Paladini v. Superior Court of San Francisco

California Supreme Court Jun 3, 1918 No. S. F. No. 8697. In Bank.Published

Before: Wilbur

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the state has the authority to regulate the fish industry and inspect business records, the specific order to produce records was overly broad because it was not limited to the petitioners' fish business. Consequently, the court issued a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the overly broad production order.

Issues

Whether the statute authorizing the state market director to fix fish prices and inspect records is constitutional.
Whether the order to produce business records violates constitutional protections against self-incrimination or unreasonable search and seizure.
Whether the order to produce records was sufficiently definite and limited in scope.

Disposition. Writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order and subpoena, however, directs the petitioners herein to produce “the sales records and ledger accounts with your customers covering the period from the 20th of February, 1918, to February 28, 1918.” The order and subpoena are, therefore, entirely too broad, and beyond the jurisdiction of the state market director and of the superior court.”

“By engaging in the fish business and applying for a license therefor petitioners, in effect, consented to the inspection of their books as in the law provided.”

“The proceeding before the state market director is not criminal in its nature, and the order compelling the petitioners to produce their books before the state market director was not in violation of the constitutional provision”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for Writ of Prohibition against the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, and Honorable George A. Sturtevant, Judge of said court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WILBUR, J.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the carrying out of an order of the superior court requiring them to. produce before the respondent, Harris Weinstock, state market director, their ledger and sale account for the week February 20 to 28, 1918, and to prohibit the superior court from punishing petitioners for contempt of court in failing to comply with said order.

[371]

The respondent, Harris Weinstock, as state market director, is attempting to carry out the procedure provided in the law enacted by the legislature of this state in 1917 (Chap. 803, p. 1673, sec. 26), providing for the licensing of fishermen and those who sell fish, and authorizing the state market director to fix ivholesale and retail prices of fish. It is first contended that the statute is unconstitutional and void, as being in violation of section 25, article I, of the constitution. This section reads as follows:

“The people shall have the right to fish upon and from .the public lands of the state and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the state shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this state for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the state; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.”

The petitioners claim that by this section “the people are given the constitutional right to fish in the navigable waters of the state. ’ ’ If there were no such constitutional provision, petitioners state the rule thus: ‘1 The fish belong to the people of the state of California. This is conceded. It must be so, that Avhat they own, they may give away absolutely, or conditionally, with or without reservation.” The rule with reference to the private ownership of fish and game is thus stated in the late case of

In re Frank

Phoedovius, 177 Cal. 238, [170 Pac. 412] : Pish and game “can only become the subject of ownership in a qualified way, and which can never be the subject of commerce except with the consent of the state and subject to conditions which it may deem best to impose for the public good.” (See, also,

Paladini v. Superior Court of San Francisco

AI Brief

Synopsis

WILBUR, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief