Whitney v. Municipal Court

California Supreme Court Dec 18, 1962 No. S. F. 21120Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the state has preempted the field regarding the criminal regulation of obscene exhibitions, rendering the municipal ordinance in question void and unenforceable. Consequently, a writ of prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a municipal court from proceeding with a trial based on an invalid ordinance.

Issues

Has the state adopted a general scheme for the regulation of the criminal aspects of obscene exhibitions to the exclusion of local regulation?
Is prohibition a proper remedy to restrain a court from proceeding with a trial for a violation of a municipal code section that does not state a public offense?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A local municipal ordinance is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a field which is preempted by the general law.”

“A reading of the above-quoted sections of the Penal Code shows clearly that the state had occupied the field with regard to the criminal aspects of obscene exhibitions.”

“Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a court from proceeding with a trial where it is conceded that the trial court threatens to, and will unless prohibited, proceed with the trial of a defendent on a charge of violating a municipal code”

McCOMB, J.

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.

[909]

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, ante,

pp. 117, 118 [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.

Whitney v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief