A Minnesota state appeals court delivered a victory to the National Football League (NFL) and the Minnesota Vikings by reversing the order of a lower court, which prevented the Vikings from blocking the entry of armed, off-duty police officers in its stadium.
At odds in the case was the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003 (PPA), Minn. Stat. § 624.714 (2014) and the NFL’s recently passed Firearms and Weapons Policy (the policy), which provides that firearms are strictly prohibited within NFL facilities, including stadiums.
When passed, the NFL’s new policy did not sit well with several Minnesota police organizations, which filed a lawsuit against the league alleging that the policy violates state laws by infringing on the right of off-duty cops to carry weapons.
The plaintiffs, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA) and Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, claimed that the new NFL policy increased risk to the public. “By prohibiting licensed police officers from maintaining possession of their service weapon, the National Football League not only violates the law, but places the public and law enforcement at unnecessary risk while impairing the legal status of police officers, the very people willing to put their lives on the line to protect the public every day,” Dennis Flaherty, executive director of MPPOA, said in a statement.
The NFL disagreed, noting that it believes that the public is best served by the on-duty officers that are assigned to protect and serve during the game and that the need to use deadly force inside a stadium is highly unlikely.
“On average, more than 500 civilian security personnel and 150 on-duty local, state and federal law enforcement officers are assigned to every NFL game,” said the NFL’s Chief Security Officer Jeffery Miller. “Off-duty officers haven’t received special training on working in a stadium and are generally unknown to the officers assigned to the game.”
Nevertheless, the MPPOA and the Federation sued, alleging that the NFL’s policy “violates Minnesota law, particularly Minn. Stat. § 624.714,” and sought a declaration that the policy “violates Minnesota law and is unenforceable at any stadium in Minnesota.” They also sought injunctive relief to preclude the NFL and the Vikings from enforcing the policy.
The NFL and the Vikings moved to dismiss the complaint, and respondents cross-moved for declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief, seeking a declaration that the NFL policy “violates Minn. Stat. § 624.714 and is unenforceable at any stadium in Minnesota.” The district court denied the NFL and the Vikings’ motion to dismiss and granted declaratory judgment against the NFL and the Vikings to respondents. The court declared that the PPA precludes property owners from excluding armed off-duty officers but determined that injunctive relief was not yet warranted.
The NFL and the Vikings appealed.
“The issue raised in this appeal is whether the PPA impacts appellants’ ability to exclude from Vikings games off-duty licensed peace officers who are carrying firearms,” wrote the appeals court. “We initially observe two underlying premises on which the parties appear to agree. First, respondents contend, and appellants do not dispute, that off-duty peace officers are authorized to carry firearms without a permit under Minnesota and/or federal law, subject to varying departmental policies governing individual officers. Second, appellants contend, and respondents do not dispute, that they have a common-law right, as property owners, to exclude armed off-duty officers. Neither of these underlying premises is within the scope of our review in this appeal, and we assume without deciding that the parties are correct in their contentions.
“Turning our attention to the issue that is properly before us, we begin, as we must, with the plain language of the PPA. The interpretation and construction of a statute raises an issue of law subject to de novo review. Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn. 2012).
“By its express language, the PPA is limited to governing the rights of persons, ‘other than . . . peace officers’ to obtain permits and carry firearms and the rights of private-property owners to exclude those carrying firearms under a permit. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subds. 1(a) (emphasis added), 17(a).”
The appeals court continued, noting that “the only reasonable interpretation of the statutory language is that the PPA does not apply to active licensed peace officers, in any way. It neither adds to nor subtracts from the rights of such officers to carry firearms or the rights of private-property owners to exclude those officers.
“Because the language of the PPA is clear and free from ambiguity, we are required to apply it as written, and we may not resort to principles of statutory construction. See City of Brainerd, 827 N.W.2d at 755. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred by applying principles of construction to conclude that the PPA prevents private-property owners from excluding armed off-duty officers.”
The appeals court added that its decision “should not be construed as holding that appellants have the right to exclude from Minnesota stadiums off-duty peace officers who are carrying firearms. We merely hold that any such right is not governed by the PPA. Other provisions of state or federal law may apply.
“ … Because the district court erred by concluding that the NFL policy violates the PPA, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to respondents. Appellants urge this court to direct the entry of judgment in their favor. But, although we have determined that the PPA is inapplicable, it is unclear from the record whether there are other theories within the scope of the pleadings that remain to be adjudicated. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, et al. v. National Football League, et al ; Ct. App. Minn.; A15-0317, 2015 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 817; 8/17/15
Attorneys of Record: (for respondents) Cort C. Holten, Jeffrey D. Bores, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (for appellants) Daniel J. Connolly, Bruce Jones, Aaron D. Van Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
