People v. Casa Co.
Before: Lennon
Synopsis
Bed Light Abatement Act—Bights op Property ’Owner—Constitutional Law.—The red light abatement act (Stats. 1913, pp. 20, .22) declaring all buildings and places nuisances wherein or in which act's of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution are held to occur, or which are used for such purposes, and providing for the abatement and prevention of such nuisances by injunction or otherwise, does not violate the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, by depriving a person of Ms property in consequence of misdemeanors committed thereon without his knowledge, connivance, or consent, since every owner of property who leases it or puts another in possession of it owes the public a certain degree of diligence, and proof of the general reputation of the place is sufficient to impute knowledge to him, and furthermore the act does not undertake to provide for a judgment abating the nuisance otherwise than as against persons who are properly joined as defendants in the action, and brought in. by proper process.
Nuisance — Abatement—Lack op Actual Knowledge by Property Owner—Forfeitures.—The suppression of a nuisance is essentially a proceeding in 'rem, operating upon the property used in the maintenance of the nuisance, and while the owner having no actual knowledge of the character of the business carried on in his building might personally be bound for the costs, the building and furniture may nevertheless be proceeded against and subjected to the forfeitures prescribed by the statute.
Abatement Act—Closing op Building por One Year.—The provision of the red light abatement law permitting the building to be closed and kept closed against its use for any purpose for one year unless sooner released in the manner provided by law is not unconstitutional and invalid, as being unduly harsh, unreasonable, and oppressive, and in effect a penalty.
Id.—Contempt—Unnecessary Provision.—The provision of section 6 of the abatement act in regard to punishment for contempt is not a necessary or inseparable part of the act, and may be eliminated therefrom and the remainder of the statute treated as valid.
Id.—Action by Private Citizen—Validity op Act.—The abatement act is not objectionable as special legislation in providing for and permitting the institution and maintenance o£ the action by an individual citizen without a showing that he is especially damaged, since a multiplicity of suits is thereby prevented, and the same being a matter of legislative discretion not reviewable by the courts. Id.—Act not in Nature of Bill of Attainder.—The abatement law is not in the nature of a bill of attainder, since the object' of the law is not to punish, but to effect a reformation of the property, and for the further reason that there is no forfeiture of property. Constitutional Law — Pólice Power.—The fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution does not affect or in any manner curtail the police power of the state, and all owners hold their property subject to such police power and to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority essential to the public safety, comfort, and health.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)