In Re Martin

California Court of Appeal Oct 8, 1963 No. Crim. 9354Published

Before: Ashburn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Los Angeles Municipal Code sections requiring a permit to wear a mask in public are unconstitutional and void because they conflict with state law, which has preempted the field of regulating the wearing of masks.

Issues

Whether Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 52.51 and 52.52 are invalid due to state preemption of the field of mask regulation.

Disposition. Petitioner discharged from custody.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

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

“A clear conflict exists in the terms of the enactments now under comparison; it arises directly from their language; and the purpose of the Legislature to occupy the entire field is plainly apparent. Hence the ordinance provision is void.”

ASHBURN, J.

Claiming to be unlawfully restrained by the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles under a charge of violating section 52.51 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, petitioner Martin seeks a release upon habeas corpus.

The contention is that said section is void because the field has been preempted by state legislation.

Sections 52.51 and 52.52 of said Municipal Code read as follows: Section 52.51. “No person shall wear any mask or any other personal disguise, whether complete or partial,' upon any public street, sidewalk or park, without a permit to do so, issued in accordance with section 52.52 of this Code.” Section 52.52. “Any person desiring to wear any mask or' other personal disguise, whether complete or partial, upon any public street, sidewalk or park, shall file a written application with the Board, which application shall state:

“ (a) The name and address of the applicant;

“(b) The purposes for which the permit is desired;

“(c) Any additional facts which may enlighten said Board with respect to the moral character of the applicant and the occasion upon which it is desired to wear such mask or disguise.

“If the Board becomes satisfied that the applicant is a person of good moral character and that the public safety and welfare will not be jeopardized by the granting of said application, a permit shall be granted. No permit issued in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be valid.' for a period of more than thirty (30) days.”

Section 185, Penal Code, which petitioner claims to have occupied the field, says: “It shall be unlawful for any person to wear any mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise (whether complete or partial) for the purpose of:

* ‘ One. Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense.

“Two. Concealment, flight, or escape, when charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, any public offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. ’

’

Section 650a, Penal Code, says: “It is a misdemeanor for any person, either alone or in company with others, to appear on any street or highway, or in other public places or any

In Re Martin

AI Brief

ASHBURN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief