Steven G. Mlnarik, Appellant, v. City of Minnetrista, Respondent. (2010)

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant Steven G. Mlnarik challenges the summary judgment granted to respondent City of Minnetrista, arguing that the impounding of his motorcycle was a violation of his right under the Minnesota Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures.   Because no private right of action for state constitutional violations exists, appellant fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and we affirm the summary judgment.

D E C I S I O N

Respondent's police officer stopped appellant and impounded his motorcycle;  he retrieved it the next day.   He later brought this action, alleging that the impounding violated his right under the Minnesota Constitution to be free from unreasonable seizures.¹  See Minn. Const. art.   I, § 10.   Respondent moved successfully for summary judgment.   In reviewing a summary judgment, this court asks whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.  State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990).

We agree with the district court that “[n]o private cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota constitution has yet been recognized․Therefore,  [appellant]'s complaint fails to state a claim․”  “[T]here is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution.”  Guite v. Wright, 976 F.Supp. 866, 871 (D.Minn.1997), aff'd on other grounds, 147 F.3d 747 (8th Cir.1998);  see also Ben Oehrleins, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 922 F.Supp. 1396, 1400 (D.Minn.1996) (“Minnesota does not recognize a damage remedy for violations of Art. 1, § 7 of the Minnesota Constitution.”), rev'd on other grounds, 115 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir.1997);  Bird v. State Dept. of Pub. Safety, 375 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Minn.App.1985).   It is not the function of this court to establish new causes of action.  Stubbs v. N. Mem'l Med. Ctr., 448 N.W.2d 78, 81 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Jan. 12, 1990).   We see no error in the determination that appellant failed to state a claim or in the summary judgment based on that determination.²

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Because our affirmance renders them moot, we do not address the deficiencies in appellant's appeal, the legality of the impounding of his motorcycle, or the vicarious official immunity claimed by respondent..  FN2. Because our affirmance renders them moot, we do not address the deficiencies in appellant's appeal, the legality of the impounding of his motorcycle, or the vicarious official immunity claimed by respondent.

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge