Do you have a favorite restaurant patio for spring and summer days? We want to know about it.

Nominate your favorite restaurant patios through May 10. The most-nominated restaurants will be in the running for “Best Patio” in our readers’ voter contest held May 11-19 (here are last year’s winners).

RELATED: Our 2023 patio guide.

So what are you waiting for? Tell us where you like to go to get decked out.

Related Articles

Nacho mania: Seven of our favorite plates of chips, cheese and more in the east metro

Ooey, gooey, delicious: Six of the best hot cheese dishes on Twin Cities restaurant menus

St. Paddy’s approaches: Here’s where to find corned beef and cabbage

Check out Allianz Field’s new food items

Detroit-style, Sicilian, Roman: Thick-crust pizza is here to stay. Here’s where to find it.

An 18-year-old Rosemount man now faces an upgraded charge of manslaughter for killing a Vietnam vet with a punch at Harriet Island Regional Park in late January.

Wyatt Daniel Doerfler admitted to police that he punched Thomas Dunne in the face after confronting the 76-year-old in a parking lot on Jan. 28, according to the original juvenile petition filed Jan. 30 and charging the then 17-year-old with first-degree assault causing great bodily harm.

Thomas Dunne, 76, of St. Paul, died Feb. 23, 2024, at Regions Hospital. (Courtesy of Helen Broderick)

At Regions Hospital, Dunne had emergency surgery for “traumatic damage” to his right eye. He had several fractures to both his eye socket and nose. He died Feb. 23 while hospitalized.

The final autopsy report found Dunne died of “probable complications of assault” due to homicide, according to the amended juvenile petition filed Thursday charging Doerfler with first-degree manslaughter while committing fifth-degree assault.

A hearing is scheduled for May 1 to determine whether Doerfler, who turned 18 on March 25, will stand trial as an adult.

Dunne fought two tours in Vietnam as a Marine and went on to serve in the Minnesota National Guard and the Wisconsin Army Reserves. He was a “hero,” his wife, Helen Broderick, told the Pioneer Press four days after his death.

She said they had just finished a walk at the riverfront park.

“For a hero like him to come home to his local park after being at risk in foreign wars,” she said, “and to be assaulted like that …”

‘Yeah, that was me’

Officers were called to the 100 block of Water Street after Broderick reported her husband was punched in the face. Officers found Dunne standing next to his car with blood streaming from his right eye socket. St. Paul fire medics were called to the scene.

Dunne told officers that after he saw a male urinating and took out his phone to take a picture, two other males got out of a blue Ford Fusion. They approached him and tried to take his phone. One of them punched him in the face.

A witness told police she was getting out of her car and saw a male urinating in a pond. She said three males then confronted Dunne and that one of them slapped the phone out of his hand and punched him approximately two times in the face. She said she yelled at them before they walked away, headed east.

Officers saw three males walking east along the river and asked if they were involved in a fight. Doerfler spoke up and said, “Yeah, that was me,” the petition says. He declined to give a formal statement.

One teen told police they confronted Dunne because they believed he was recording them and that he should have “minded his business.”

Related Articles

Woman robbed of dog as she’s pushed down after walk in St. Paul

Blaine man gets 8 months for high-speed St. Anthony crash that injured two

Lakeville eyes new public safety training facility as it gets closer to funding goal

Death of woman at Hugo assisted-living center investigated as homicide

Yia Xiong’s daughter sues St. Paul police over fatal shooting, says officers ‘deliberately ignored’ policy reforms

The third teen said he couldn’t find a public bathroom and began urinating in a pond. Doerfler and the other teen walked over and Doerfler “indicated that (Dunne) was recording or taking a picture of him,” the petition says. “Doerfler then approached (Dunne) and said, ‘Let’s get to it,’ before punching (him).”

Hospital staff told the police investigator that Dunne’s eye injury was “very severe” and that he “may permanently lose most of his vision in that eye, and it would be months before they could tell if there was any improvement.”

Dunne was discharged from Regions on Jan. 29 with instructions to receive follow-up care. Five days later, he was readmitted to Regions due to complications stemming from the injuries he sustained from the assault, the petition says.

Medical records indicate that Dunne had contracted an infection that continued to progress and ultimately led to him being placed on a ventilator on Feb.13.

Born in Ireland

Born in Clonaslee, Ireland, Dunne emigrated to the U.S. at age 2 with his parents and his younger sister. They ended up on Chicago’s far southeast side, where growing up he delivered Chicago Tribune newspapers and graduated from George Washington High School. He then enlisted in the Marine Corps and served two tours in Vietnam as an infantryman. He was a staff sergeant when discharged in 1972.

Dunne moved to St. Paul in 1975. He met Broderick the next year in Ireland and they married five years later.

He re-entered the military in 1984 as a Minnesota National Guardsman, drilling once a month and going away for two weeks every summer, according to a biography he wrote and submitted to Twin Cities PBS’ online project, mnvietnam.org, which records local vets’ stories.

Dunne was recalled to active duty when Desert Storm began in 1991. He later transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve and had assignments in Somalia, Haiti and northern Iraq, where he helped coordinate and implement the evacuation of Kurds.

In 2002, Dunne became the command sergeant major of a Wisconsin Army Reserve battalion that sent most of its troops to war after 9/11, he wrote in his biography. “It was difficult for me as a Vietnam vet to do this as I was very much aware what they were heading into; it would have been much easier to go than stay,” he wrote.

Funeral services for Dunne, who also worked for Ramsey County Public Works for over two decades and retired in 2010, were held last month.

Related Articles

Woman robbed of dog as she’s pushed down after walk in St. Paul

Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction overturned by NY appeals court

Blaine man gets 8 months for high-speed St. Anthony crash that injured two

Yia Xiong’s daughter sues St. Paul police over fatal shooting, says officers ‘deliberately ignored’ policy reforms

St. Paul murder charges: 17-year-old tried to rob marijuana dealer and fatally shot his friend

By WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS (AP Business Writer)

NEW YORK (AP) — Legislation forcing TikTok’s parent company to sell the video-sharing platform or face a ban in the U.S. received President Joe Biden’s official signoff Wednesday. But the newly minted law could be in for an uphill battle in court.

Critics of the sell-or-be-banned ultimatum argue it violates TikTok users’ First Amendment rights. The app’s China-based owner, ByteDance, has already promised to sue, calling the measure unconstitutional.

But a court challenge’s success is not guaranteed. The law’s opponents, which include advocacy organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, maintain that the government hasn’t come close to justifying banning TikTok, while others say national-security claims could still prevail.

For years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok. The U.S. has yet to provide public evidence to support those claims, but political pressures have piled up regardless.

If upheld, legal experts also stress that the law could set a precedent carrying wider ramifications for digital media in the U.S.

Here’s what you need to know.

IS A TIKTOK BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

That’s the central question. TikTok and opponents of the law have argued that a ban would violate First Amendment rights of the social media platform’s 170 million U.S. users.

Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said a TikTok ban would “stifle free expression and restrict public access” to a platform that has become central source for information sharing.

Among key questions will be whether the legislation interferes with the overall content of speech on TikTok, notes Elettra Bietti, an assistant professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, because content-based restrictions meet a higher level of scrutiny.

ByteDance has yet to officially file a lawsuit, but Bietti said she expects the company’s challenge to primarily focus on whether a ban infringes on these wider free-speech rights. Additional litigation involving TikTok’s “commercial actors,” such as businesses and influencers who make their living on the platform, may also arise, she added.

COULD TIKTOK SUCCESSFULLY PREVENT THE BAN IN COURT?

TikTok is expressing confidence about the prospects of its planned challenge.

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” TikTok CEO Shou Chew said in a video response posted to X Wednesday. “The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.”

Related Articles

US growth slowed sharply last quarter to 1.6% pace, reflecting an economy pressured by high rates

Survey: More than 1 in 3 American travelers plan to go into debt for their summer vacations this year

Ryan’s proposed redevelopment of Thomson Reuters site in Eagan moves forward

Is financial trauma holding you back from living your best life?

MPCA fines East Grand Forks sugar plant $350K for air quality violations

Toomey also said that he is optimistic about the possibility of TikTok being able to block the measure in court, noting that both users and the company “have extremely strong” First Amendment claims.

“Many of the calls to completely ban TikTok in the U.S. are about scoring political points and rooted in anti-China sentiment,” Toomey added. “And to date, these steps to ban TikTok had not been remotely supported by concrete public evidence.”

Still, the future of any litigation is hard to predict, especially for this kind of case. And from a legal perspective, it can be difficult to cite political motivations, even if they’re well-documented, as grounds to invalidate a law.

The battle could also string along for some time, with the potential for appeals that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would likely uphold the law due to its current composition, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.

HOW MIGHT THE GOVERNMENT RESPOND TO THE CHALLENGE?

TikTok’s legal challenge won’t go on without a fight. The government will probably respond with national-security claims, which were already cited prominently as the legislation made its way through Congress.

Toomey maintains that the government hasn’t met the high bar required to prove imminent national-security risks, but some other legal experts note that it’s still a strong card to play.

“One of the unfortunate and really frustrating things about national-security legislation (is that) it tends to be a trump card,” Hurwitz said. “Once national-security issues come up, they’re going to carry the day either successfully or not.”

Hurwitz added that he thinks there are legitimate national-security arguments that could be brought up here. National security can be argued because it’s a federal measure, he noted. That sets this scenario apart from previously unsuccessful state-level legislation seeking to ban TikTok, such as in Montana.

But national-security arguments are also vulnerable to questioning as to why TikTok is getting specific scrutiny.

“Personally, I believe that what TikTok does isn’t that different from other companies that are U.S.-based,” Bietti said, pointing to tech giants ranging from Google to Amazon. “The question is, ‘Why ban TikTok and not the activities and the surveillance carried out by other companies in the United States?’”

IF THE LAW IS UPHELD, COULD THERE BE WIDER RAMIFICATIONS?

Still, legal experts note that there could be repercussions beyond TikTok in the future.

The measure was passed as part of a larger $95 billion package that provides aid to Ukraine and Israel. The package also includes a provision that makes it illegal for data brokers to sell or rent “personally identifiable sensitive data” to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or entities in those countries.

That has encountered some pushback, including from the ACLU, which says the language is written too broadly and could sweep in journalists and others who publish personal information.

“There’s real reason to be concerned that the use of this law will not stop with TikTok,” Toomey said. “Looking at that point and the bigger picture, banning TikTok or forcing its sale would be a devastating blow to the U.S. government’s decades of work promoting an open and secure global internet.”