Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
Decision Date | 18 December 1962 |
Citation | 27 Cal.Rptr. 16,377 P.2d 80,58 Cal.2d 907 |
Court | California 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.
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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mandel v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., Alameda County
... ... 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
... ... 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
... ... 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
... ... 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 ... ...