicit instructions from the immigration court to the contrary. Following a 2-day hearing, the referee concluded that Nwaneri failed to represent his client competently, expeditiously, and with diligence, and that his conduct prejudiced the administration of justice. The referee further found that Nwaneri’s previous discipline, including public discipline, and his substantial experience in immigration matters were aggravating factors. The referee also determined that Nwaneri’s client was particularly vulnerable due to his uncertain legal status and potential to be removed from the country. The referee recommended that Nwaneri be suspended for 90 days, followed by 2 years of supervised probation upon reinstatement.

The Supreme Court held that a 90-day suspension followed by 2 years of supervised probation is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who failed to take necessary steps to prepare for and be ready to proceed with his client’s relief from removal claims in immigration court and effectively abandoned his client during the removal hearing. Suspended.

A21-0547 In re Nwaneri (Original Jurisdiction)

Landlord & Tenant

Rent Limits

This action arose from the lease agreement between appellant tenant and landlord-respondents. Appellant leased and lives in one of respondent’s rent-restricted housing units. She alleged that respondent violated the Minnesota Bond Allocation Act, which imposes rent limits on residential rental projects financed with tax-exempt municipal bonds. The District Court dismissed appellant’s complaint, concluding that she had not alleged a violation of the Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) because tenant alleged that the landlord breached their lease agreement by charging rent in violation of the Minnesota Bond Allocation Act and that the landlord made misleading statements in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Consumer Fraud Act, tenant had standing to assert her common-law and statutory claims even though she could not maintain a separate claim for violation of the Bond Allocation Act, and (2) because the “area fair market rent” limit in Minn. Stat. § 474A.047, subd. 1(a)(2), means the fair market rent figures published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and tenant alleged that landlord charged more than the applicable fair market rent in violation of their lease, the District Court erred in dismissing the tenant’s complaint. Reversed and remanded.

A20-1367 Thompson v. St. Anthony Leased Housing Assoc. II, LP (Court of Appeals)

Municipalities

Police

This appeal requires a determination as to whether the Minneapolis City Charter imposes a clear legal duty on the Minneapolis Mayor and the Minneapolis City Council to employ and fund at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per resident. In the fall of 2020, a group of north Minneapolis residents sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor and City Council to employ and fund this minimum number of officers. The District Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus, concluding that the Minneapolis City Charter creates a clear legal duty to employ and fund 0.0017 officers per resident and that the Mayor and City Council had failed to do so. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the Mayor did not have a clear legal duty to employ a minimum number of officers and that the City Council was satisfying its clear legal duty to fund 0.0017 officers per resident. On June 20, 2022, the Supreme Court filed an order that affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding that the Mayor has a clear legal duty to employ 0.0017 officers per resident and that the City Council was meeting its clear legal duty to fund at least this many officers.

Explaining the reasons for its decision, the Supreme Court held that (1) the Minneapolis City Charter imposes a clear legal duty on the Minneapolis Mayor to employ at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident; (2) the Minneapolis City Council was meeting its uncontested clear legal duty to fund at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident; and (3) because the Mayor has a clear legal duty to employ 0.0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident, the District Court did not err in issuing an alternative writ of mandamus ordering the Mayor to comply with his clear legal duty, but because the City Council was meeting its uncontested clear legal duty to fund at least 0.0017 sworn police officers per Minneapolis resident, the District Court erred in issuing an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the City Council to fund at least this many officers. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A21-0931 Spann v. Minneapolis City Council (Court of Appeals)

Taxation

Education Exemption

The Minnesota Constitution, art. X, § 1, provides that “academies, colleges, universities, [and] all seminaries of learning . . . shall be exempt from taxation.”  This requirement is further codified in Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 5 (2020), which states that “[a]ll academies, colleges, and universities, and all seminaries of learning are exempt [from property taxes].”  Prior decisions concerning the meaning of “seminaries of learning” concerned secondary or postsecondary institutions. Relator, an early childhood education center, petitioned for a property tax exemption, claiming status as a seminary of learning, citing licensure, facilities, programming, and rating by a government administered best practices program as support for its claim. Both relator and respondent county sought summary judgment. The Tax Court denied relator’s summary judgment motion and granted summary judgment to the County,

The Supreme Court held that the Tax Court erred by denying summary judgment to an early childhood center on its claim for a tax exclusion as a “seminar[y] of learning” under Minn. Const., art. X, § 1, and Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 5. The controlling standard is that an institution is an exempt seminary of learning when it has an educational purpose, provides a broad general education, and does so in a thorough and comprehensive manner, and the early childhood center presented uncontroverted evidence of each element. Reversed.

A21-1349 Under the Rainbow Educ. Ctr. v. County of Goodhue (Tax Court)

Taxation

Evidence

The question posed here was whether appellant County, in a property tax trial involving respondent, could use an expert report containing nonpublic data about comparable rental properties to establish the market value of respondent’s office tower. Specifically, a determination was required as to whether “income property assessment data,” which are classified as nonpublic by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, may be used at trial when they are contained within an “assessor’s record”—e.g., an expert appraiser’s report prepared for litigation. The Tax Court interpreted the applicable statutes and found that the Data Practices Act prohibited the County from disclosing the nonpublic data contained within its expert appraisal report. It determined instead that the County could not use the data at trial without first securing the court’s approval through the balancing test for discovery of not public government data dictated by the Data Practices Act.

The Supreme Court held that Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 3, permits “assessor’s records” that contain nonpublic data about comparable income-producing properties to be admitted in full at trial in a property tax dispute. Reversed.

A21-1493 G&I IX OIC LLC v. County of Hennepin (Tax Court)

Criminal

Warrantless Searches

Private Searches

Defendant was charged with four counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors after law enforcement officers discovered digital child pornography files stored in his personal online cloud storage account.  Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless search of his online cloud storage account was unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. The District Court denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded with a stipulated facts trial. The District Court found him guilty. In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, finding that defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his online cloud storage account.

The Supreme Court held that (1) when a defendant moves to suppress the evidence obtained from a warrantless search and the State proves that the private search doctrine applies, the burden to show that the private party was acting on behalf of the government falls on the party seeking suppression of the evidence; (2) the Minnesota Rules of Evidence do not apply with full force during suppression hearings; and (3) the warrantless search of defendant’s personal online cloud storage account did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the search by law enforcement officers did not exceed the scope of the private search performed by an employee of the online cloud storage account company. Affirmed.

A19-1886 State v. Pauli (Court of Appeals)

Orders

Attorney Discipline

Suspension

William T. Anderson was suspended from the practice of law.

ADM05-8001 In re Anderson