Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco

Decision Date18 December 1962
Citation27 Cal.Rptr. 16,377 P.2d 80,58 Cal.2d 907
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 377 P.2d 80 Jerry T. WHITNEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Appellant; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. S. F. 21120.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Arlo E. Smith and Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and appellant and real party in interest.

Kenneth C. Zwerin, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and respondents.

McCOMB, Justice.

Plaintiffs were granted a writ of prohibition by an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, restraining the municipal court from trying them for a violation of the Municipal Code. The appeal is from this order.

Facts: Plaintiffs were charged with a violation of section 741 of chapter 8 (Police Code) of the San Francisco Municipal Code, which provides, in part: 'It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association or corporation to hold, conduct or carry on or to cause, or permit to be held, conducted or carried on, any motion picture exhibition, or entertainment of any sort which is offensive to decency, or which excites vicious or lewd thoughts or acts * * * or which is lewd or obscene or vulgar * * * or so suggestive as to be offensive to the moral sense.'

On arraignment, plaintiffs filed a written demurrer to the complaint, alleging that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. The municipal court overruled the demurrer, and, unless restrained, it will proceed to try plaintiffs.

These are the questions necessary for us to determine:

First. Has the State adopted a general scheme for the regulation of the criminal aspects of a motion picture exhibition or entertainment of any sort which (1) is offensive to decency, (2) excites vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, (3) is lewd or obscene or vulgar, or (4) is so suggestive as to be offensive to the moral sense, and determined, to the exclusion of local regulation, what acts of exposure and exhibition shall be criminal?

Yes.

The Law: A local municipal ordinance is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a field which is preempted by the general law. (Cal.Const., art. XI, § 11; In re Moss, 58 A.C. 116, 117(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 Moss, supra, 58 A.C. at p. 117(3), 23 Cal.Rptr. at p. 362, 373 P.2d at p. 426.)

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 Moss, supra, 58 A.C. at p. 117(4), 23 Cal.Rptr. at p. 362, 373 P.2d at p. 426.)

At the time of the commission of the alleged offense, section 311 of the Penal Code 1 provided, in part: 'Every person who wilfully and lewdly, either: 1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or, 2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose himself or to take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adopted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts; or, 3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, or book; or designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, or otherwise prepares any obscene or indecent picture or print 2; or molds, cuts, casts, or otherwise makes any obscene or indecent figure; or, 4. Writes, composes, or publishes any notice or advertisement of any such writing, paper, book, picture, print or figure; or, 5. Produces, prepares, manufactures, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, exhibits, buys, rents, operates, uses, keeps, or maintains recordings, transcriptions, or mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproductions, or any other articles, equipment, machines, or materials, used or intended to be used in producing or reproducing any lewd or obscene song, ballad, or other words, whether spoken or sung; or, 6. Sings or speaks any lewd or obscene song, ballad, or other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Mandel v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., Alameda County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Octubre 1969
    ... ... Francisco, for appellant ...         Charles C. Marson, Paul N. Halvonik, San Francisco, for ... 6 (Whitney v. Municipal Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 907, 911, 27 Cal.Rptr. 16, 377 P.2d 80; Lambert v. Municipal ... 147, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 the court struck down a conviction under a city ordinance which made it an offense to participate in a parade or procession or other public ... ...
  • People v. Llewellyn
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 6 Octubre 1977
    ... ... Rep. 1649 ... Supreme Court of Michigan ... Oct. 6, 1977 ... Page 903 ... state obscenity statutory scheme with municipal zoning, such as that recently promulgated in ... , 9.303, and 9.305 of the ordinance of the City of East Detroit governing the sale, transmutation ... ] An appeal de novo was taken to the Macomb County Circuit Court, and the jury ... Page 904 ...         In Whitney v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 58 Cal.2d ... ...
  • California Water & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Julio 1967
    ... ... Civ. 29880 ... Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California ... City of Tulare (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 919, 922, 228 P.2d 847.) ... were otherwise one properly characterized as a 'municipal affair.' 17 No exact formula exists upon which to ... For example, in Silva v. City and County of San Francisco (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 784, 198 P.2d 78, the landowner could ... 813, 381 P.2d 637; Whitney v. Municipal Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 907, 27 Cal.Rptr. 16, ... ...
  • Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley Jud. Dist. of El Dorado County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 Junio 1964
    ... ... Ohleyer and Marshall W. Krause, San Francisco, amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant ... (Whitney v. Municipal Court, 58 Cal.2d 907, 27 Cal.Rptr. 16, 377 P.2d 80; Lambert ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT