Wirin v. Parker

• Decision Date: 06 August 1957
• Citation: 48 Cal.2d 890,313 P.2d 844
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: A. L. WIRIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William H. PARKER, as Chief of Police, etc., Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 24053.

Page 844

313 P.2d 844

48 Cal.2d 890

A. L. WIRIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William H. PARKER, as Chief of Police, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

L. A. 24053.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Aug. 6, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1957.

A. L. Wirin, in pro. per., Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, and Nathan L. Schoichet, Beverly Hills, for appellant.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., and Bourke Jones, Alan G. Campbell and James A. Doherty, Asst. City Attys., and Ralph J. Eubank, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

Plaintiff, a resident citizen taxpayer of the City of Los Angeles, brought this action against defendant as Chief of Police of the city to enjoin the alleged illegal expenditure of public funds to conduct police surveillance by means of concealed microphones. Code Civ.Proc. § 526a. Pursuant to stipulation the matter was submitted on the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff contends that undisputed facts found by the trial court establish his right to injunctive relief. The trial court found that 'Since his appointment and qualification as Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, the defendant in such capacity has authorized and directed the installation, maintenance or use of dictograph equipment reqular salaried police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, but only when in his sole discretion such use and installation has been necessary in the performance of their duties in detecting crime and in the apprehension of criminals. In so doing defendant has acted in good faith and has in good faith believed that he was acting in the lawful discharge of his official duties.' Acts authorized by defendant have 'embraced the following: 1. The concealment by a police officer in the place concerned of a microphone, or other sound transmission device, in such manner that it may receive sounds within the range of its capabilities. 2. The provision of means whereby sounds received by such miscrophones are transmitted to a place where a police officer may and does hear and record such sounds. The defendant has not authorized or directed any dictograph installation, nor has any police officer of the City of Los Angeles, acting pursuant to the authorization or direction of defendant, installed, maintained or used any dictograph installation, except where the defendant and such officers had at all times reasonable cause to believe that persons under surveillance by such means had committed crimes or planned and intended the commission of crimes, or that information thus obtained would aid in the detection or prevention of crime, or that information thus obtained would assist in the apprehension of fugitives or other criminals. In one or more of such instances, but not in all of them, the installation, maintenance or use of dictographs by regular salaried police officers * * *, pursuant to the authorization and direction of the defendant, have been in a house, apartment, room, office, store, bar, jail cell, or other place of occupancy, either without the consent, knowledge, permission or authority of some person having a property interest in such property or place, or without the knowledge, consent, permission or authority of some person present during such installation, or during such maintenance or during such use. The installation, maintenance and use of dictographs by without the knowledge, consent, permission or authority of each such person has been effected only where the defendant and such police officers, acting pursuant to the authorization or direction of defendant, believed in good faith and upon probable cause that knowledge of the surveillance on the part of such person would destroy the value and purpose of such installation.' The court also found that dictograph surveillance as authorized and directed by defendant was necessary for the prevention or punishment of certain felonies and misdemeanors, and that although funds 'of the City of Los Angeles have been expended by defendant to defray the cost of the equipment and of the personnel time' involved, the 'amount of such expenditures is neither large nor substantial, and the use of such means of necessary surveillance reduces the cost of the police work involved below what would be required in efforts to achieve similar purposes by other means. As of July 2, 1952, the date on which the answer of the defendant to the amended complaint was filed, the defendant was continuing, and proposed and intended thereafter to continue, the authorization and direction of such uses of sound transmission equipment by regular salaried police officers of the City of Los Angeles when the installation, maintenance and use of such equipment should be necessary in his sole discretion in the performance of the duties of the defendant and of such officers in preventing and detecting crime and in the apprehension of criminals. * * * There is no threatened or actual irreparable injury to the plaintiff or to any other taxpayer, or to the general public of the City of Los Angeles, by any substantial waste of funds of the said city in connection with the installation, maintenance or use of dictograph equipment as described herein. There is no impending or threatened injury to the plaintiff or to any taxpayer or to the general public of the City of Los Angeles by reason of any future or threatened authorization in such connection by the defendant or by reason of any future or threatened installation, maintenance or use of dictograph equipment by any police officer of the Los Angeles Police department acting pursuant to such future or threatened authorization.'

It is clear from the finding that 'In one or more of such instances, but not in all of them, the installation, maintenance or use of dictographs by regular salaried police officers * * *, have been in a house, apartment, room, office, store, bar, jail cell, or other place of occupancy, either without the consent, knowledge, permission or authority of some person having a property interest in such property or place, or without the knowledge, consent, permission or authority of some person present during such installation, or during such maintenance or during such use,' that defendant has authorized and directed dictograph surveillance in violation of the provisions of the United States Constitution (4th and 14th Amendments) and the California Constitution (art. I, § 19; Irvine v. People of State of California, 347 U.S. 128, 74 S.Ct. 381, 98 L.Ed. 561; People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905; People v. Tarantino, 45 Cal.2d 590, 290 P.2d 505), and that as of July 2, 1952, he intended to continue so doing. Moreover, it appears from his answer and evidence before the trial court that at least before the decision in the Irvine case in 1954, defendant took the position that all of his activities in this respect were lawful, and he candidly alleged in his answer that the consent of the 'owner, occupant, or lessee of the premises' upon which installations were made was not sought or obtained 'when there is reason to believe that * * * knowledge on the part of such person may or will destroy the value of an installation as an aid in the apprehension of criminals and the prevention or detection of crime.'

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 526a, provides that plaintiff may maintain an action to restain the expenditure of public funds for illegal purposes. It is immaterial that the amount of the illegal expenditures is small or that the illegal procedures actually permit a saving of tax funds. Mines v. Del Valle, 201 Cal. 273, 279-280, 257 P. 530; Crowe v. Boyle, 184 Cal. 117, 121, 193 P. 111; Osburn v. Stone, 170 Cal. 480, 484, 150 P. 367; Santa Rosa Lighting Co. v. Woodward, 119 Cal. 30, 34, 50 P. 1025; Barry v. Goad, 89 Cal. 215, 222-223, 26 P. 785; Winn v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 631, 637, 25 P. 968; Terry v. Bender, 143 Cal.App.2d 198, 208, 300 P.2d 119; Trickey v. City of Long Beach, 101 Cal.App.2d 871, 881, 226 P.2d 694; Wirin v. Horrall, 85 Cal.App.2d 497, 504-506, 193 P.2d 470; Brown v. Boyd, 33 Cal.App.2d 416, 418, 91 P.2d 926; see Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 271, 276, 253 P.2d 464. It is elementary that public...