In Re Hitchcock

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 1917 No. Crim. No. 678.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the regulation of private patrol services within a city is a 'municipal affair' under the California Constitution, meaning local ordinances governing such services prevail over conflicting state statutes. Furthermore, the court found the ordinance did not grant arbitrary power to city officials and was not preempted by the petitioner's status as a deputy constable.

Issues

Whether the regulation of a private patrol service within a city constitutes a 'municipal affair' exempt from conflicting state law.
Whether the city ordinance improperly delegates arbitrary power to the city council and chief of police.
Whether the ordinance is inapplicable to the petitioner due to his status as a licensed private detective or deputy constable.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the establishment of a private patrol service or system over a designated area within the corporate limits of the city of Oakland is essentially within the definition of a municipal affair.”

“the said provisions of said act must yield to the superior control of the municipality over the subject, for the reason that, as we have seen, it is strictly a municipal affair.”

“We perceive no arbitrary grant of power to the council in these provisions”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

RICHARDS, J.

Application for writ of

habeas corpus.

The petitioner was arrested upon the charge of having violated the terms of a certain ordinance of the city of Oakland adopted by the council of said city on January 19, 1917, designated as Ordinance No. 1132, N. S., by engaging in the business of conducting, maintaining, and soliciting business for a patrol service or system without first obtaining a permit so to do from the council of said city of Oakland in conformity with the requirements of said ordinance.

The petitioner makes several assaults upon the applicability of the ordinance to him and upon its general validity, which will require a brief statement of the terms of the ordinance for their consideration.

The ordinance purports by its title to be an ordinance regulating the granting of permits to conduct or maintain any patrol service or system in the city of Oakland, fixing a license therefor, and providing a penalty for violations thereof. In the body of the ordinance the terms “patrol service” and “patrol system” are defined to be any service or system which

[113]

purports to furnish to members or subscribers for a consideration or otherwise any watchman or guard, either uniformed or otherwise, to patrol any district in the city of Oakland, or to guard or watch any property therein, or to perform any service usually or customarily performed by the regular patrolmen of the police department of the city of Oakland. It is made unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, either as principal or agent, to engage in the business of conducting or maintaining or soliciting business for any such patrol service or system without first obtaining a permit from the council of said city so to do; such permit to be obtained by an application in writing to the council, which application shall be referred to the chief of police, who shall make an investigation concerning the character of the applicant and the condition of police protection prevailing within the designated district, and report thereon to the council, which shall have power to grant or deny the applicant permission to engage in such business, but which permission shall be granted unless it shall appear from the report of the chief of police that the applicant is not a person of good moral character, especially in the qualities of honesty and integrity, or that the designated district is already supplied with sufficient or ample police protection by the city or by a patrol service or system or by both. A license fee of one hundred dollars per annum is required from the holder of permission for the conduct of such patrol service or system under the terms of said ordinance.

In Re Hitchcock

AI Brief

Synopsis

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief