People v. Nguyen
Citation | 222 Cal.App.4th 1168,166 Cal.Rptr.3d 590 |
Decision Date | 23 April 2014 |
Docket Number | G048228 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JeanPierre Cuong NGUYEN, Defendant and Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 136 et seq.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Everett W. Dickey, Judge. Affirmed. ) (Super. Ct. No. 12HM12229 & 30–2012–00621002)
Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Brian F. Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Mark S. Brown, Assistant Public Defender, and Scott Van Camp, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.
The District Attorney appeals from a judgment sustaining defendant JeanPierre Cuong Nguyen's demurrer to a misdemeanor complaint that charged him with violating a local ordinance that prohibits registered sex offenders from entering city parks and recreational facilities without written permission from the city's police chief. The trial court concluded state law preempted prosecution under the local ordinance because the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders to reduce the risk of an offender committing a new offense. We agree. As explained below, we conclude the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender's daily life fully occupies the field and therefore preempts the city's efforts to restrict sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities.
We also conclude state law preempts the ordinance's requirement that sex offenders obtain written permission from the city's police chief before entering a city park and recreational facility. This regulation is simply a de facto registration requirement. But state law has long occupied the area of sex offender registration to the exclusion of local regulation and the city ordinance's written permission requirement amounts to an additional registration requirement imposed on sex offenders who wish to enter city parks. We decline to sever the written permission requirement from the city ordinance. To do so would result in an outright ban on sex offenders entering city parks and recreational facilities. But taking this step would substantially alter the meaning of the city ordinance as originally enacted because nothing in the language of the ordinance or its history suggests the city intended to bar sex offenders under all circumstances from city parks and recreational facilities.
Nguyen is a sex offender required to register with local law enforcement under Penal Code section 290.1 In September 2012, he entered a public park in the City of Irvine without first obtaining written permission from the Irvine Police Chief. After learning of Nguyen's park visit, the District Attorney filed a misdemeanor complaint charging him with violating section 4–14–803 of the City of Irvine Municipal Code (Section 4–14–803). That section states, “Any person who is required to register pursuant to California Penal Code section 290 et seq., where such registration is required by reason of an offense for which the person was convicted and in which a minor was the victim, and who enters upon or into any City park and recreational facility where children regularly gather without written permission from the Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police or his designee is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (§ 4–14–803.) The ordinance broadly defines “City park and recreational facility” as “community parks, neighborhood parks, the Orange County Great Park, open space preserves, trails, including structures thereon, and all other lands and facilities under the ownership, operation or maintenance of the City that are utilized for public park or recreational purposes, whether passive or active.” (Irvine Mun. Code, § 4–14–802.)
Nguyen demurred to the complaint, arguing Section 4–14–803 was invalid because (1) California's comprehensive statutory scheme governing the registration and regulation of sex offenders occupied the field and therefore preempted local ordinances imposing similar requirements; (2) the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the ordinance infringed on Nguyen's fundamental constitutional rights to intrastate travel, free speech, and freedom of association and assembly. The trial court sustained Nguyen's demurrer, finding state law preempted Section 4–14–803 and the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The District Attorney appealed to the Superior Court Appellate Division and requested it certify the appeal for immediate transfer to this court under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1005. The Appellate Division granted the request, explaining it Upon receiving the Appellate Division's certification order, we ordered the appeal transferred to this court.
“ (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1067, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 67, 162 P.3d 583, original italics (O'Connell ).)
Nguyen does not argue Section 4–14–803 either duplicates or contradicts state law nor does he argue state law expressly preempts Section 4–14–803. Instead, Nguyen's primary challenge is that state law impliedly preempts Section 4–14–803 by fully occupying the field it regulates. The state impliedly preempts a field when (American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813 (American Financial ).)
(Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 808, 100 Cal.Rptr. 609, 494 P.2d 681; see also American Financial, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1253, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813 [].) The Legislature's (American Financial, at p. 1252, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 104 P.3d 813.) The test for field preemption or occupation does not focus on the number of statutes involved, but on “whether the nature and extent of the coverage of a field is such that it could be said to display a patterned approach to the subject.” (Baldwin v. County of Tehama (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 166, 182, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 886 (Baldwin ); see also Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 708, 209 Cal.Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 261 (Fisher ).)
For example, in O'Connell, the Supreme Court considered whether state law impliedly preempted a local ordinance requiring an offender to forfeit any vehicle used “ ‘to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance.’ ” (O'Connell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1066, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 67, 162 P.3d 583, italics omitted.) To answer the question, the O'Connell court analyzed the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Health & Saf.Code, § 11000 et seq.; UCSA) as a whole, including its detailed provisions regulating the lawful use and distribution of controlled substances, defining criminal offenses involving the unlawful possession, distribution, and sale of controlled substances, and the penalties for those offenses. The UCSA imposed the penalty of vehicle forfeiture for the sale and distribution of large quantities of controlled substances, but unlike the local ordinance it did not impose vehicle forfeiture as a penalty for purchasing or attempting to purchase small quantities of a controlled substance. (O'Connell, at pp. 1069–1071, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 67, 162 P.3d 583.)
Based on its review of the entire UCSA, the O'Connell court concluded state law impliedly preempted the local...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Wilburn v. Bratcher
- Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Fielding
-
Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Fielding
... ... Measure B § 8. Section 8 states clearly that the people, acting in their legislative capacity, intended any provision and any part of a provision, if invalid or unconstitutional, to be severed from the ... Nguyen, 222 Cal.App.4th 1168, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 609 (2014) (internal [774 F.3d 575] quotation marks omitted). “[Where] the defect ... ...
- Doe #1 v. City Of San Diego