In Re King

California Court of Appeal

In Re King

16 P.2d 694, 128 Cal. App. 27, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 262

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 2, 1932

DocketDocket No. 2294.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 P.2d 694 (In Re King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re King, 16 P.2d 694, 128 Cal. App. 27, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

The petitioner asks to be released through habeas corpus from detention by the chief of police of the city of Los Angeles. She was arrested on a morals charge, examined physically in the usual course by employees of the health department, and it appears that such examination indicated that she was afflicted with a venereal disease. This fact, however, she disputes, has demanded another examination, which has been denied, and refuses to undergo medical treatment. The health department has required her detention in quarantine until such time as she may safely be released. We are of the opinion that *28 the law only requires that there be probable cause to believe that a person so held has an infectious disease which is communicable in order to justify the authorities in retaining such person in quarantine. The person so held may be detained legally until there is sufficient showing that the probable cause no longer exists.

An order has heretofore been made remanding the petitioner and dismissing the writ.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Stephens, J., pro tern., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

The petitioner asks to be released through habeas corpus from detention by the chief of police of the city of Los Angeles. She was arrested on a morals charge, examined physically in the usual course by employees of the health department, and it appears that such examination indicated that she was afflicted with a venereal disease. This fact, however, she disputes, has demanded another examination, which has been denied, and refuses to undergo medical treatment. The health department has required her detention in quarantine until such time as she may safely be released. We are of the opinion that *28 the law only requires that there be probable cause to believe that a person so held has an infectious disease which is communicable in order to justify the authorities in retaining such person in quarantine. The person so held may be detained legally until there is sufficient showing that the probable cause no longer exists.

An order has heretofore been made remanding the petitioner and dismissing the writ.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., and Stephens, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P.2d 694, 128 Cal. App. 27, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-king-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack