In the Matter of the Administrative Citation: V19-002353 June 29, 2019 Issued to: Lawrence Johnson.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1313

In the Matter of the Administrative Citation:
V19-002353 June 29, 2019 Issued to: Lawrence Johnson.

Filed May 26, 2020
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

City of Minneapolis
File No. V19-002353

Lawrence Johnson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Erik Nilsson, Interim Minneapolis City Attorney, Joel M. Fussy, Burt Osborne, Assistant
City Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent City of Minneapolis)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and
Florey, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges administrative citations and a civil penalty for harboring pigs in
the City of Minneapolis and interfering with an animal-control worker in violation of city
ordinances. Because substantial evidence supports the citations and civil penalty, w e
affirm.

2
FACTS
On June 29, 2019, Minneapolis Animal Care and Control (animal control) received
a report of three pigs running loose at the Hiawatha Golf Course. A uniformed animal -
control officer, Susan Baker, responded to the call in a marked vehicle . She encountered
relator Lawrence Johnson, a sow, and two piglets at the golf course. As soon as Johnson
saw Officer Baker, he grabbed the sow and threw it into his vehicle. When asked to identify
himself, he declined, told Officer Baker to “[l]eave me alone,” and said, “You’re going to
have to call the police if you want me to cooperate.” He then grabbed a piglet that had run
up to Officer Baker and put it in his vehicle. And he physically prevented Officer Baker
from securing the sow that he released from his vehicle to find the other piglet.
Officer Baker enlisted assistance from another animal -control officer and a
Minneapolis police officer. After the police officer restrained him, Johnson claimed that
he was transporting the pigs to a farm and had merely stopped a t the golf course to allow
them to cool off. Officer Baker cited Johnson for (1) harboring or keeping a hoofed animal
in the city and (2) interfering with city staff “engaged in animal care and control duties or
functions,” in violation of two city ordinances. Officer Baker fined Johnson $200 for each
violation, and impounded the piglet she recovered.
On July 17, police executed a search warrant at Johnson’s Minneapolis home. They
discovered a sow and piglet living in squalor inside what they described as “an extreme
hoarding house.” The house was littered with animal feces and had such a strong odor of
ammonia that it had to be vented before the officers could ent er. Animal control
impounded the sow and piglet.

3
Johnson challenged both the citatio ns and the impoundment of his pigs. At the
combined administrative hearing, the hearing officer received reports and photographs and
heard testimony from the animal -control and police officer s, and Johnson. Johnson
initially testified that he was merely transporting the pigs to a farm outside the city, but he
later stated that the sow was his “support animal” and admitted that the pigs slept inside
his home. The city offered evidence that four “livestock co mplaints” were issued to
Johnson—three in 2017 and one on May 1, 2018—and that some of the se complaints
involved Johnson harboring pigs in the city. The hearing officer credited the evidence
submitted by the city , ordered Johnson to pay a civil penalty of $400 for the ordinance
violations, and directed animal control to retain the pigs.
Johnson seeks certiorari review of the administrative order upholding his citations
and civil penalty.1
D E C I S I O N
A city acts in a quasi -judicial capacity when it investigates a disputed claim and
weighs evidentiary facts, applies the facts to a prescribed standard, and issues a binding
decision. Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Metro. Council, 587 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn.
1999). Because that is what occurred here, and there is no other avenue of review, we
review the decision by certiorari. County of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818
N.W.2d 533, 539 (Minn. 2012). On certiorari review of a quasi-judicial decision, we are

1 Johnson also sought certiorari review of the impoundment order. A special term panel of
this court dismissed that portion of the appeal because Minn. Stat. § 343.235, subd. 3(b)
(2018), provides for district court review of an impoundment order.

4
limited to considering jurisdiction and the regularity of proceedings, and “whether the order
or determination . . . was arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent, under an
erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support i t.” Dietz v. Dodge County,
487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 19 92) (quotation omitted). We do “not retry facts or make
credibility determinations, and . . . will uphold the decision if the lower tribunal furnished
any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.” Staeheli v. City of St. Paul , 732
N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted).
Johnson contends that the evidence does not support the citations. 2 We begin our
analysis by considering the two ordinances at issue. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of
Ordinances (MCO) § 63.120 (2019) provides: “No person shall keep, harbor, or maintain
care, custody, or control over any horse, cow, sheep, pig, or any other hoofed animal any
place in the city. This section shall not prohibit hoofed animals from being transported
expeditiously through the city.” MCO § 62.50 (2019) provides: “No person shall in any
manner molest, hinder, or interfere with [animal control] staff, its agents, any police officer,
or any animal control official engaged in animal care and control duties or functions while
such person is acting in their official capacit y on behalf of the City of Minneapolis.” Our
review of the record persuades us that substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s
decision that Johnson violated both ordinances.
First, substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s determination that Johnson
kept or harbored pigs within the City of Minneapolis. Animal-control and law-enforcement

2 On appeal, Johnson does not contest the amount of the civil penalty.

5
officers observed the pigs in Johnson’s care at the golf course . Johnson explained that he
was simply transporting the pigs through the city; the search of his home demonstrated
otherwise. Not only did officers find a sow and piglet in the home, but the home’s
condition, including the presence of animal feces and urine, suggested that the pigs lived
there. After initially testifying that he was only transporting the pigs through Minneapolis,
Johnson acknowledged the sow was his support animal and stated four times that the pigs
slept inside his home. In the contemporaneous impoundment order,3 the hearing officer
specifically found “not credible” Johnson’s conflicting testimony that the pigs did not live
with him. See Staeheli, 732 N.W.2d at 303 (deferring to administrative decision -maker’s
credibility determinations). And the city had received four livestock complaints, some
involving pigs, against Johnson during the previous two years.
Second, ample evidence supports the hearing officer’s determination that Johnson
interfered with Officer Baker’s efforts to engage in animal -control functions. It is
undisputed that Officer Baker was acting in her capacity as an animal -control officer on
behalf of the city when she arrived at the golf course. Johnson refused to identify himself,
told Officer Baker she would need to call the police to secure his cooperation with her
investigation, and threw one piglet and the sow in to his vehicle to evade her efforts to
impound them. When the police officer arrived, he had to briefly detain and handcuff
Johnson so th at Officer Baker and the other animal -control officer could do their jobs .

3 Johnson correctly points out that the impoundment order mistakenly references the animal
in question as a dog in one instance. This isolated error does not affect the validity of the
separate order at issue here.

6
Johnson asserts that he was not “interfering” with or “hindering” Officer Baker because he
ultimately did not prevent her from impounding one piglet. While this is true, interference
and hindering are premised on actions taken to thwart the officers, not on whether th ose
actions were successful. Johnson’s conduct necessitated a combined response from three
city employees, and went beyond what Johnson characterize d as a mere “disagreement”
with an animal-control officer. On this record, we are satisfied that Johnson interfered with
and hindered the animal -control officers as they carried out their duties in violation of
MCO § 62.50.
Affirmed.