In Re Zorn

381 P.2d 635, 59 Cal. 2d 650, 30 Cal. Rptr. 811, 1963 Cal. LEXIS 196
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 21, 1963
DocketCrim. 7310
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 381 P.2d 635 (In Re Zorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Zorn, 381 P.2d 635, 59 Cal. 2d 650, 30 Cal. Rptr. 811, 1963 Cal. LEXIS 196 (Cal. 1963).

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty by the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles.

Facts: Defendant entered a plea of guilty on July 16, 1962, to violating section 41.27 (a) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, * in that he did wilfully and unlawfully appear in a state of intoxication in a public place open to public view.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine : Mas the state adopted a general scheme for the regulation of the criminal aspects of being intoxicated in a public place?

Yes. A municipal ordinance is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a field that has been preempted by the general law. (In re Koehne, ante, pp. 646, 648 [2] ; [30 Cal.Rptr. 809, 381 P.2d 633]; In re Moss, 58 Cal.2d 117, 118 [2] [23 Cal.Rptr. 361, 373 P.2d 425].)

Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject, the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned. (In re Koehne, supra, at p. 648 [3] ; In re Moss, supra, at p. 118 [3].)

In determining whether the Legislature intended to occupy a particular field to the exclusion of all local regulation, we may look to the “ ‘whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme’ ” and are not required to find such an intent solely in the language used in the statute. (In re Koehne, supra, at p. 648 [4] ; In re Moss, supra, at p. 118 [4].)

At the time of the commission of the alleged offense in the present ease, section 647, subdivision (f), of the Penal Code *652 provided that a person was guilty of a misdemeanor if he was “found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or any drug, or the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug, in such a condition that he is unable to exercise care for his own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or any drug, or the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk or other public way. ’ ’

The language of section 647, subdivision (f), of the Penal Code shows that the state had occupied the field with regard to the criminal aspects of being intoxicated in a public place.

There is likewise no merit in the contention that since petitioner was drunk in a barber shop, it was not a public place, for the reason that “public” has been defined as “ ‘Common to all or many; general; open to common use,’ ” and “ ‘Open to common, or general use, participation, enjoyment, etc.; as, a public place, tax, or meeting.’ ” (Gardner v. Vic Tanny Compton, Inc., 182 Cal.App.2d 506, 510 [4] [6 Cal.Rptr. 490, 87 A.L.R.2d 113] ; In re Koehne, supra, at p. 649 [5] ; cf. Darius v. Apostolos, 68 Colo. 323 [190 P. 510, 511 [2, 3], 10 A.L.R. 986].) Clearly, therefore, under the foregoing definitions a barber shop is a public place. Accordingly, a city ordinance attempting to make certain acts pertaining to intoxication in a public place criminal is in conflict with state law and is void.

Defendant is discharged from custody in the instant action.

Gibson, C.J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Peek, J., concurred.

*

Section 41.27(a) reads: “No person shall be or appear in a state of drunkenness or intoxication upon any public street, sidewalk, highway or alley or in any public park, or in any railroad depot or bus station, or in any public place, or in any place open to the patronage of the public, or in any place open to public view, or in or upon any building or premises or portion thereof which is owned or occupied by any municipality or by any department office thereof, or by any other government or governmental agency or instrumentality, and devoted to any public or governmental use or to the performance of any official business or function, including any premises occupied by the Federal Government but not under the exclusive jurisdiction thereof.”

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

Related

Carcamo v. L.A. County Sheriff's Dept.
California Court of Appeal, 2021
In re T.M. CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2015
State of Iowa v. Patience Paye
865 N.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2015)
In re Jonathan O. CA1/1
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Strider
177 Cal. App. 4th 1393 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
In Re Rk
73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
People v. R.K.
160 Cal. App. 4th 1615 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
People v. Tapia
29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158 (California Court of Appeal, 2005)
Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
674 A.2d 87 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1996)
People v. Jimenez
33 Cal. App. 4th 54 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
People v. White
227 Cal. App. 3d 886 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1988
Cohen v. Board of Supervisors
707 P.2d 840 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino
683 P.2d 1150 (California Supreme Court, 1984)
Gates v. Municipal Court
135 Cal. App. 3d 309 (California Court of Appeal, 1982)
DeMott v. Board of Police Commissioners
122 Cal. App. 3d 296 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Ewap, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
97 Cal. App. 3d 179 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
People v. Perez
64 Cal. App. 3d 297 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Crownover v. Musick
509 P.2d 497 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
Lancaster v. Municipal Court
494 P.2d 681 (California Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 P.2d 635, 59 Cal. 2d 650, 30 Cal. Rptr. 811, 1963 Cal. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zorn-cal-1963.