Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

habeas corpuswillregulationcivil rights
litigationtrialregulationcivil rights

Related Cases

Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d 354, 73 U.S.P.Q. 317
View Case »
Green v. Castle Concrete Co., 181 Colo. 309, 509 P.2d 588, 4 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,365
View Case »
Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera, 70 F.3d 1566, 64 USLW 2341, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,213
View Case »
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 152 L.Ed.2d 517, 54 ERC 1129, 70 USLW 4260, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,627, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3495, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4399, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681
View Case »
Dollander v. Dhaemers, 297 Ill. 274, 130 N.E. 705, 16 A.L.R. 8
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Cox, 3 Cal.3d 205, 474 P.2d 992, 90 Cal.Rptr. 24

Facts

Theodore William Cox was arrested at the Northgate Shopping Center in San Rafael for remaining on the premises after being ordered to leave by a security officer. Cox had entered the shopping center intending to make a purchase and was engaged in conversation with a friend when the security officer intervened. Despite his attempts to explain his presence and intentions, Cox was ultimately arrested after a heated discussion about his right to remain on the property.

In the afternoon of May 21, 1968, petitioner entered the Northgate Shopping Center in San Rafael, California, intending to make a purchase. Upon arrival he saw a friend standing on the sidewalk of the shopping center. Petitioner, on a Honda motorcycle belonging to his father, pulled up to the curb and proceeded to talk with this young man, who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the San Rafael trespass ordinance was preempted by state law, whether it was unconstitutionally vague, and whether it violated Cox's First Amendment rights.

The primary issue raised by petitioner is that the San Rafael ordinance does not bestow upon the shopping center an absolute power arbitrarily to eject him, a would-be customer, from its premises.

Rule

The court applied the principle that local ordinances may coexist with state laws unless the state has fully occupied the field, and that ordinances must not be vague to the point of infringing on constitutional rights.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the act does not sanction any such arbitrary exclusion of a customer, although the center may, of course, establish reasonable regulations for its operation.

Analysis

The court analyzed the San Rafael ordinance in conjunction with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, concluding that the ordinance did not grant the shopping center absolute power to exclude customers arbitrarily. The court found that the ordinance's provisions were not overly broad or vague, as they included exceptions for constitutionally protected speech. The court emphasized that while businesses could establish reasonable regulations, they could not discriminate arbitrarily against customers.

Thus the questions raised and briefed are surely important ones that we should now resolve for the guidance of the trial court in subsequent proceedings in this litigation.

Conclusion

The court denied the writ of habeas corpus and discharged the order to show cause, affirming that the San Rafael ordinance was valid and did not violate Cox's rights.

The writ must be denied, and the order to show cause discharged.

Who won?

The City of San Rafael prevailed in the case because the court upheld the validity of the municipal trespass ordinance and found that it did not infringe upon Cox's constitutional rights.

We therefore conclude that a business generally open to the public may not arbitrarily exclude a would-be customer from its premises and, upon the customer's refusal to leave, subject him to criminal conviction under the San Rafael ordinance as read in conjunction with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

You must be