In Re Loretizo

McCOMB, J.

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is

[446]

being illegally restrained of his liberty by the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles.

Facts: Defendant was convicted of violating section 43.12.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, which provides, in part: “It shall be unlawful for any person ... to have in his . . . possession in the City of Los Angeles any writing, memoranda, betting marker, or betting sheet, upon which is recorded any bet or bets or wager or wagers . . . upon the result ... of any . . . contest of skill, speed or power of endurance of man or beast. ...”

There was evidence that written on the palm of one of defendant’s hands was what purported to be a memorandum of certain bets on a horse race.

This is the sole question necessary for us to determine :

Has the state adopted a general scheme for the regulation of the criminal aspects of wagering on horse races, to the exclusion of local regulations?

Yes.

A municipal ordinance is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a field that has been preempted by the general law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 11;

In re Moss,

58 Cal.2d 117, 118 [2] [23 Cal.Rptr. 361, 373 P.2d 425];

Abbott

v.

City of Los Angeles,

53 Cal.2d 674, 682 [3 Cal.Rptr. 158, 349 P.2d 974] ;

Agnew

v.

City of Los

Angeles, 51 Cal.2d 1, 5 [2] [330 P.2d 385].)

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.