MacLeod v. City of Los Altos

• Decision Date: 01 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. 18661,18661
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: George MacLEOD, David S. Nivison, Myra Campbell and Peter Szego, each individually and on behalf of the Los Altos Democratic Council, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ALTOS, Irving L. Atkinson, Donald B. Greenwood, Roy L. Dunnett, Robert A. Prior, Frank Williamson, R. R. Renshaw, and John M. R. Hope, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 326

6 Cal.Rptr. 326

182 Cal.App.2d 364

George MacLEOD, David S. Nivison, Myra Campbell and Peter Szego, each individually and on behalf of the Los Altos Democratic Council, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ALTOS, Irving L. Atkinson, Donald B. Greenwood, Roy L. Dunnett, Robert A. Prior, Frank Williamson, R. R. Renshaw, and John M. R. Hope, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 18661.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

July 1, 1960.

Anthony J. Lagorio, City Atty., Los Altos, for appellants.

MacLeod & Gunn, Palo Alto, for respondents.

DUNIWAY, Justice.

The city of Los Altos and certain of its officials appeal from a judgment entitled 'Permanent Injunction,' by which appellants are enjoined from applying or enforcing, or attempting to apply or enforce, a certain ordinance against plaintiffs. The latter are officers of, and sue on behalf of the Los Altos Democratic Council, a voluntary association affiliated with the Democratic Party, and organized as a nonprofit association for political purposes. The matter was heard on a demurrer to the complaint and a notice of motion (order to show cause) for a preliminary injunction. By consent of the court and the parties, the hearing was converted into one on the merits, and certain stipulations were made for that purpose.

From the pleadings and stipulations the facts appear as follows: The plaintiffs desire to do 'precinct work' and to solicit funds on behalf of the Los Altos Democratic Council and the Democratic Party, and this involves house to house canvassing and solicitation in the city of Los Altos. The city claims that such activities violate its Ordinance No. 18, adopted March 10, 1953, as amended by Ordinance No. 88, of January 17, 1956, and Ordinance No. 151, of April 1, 1958. It is stipulated that the city will not attempt to prevent the distribution of literature or the visiting of homes for the purposes of political discussion or persuasion, but that it will attempt to enforce the ordinance against plaintiffs if they undertake, in the course of such visiting, to solicit funds.

On October 2, 1956, and on August 6, 1957, plaintiffs asked the City Council for permission to solicit, which was refused. No further application for a permit to solicit has been made to the City Council, and no application for a permit was made to the Chief Administrative Officer following the amendment to the ordinance of April 1, 1958.

The court wrote an opinion in which it held (1) that the ordinance does not apply to plaintiffs and (2) that if it does apply, it is unconstitutional. Since we agree with the court that the ordinance does not apply to plaintiffs, we refrain from discussing the constitutional question. We should not undertake to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance unless it is necessary to the decision of the case to do so. Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66, 195 P.2d 1.

We agree with Judge Owens' reasoning as to the construction of the ordinance, and adopt portions of his opinion relating to that question: 'In order to consider adequately these contentions, it is necessary first to advert to the ordinance itself. The ordinance known as Ordinance No. 18 was enacted by the city of Los Altos on March 10, 1953 and is entitled 'An Ordinance Regulating the Practice of Soliciting of Business within the City of Los Altos Including Door-to-Door Sales and Fixing Penalties for the Violation and Provision for the Enforcement Thereof.' The Sections of this ordinance as enacted on March 10, 1953 and which are pertinent hereto are as follows:

'Section 1: Subject to Section 8 hereafter, the practice of being in and upon private residences in the City of Los Altos, California, by solicitors, peddlers, hawkers, itinerant merchants and transient vendors of merchandise for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale or goods, wares and merchandise and/or for the purpose of disposing of and/or peddling or hawking the same is hereby declared to be a nuisance and punishable as such nuisance as a misdemeanor.

'Section 8: This Section of the Ordinance provides that any person convicted of or perpetrating a nuisance as described and prohibited herein or any person practicing unlawfully the solicitation of business as provided herein without having obtained a permit therefor and paid the license fees as required herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not less than $25.00 or more than $300.00 or imprisonment for not less than 5 days or more than 30 days in the Santa Clara County Jail or by both such fine and imprisonment.

'Section 9: This last Section reads as follows: Nothing in this ordinance contained shall prohibit or prevent the City Council of the City of Los Altos from granting a permit for any form of solicitation to any person or entity for a non-profit and community, or recreational, or religious, or charitable, or educational, or similar purpose, and deemed in the interest and welfare of the City of Los Altos and the residents thereof.

'This ordinance was subsequently amended on January 17, 1956 as indicated above but only in immaterial particulars. The ordinance was further amended on April 1, 1958. This amendment of April 1, 1958 referred solely to Section 9 as quoted above and amended Section 9 in these particulars: First, it transferred from the City Council to the City's Chief Administrative Officer the authority to grant or to withhold a permit. Second, it required the applicant for a permit to file an application form setting forth various detailed items of information * * *. Third, the Chief Administrative Officer thereafter shall issue the permit whenever he finds certain facts to exist * * *.

'I. Is the ordinance applicable by its terms to the plaintiffs in their proposed activity? The ordinance in question is frequently referred to as a 'Green River' ordinance due to the fact that the first of its type was enacted in the City of Green River. Its intended purpose as appears from the preamble of the ordinance as quoted above is to regulate the practice of door-to-door solicitation of business for the purpose of soliciting orders for the sale of goods wares and merchandise and of disposing of or peddling or hawking the same. * * * It will be noted, however, that the only prohibitory language of the ordinance even as amended is that contained in Section 1 quoted above and that the prohibition therein expressly contained is limited to solicitation for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise. These are the acts which are expressly declared to constitute nuisances and punishable as misdemeanors if indulged in without first obtaining a permit and for which the penalty of Section 8 is imposed of either...