I could make it if work isn't too busy that Fri nite, or I'll be beat...crap, that nite = fri the 13th, lol.


Red

This is incorrect. All hotels, motels, Bed & Breakfast's are under the innkeepes laws.

This is the Minnesota State Statute that they can use to have you removed. Please note line #4.

327.73 UNDESIRABLE GUESTS; EJECTION OF, AND REFUSAL TO ADMIT.
Subdivision 1. Innkeeper's right to eject. (a) An innkeeper may remove or cause to be
removed from a hotel a guest or other person who:
(1) refuses or is unable to pay for accommodations or services;
(2) while on the premises of the hotel acts in an obviously intoxicated or disorderly manner,
destroys or threatens to destroy hotel property, or causes or threatens to cause a disturbance;
(3) the innkeeper reasonably believes is using the premises for the unlawful possession or use
of controlled substances by the person in violation of chapter 152, or using the premises for the
consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of 21 years in violation of section 340A.503;
(4) the innkeeper reasonably believes has brought property into the hotel that may be
dangerous to other persons, such as firearms or explosives;
(5) violates any federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, or rules relating to the hotel; or
(6) violates a rule of the hotel that is clearly and conspicuously posted at or near the front
desk and on the inside of the entrance door of every guest room.
(b) If the guest has paid in advance, the innkeeper shall tender to the guest any unused
portion of the advance payment at the time of removal.

MN PD Hopeful welcome to the forum.

Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I could be 100% wrong. This isn't legal advice, just speculation by a non-lawyer.

First, this is clearly a section that ideally should have been updated in the MCPPA of 2003 or 2005 to avoid this kind of uncertainty.

Oh, well, you can't catch everything.

Still, there is some doubt. The two statutes seem to be in conflict.

In 2003, the following language was added to 624.714:


327.73 was last updated in 1993, ten years earlier.

Under the rules of construction, specifically the "last in time" deference canon, when two statutes are in conflict, the courts must favor the more recent law.

So we're left with this: Is an innkeeper a "landlord" under 624.714? Maybe, maybe not. Some court cases in other jurisdictions have distinguished between the two, and ruled on substantive issues based on whether the relationship was landlord-tenant or innkeeper-guest.

But there is no definition of "landlord" in 624.714, though, and thus by the textual canon of "plain meaning," ("The legislature intended to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses"), a landlord could very well mean (American Heritage Dictionary)

Were the court to conclude as I have, they would have to invalidate the innkeeper statute.

I think, on reflection, that this ought to be tested by getting a sympathetic innkeeper to kick out an armed cop spending the night. That would get the issue cleared up quickly.

As long as the cop doesn't accidentally shoot his weapon through the walls of his room.

Actually if an actively licensed peace officer is on the property, the hotel couldn't kick out the officer. According to the FAQ on the Minnesota DPS's website question #20 asks.

"Can active licensed officers carry in private establishments?

Yes, active licensed peace officers, or security guards acting in the course and scope of employment, may carry firearms in private establishments."


Also, under the innkeeper laws, an innkeeper is not a landlord. The distinct difference is the definition section of 327.70. The key difference is the term "transient occupancy".

327.70 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purposes of sections 327.70 to 327.76, the terms defined in
this section have the meanings given them.

Subd. 2. Guest. "Guest" means a person who is registered at a hotel and to whom a bedroom
is assigned. The term "guest" includes members of the guest's family who accompany the guest.

Subd. 3. Hotel. "Hotel" means a hotel, motel, resort, boarding house, bed and breakfast, furnished apartment house or other building, which is kept, used or advertised as, or held out to the public to be, a place where sleeping or housekeeping accommodations are supplied for pay to guests for transient occupancy.

Subd. 4. Innkeeper. "Innkeeper" means an owner or operator of a hotel.

Subd. 5. Transient occupancy. "Transient occupancy" means occupancy when it is the intention of the parties that the occupancy will be temporary. There is a rebuttable presumption that, if the unit occupied is the sole residence of the guest, the occupancy is not transient. There is a rebuttable presumption that, if the unit occupied is not the sole residence of the guest, the occupancy is transient.

How DARE you suffer from the same sluggish response and inadvertent double posts the rest of us do. how dare YOU, sir!?

Welcome to the growing pains.

First, a FAQ is not law.

Second, the carry law (624.714) contains an exclusion only to the posting requirement for police officers.


The carry law has an exception for police officers. The innkeeper law does not.



Get out the Venn diagram kit. Just because an innkeeper is an innkeeper doesn't mean that he is not also a landlord under 624.714. That's why I said "maybe, maybe not."

Judges can conclude anything, but there is a good legal argument to be made that the innkeeper law has been superseded.

it's still posted...was there for work last week...what's funny about that posting is that I was there for work last November (2006) and I couldn't find a parking spot there because the lot was full of marked and unmarked squads. it looked as though it was a vendor seminar for LE...funny that they chose Northland...hmmmmm...Northland = Pro LE...but Anti CCW?