Stribling v. Mailliard

California Court of Appeal Apr 9, 1970 No. Civ. 26863Published

Before: Devine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacked authority to intervene in the legislative determination of the San Francisco Police Commission regarding the regulation requiring off-duty officers to carry firearms, as the regulation was not facially unreasonable and the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate unconstitutionality. Furthermore, the court held that alleged violations of open-meeting requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act and the city charter did not invalidate the regulation because those provisions were directory rather than mandatory.

Issues

May courts intervene to prevent the enforcement of a police regulation requiring off-duty officers to carry firearms?
Does the failure to comply with open-meeting requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act or the city charter invalidate a regulation?
Did the plaintiffs sufficiently plead facts to show the regulation was unconstitutional or unreasonable?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Courts have nothing to do with the wisdom of laws or regulations, and the legislative power must be upheld unless manifestly abused so as to infringe on constitutional guaranties.”

“The governance of the police department is not for the courts.”

“Violation of a directory statute does not result in invalidity of the action taken.”

Opinion

DEVINE, P. J.

Plaintiffs seek judicial intervention under six causes of action (abatement of nuisance, prevention of waste of city funds, injunction against ultra vires acts, declaratory relief in the matter of a secret enact

[473]

ment, injunction against action allegedly denying due process and equal protection, and declaratory relief in general as to police officers’ duties). Despite the several causes, there is but one essential question: may the courts intervene to prevent the enforcement of regulation No. 7.11.2 of the San Francisco Police Commission, which provides that every officer, when off duty or on duty in civilian dress, shall be equipped with a revolver. Demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint was sustained without leave to amend and the action was dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs state that their standing to challenge the regulation results from the facts that they are black citizens (and one is a taxpayer of the City and County of San Francisco—this fact being related to the “waste of funds” count), and that they and other black persons living in San Francisco have been threatened by armed police officers.

They contend that the regulation requires police officers to carry loaded weapons “in a wide variety of extremely dangerous situations such as when they are drinking, overtired, under medication, in private altercations, are psychologically unstable, upset or hostile, and in crowds,’’ and in other places inappropriate for the presence of such weapons.

Two incidents are cited in the complaint. In one of these an off-duty police officer allegedly waved a revolver and shouted racial epithets at plaintiffs and others. In the other, an off-duty officer allegedly shot at a cat and the bullet, ricocheting, hit a neighbor. This incident plainly is unrelated to the asserted racial aspects of the case. Obviously, no words or gestures toward any person were involved. Nor is it alleged that the officer was carrying the weapon outside his home. The complaint refers, however, to a general situation and says that the incidents “include, without limitation” the two which are described.

The paramount principle in cases of this sort is expressed in

Stribling v. Mailliard

AI Brief

DEVINE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief