Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW City of Santa Ana August 28, 2023 Page 20 which prohibited unmarried persons from "resorting" to various designated locations (including one's personal residence) for the purpose of having sexual intercourse. The court, in an opinion by Justice McComb, determined the sole issue to be whether state law had preempted the local regulation. The court cited numerous provisions of the Penal Code dealing with criminal aspects of sexual activity and declared that they were "so extensive in their scope that they clearly show an intention by the Legislature to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of this subject. Although the Penal Code did not deal with the specific subject matter of the Los Angeles ordinance, the court maintained that "[i]n determining whether the legislature intended to occupy a particular field to the exclusion of all local regulation we may look to the 'whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme' and are not required to find such an intent solely in the language used in the statute." In his concurrence in Lane, Chief Justice Gibson expanded on this theme. In his view, the word "conflict," as used in article XI, section 11 (currently section 7) "is to be given a broad construction; there may be a conflict even though there is no actual grammatical conflict between the statute and the ordinance."9 Further, Chief Justice Gibson felt that the determination would have to be made, not on the basis of any hard and fast rule, but rather on the facts of each case. Thus, even in cases where the legislature was silent on a particular point, other considerations were relevant: "In order to hold that the field has been occupied, it is not necessary that the Legislature has specifically declared the scheme or policy in so many words, and the general intent may be found in a multiplicity of statutes taken together.... One of the factors stressed in the decisions is whether or not the subject calls for uniform treatment throughout the state." See also Comment, The California City versus Preemption by Implication, 17 HASTINGS L. J. 603-618 (1966). Thus, article XI, section 11 of the constitution was a summary characterization of the existing statutory powers, now given constitutional status. It was a direct grant of state police powers to the cities, to be shared with the legislature but not dependent upon it, subject to supersession only by general laws. The government code is a "general law." The city may not transgress it. Professional Fire Fighters (60 Cal. 2d 276, 384 P.2d 158, 32 Cal. Rptr. 830 (1963)) announced the doctrine that general law prevails over local enactments of a chartered city, even in regard to matters which would otherwise be strictly municipal matters, where the subject matter of the general law is of statewide concern. The court followed this position in Healy v. Industrial Accident Commission, in which the compensation provisions of the Labor Code were held to prevail over the city charter's pension provisions. -20-