Johnson v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 1977 No. Civ. 40650Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statutory scheme for civil protective custody of public inebriates does not violate equal protection when a county facility reaches its maximum capacity, as the legislature intended to encourage rather than mandate universal capacity for such experimental programs. Consequently, individuals apprehended when no space is available in a detoxification facility may be subject to criminal prosecution without violating constitutional rights.

Issues

Does the limitation of a detoxification facility's capacity, resulting in the criminal prosecution of some public inebriates, violate the equal protection clause?
Did the legislature intend to require counties to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all violators of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f)?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no denial of equal protection in such an experiment.”

“We find nothing to indicate a legislative intent that a county which establishes a section 5170 facility must make it large enough to accommodate all such violators.”

“The state is not required “to strike at all evils at the same time””

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

Being intoxicated in a public place is a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)). But when a county has a facility for the care and treatment of inebriacy and alcoholism (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5170), violators of section 647, subdivision (f) have the benefit of a statutory requirement that the peace officer “if he is reasonably able to do so,” shall place the violator in “civil protective custody” and take him to the detoxification facility (§ 647, subd. (ff)). No person who has been placed in such custody shall thereafter be subject to criminal prosecution under the same facts

(id.).

Alameda County has established such a facility at Highland Hospital, but it is of limited capacity, and not infrequently is unable to accommodate all inebriates referred to it. Of the four petitioners, one was taken into custody July 28, 1976, one August 7, one August 17, and one September 7. Each was taken to the police station, where an officer telephoned and was informed that there was no vacant bed in the facility. Each was then booked for violation of section 647, subdivision (f) and arraigned in the municipal court as a misdemeanant. Each filed a demurrer and motion to dismiss, and all were denied. They then petitioned the superior court for writ of prohibition/mandamus to bar further criminal prosecution and to compel dismissal of the complaints. The petition was denied, and petitioners sought like writ here. We issued alternative writ and heard argument.

The People, in their return to the writ, stipulate that none of the three exceptions of section 647, subdivision (ff) apply to any petitioner.

But the program of civil protective custody for inebriates is experimental (see

People

Superior Court (Colon), 29

Cal.App.3d 397, at pp. 400-401 [105 Cal.Rptr. 695]). Section 647, subdivision (ff) applies only to a facility “designated pursuant to Section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,” and the article which contains section 5170 applies only to “those counties wherein the board of supervisors has adopted a resolution” establishing such facilities. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5176.) This limitation does not deny equal protection of the law to inebriates prosecuted under section 647, subdivision (f) in counties

[764]

Johnson v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief