ANTI-NOISE ORDINANCE; APPLICATION TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Home Browse Search

to federal regulation or policy. Leslie Miller, Ii~c. v. Arkansas 77 S. Ct. 257 (1956). With respect to the U.S. postal service there have been few court decision on the scope of federal immunity and none directly on point. It is clear that state and local governments cannot apply standards of conduct to postal. employees where the postal service has already set up its own standard to which its employees must conform. Thus a -state law requiring a driver's examination for competancy cannot be applied to postal .drivers, because the postal department has its own competancy standards for drivers. Johnson v. Mar land, 41 S. Ct. 16 (19?.0). In the absence of any conflicting federal standard to ,which the postal-employee must conform, the question becomes one of weighing the burden on postal service activities imposed by the state or local law against the importance of the state or local interest which such law seeks to protect. Thus the state or local government may enforce traffic regulations against post office drivers. U.S. v. Hart, Fed. Case No. 15316 (1817); Common- wealth v. Closson, 229 Mass. 329, 118 N. E. 653 (1913), People v. Don Carlos, 47 Cal. App. 2d 863, 117 P. 2d 748 (1941). In such cases, the importance of the local law to the public safety is manifest and the adverse effect on mail delivery is minimal. Moreover, if the objective of the state or local law is of sufficient social importance, the courts may justify a more lengthy detention of the mails. For example, a postal driver may be compelled to submit to state criminal process even in cir- cumstances where this clearly interrupts the performance of his postal duties. U.S. v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 19 L. Ed. 278 (1868); Penny v. Walker, 64 Maine 430 (1874). On the other hand, where the object of the state statute is socially less ~.mportant, the courts are likely to find a deten- tion of the mails unjustified. It has been determined that post- men cannot be compelled to submit to service of civil process during their employment activities. U.S. v. Iiarve~, Fed. Case. No. 15,320 (1845); U.S. v. Bean, Fed. Case No 14550 (1$76). Likewise, the postal service cannot be bound by local Sunday "no-work" laws. Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76 (1809). And mail trains cannot be required by state law to go out of their way to pick up passengers. Illinois Central Ry. v. Illinois, 16 Sup. Ct. 1096 (1896). Applying these principles to the case at hand, the first question is whether the anti-noise standards of the City of Santa Ana conflict in their application and effect with stan- dards established by federal regulation or policy. Insofar as -85-