Fischler v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 22, 1965 No. Civ. No. 499Published

Before: Conley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the legislature has the constitutional authority to mandate attendance at a traffic school as a penalty for traffic violations, and such a requirement does not infringe upon constitutional rights to free speech or assembly.

Issues

Whether a court-ordered requirement to attend traffic school violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.
Whether the statutory authorization for traffic school attendance as a penalty for traffic violations is constitutional.
Whether the court's order to attend traffic school is too uncertain to be enforceable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the Legislature had the power to add the penalty of required attendance at a traffic school as a punishment for the violation of certain sections of the California Vehicle Code”

“No one has said that the appellant here has to believe any thing, but the court, pursuant to the express provisions of the Vehicle Code, has the right to require that he attend the school.”

CONLEY, P. J. Albert Fischler was convicted in the Municipal Court of the Newport Beach Judicial District in Orange County on November 13, 1962, of violation of section 21801, subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Code, which then read as follows: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left at an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle which has approached or is approaching the intersection from the opposite direction and which is so close as to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement. ’ ’

He was fined by the judge of the municipal court in the sum of $40, and the court further ordered that he attend traffic school in compliance with the authorization in section 42001 of the Vehicle Code, and that he should file a certification of completion of the school on or before January 7, 1963. That code section provides the amount of the fine or imprisonment for violation of various specified sections of the Vehicle Code, including section 21801, subdivision (a) and it further provides: “In addition to imposing any other punishment authorized by this section, the court may require any person convicted of a misdemeanor described in this section involving a traffic violation to attend a traffic violators’ school for not more than 12 hours for instruction in the operation of a motor vehicle consistent with the provisions of this code.’’

The conviction was affirmed on appeal.

The defendant attended one session of the school and then abandoned all apparent attempts to complete the course, because he thought that his constitutional rights were infringed by the court’s direction with respect to attendance. It appears that the traffic school in question is conducted at the Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa pursuant to the college adult education program. The course comprises four consecutive weekly lectures by Lt. Raymond M. Healey, an officer of the Costa Mesa Police Department; they are given on Wednesday evenings and Saturday mornings and a defendant may designate his preference as to dates. Lt. Healey prepares the course syllabus which is submitted to the Dean of the Adult School of the Orange Coast College for approval, a copy being also [782]presented to the municipal court. It is claimed that Lt. Healey otherwise makes the basic decision as to what to teach in the course and the specific manner of proceeding; he possesses a “D” teaching credential issued as a vocational credential by the State of California.

Fischler v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief