My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE; APPLICATION TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE; APPLICATION TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:17 PM
Creation date
7/21/2010 8:54:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE; APPLICATION TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Date
8/15/1974
Agency
Police
Notes
OPINION 74-30
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
to federal regulation or policy. Leslie Miller, Ii~c. v. Arkansas <br />77 S. Ct. 257 (1956). <br />With respect to the U.S. postal service there have been <br />few court decision on the scope of federal immunity and none <br />directly on point. It is clear that state and local governments <br />cannot apply standards of conduct to postal. employees where the <br />postal service has already set up its own standard to which its <br />employees must conform. Thus a -state law requiring a driver's <br />examination for competancy cannot be applied to postal .drivers, <br />because the postal department has its own competancy standards <br />for drivers. Johnson v. Mar land, 41 S. Ct. 16 (19?.0). <br />In the absence of any conflicting federal standard to <br />,which the postal-employee must conform, the question becomes one <br />of weighing the burden on postal service activities imposed by <br />the state or local law against the importance of the state or <br />local interest which such law seeks to protect. Thus the state <br />or local government may enforce traffic regulations against post <br />office drivers. U.S. v. Hart, Fed. Case No. 15316 (1817); Common- <br />wealth v. Closson, 229 Mass. 329, 118 N. E. 653 (1913), People v. <br />Don Carlos, 47 Cal. App. 2d 863, 117 P. 2d 748 (1941). In such <br />cases, the importance of the local law to the public safety is <br />manifest and the adverse effect on mail delivery is minimal. <br />Moreover, if the objective of the state or local law is <br />of sufficient social importance, the courts may justify a more <br />lengthy detention of the mails. For example, a postal driver <br />may be compelled to submit to state criminal process even in cir- <br />cumstances where this clearly interrupts the performance of his <br />postal duties. U.S. v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 19 L. Ed. 278 (1868); <br />Penny v. Walker, 64 Maine 430 (1874). <br />On the other hand, where the object of the state statute <br />is socially less ~.mportant, the courts are likely to find a deten- <br />tion of the mails unjustified. It has been determined that post- <br />men cannot be compelled to submit to service of civil process <br />during their employment activities. U.S. v. Iiarve~, Fed. Case. <br />No. 15,320 (1845); U.S. v. Bean, Fed. Case No 14550 (1$76). <br />Likewise, the postal service cannot be bound by local Sunday <br />"no-work" laws. Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76 (1809). And <br />mail trains cannot be required by state law to go out of their <br />way to pick up passengers. Illinois Central Ry. v. Illinois, 16 <br />Sup. Ct. 1096 (1896). <br />Applying these principles to the case at hand, the <br />first question is whether the anti-noise standards of the City <br />of Santa Ana conflict in their application and effect with stan- <br />dards established by federal regulation or policy. Insofar as <br />-85- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.