Can You Go to Jail for Not Getting a Building Permit?

Building a structure without a permit (with exceptions on the meaning of structure under the California Building Code) is a misdemeanor in most California local entities. Usually, the punishment for a misdemeanor under most municipal codes includes jail time. Let me choose two California cities at random: Sacramento and El Cajon to illustrate this point:

Sacramento Municipal Code section 

1.28.020 Criminal sanctions—Misdemeanors and infractions.

1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code, including any administrative order issued hereunder. Any person violating any of the provisions, or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this code, including an administrative order, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, except where it has been provided by state law or this code that the violator shall be guilty of an infraction. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment; provided that violations of Chapter 13.10 of this code regarding unlawful dumping shall be punishable by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment.

El Cajon Municipal Code:

1.24.010 Designated violations-Misdemeanors and infractions.

A.    It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. A violation of any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code shall constitute a misdemeanor except that notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, any such violation constituting a misdemeanor under this code may, in the discretion of the attorney having prosecutorial functions, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction; and with the further exception that any violation of the provisions relating to parking, operation of bicycles, operation of motor vehicles, and use of freeways, highways and streets by animals, bicycles, motor vehicles or pedestrians shall constitute an infraction.

B.     Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this code, unless provision is otherwise made in this code, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment.

So, in both of these randomly chosen California cities, punishment of a misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both.

So, do people go to jail for building without a building permit?  Probably not.  In the linked case, in the news today, the sentence was 200 hours community service, three years informal probation, and $14,191 in restitution, with an additional restitution hearing set.

That case involved a celebrity (or at least celebrity-adjacent) and a solid lawyer.  But perhaps the notoriety of the case informed its outcome (meaning the prosecutor was a little more zealous). And still, no jail time.

Copyright 2017 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

      Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

E: mreiter@mblklaw.org

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Neighbors, Google Maps and Disputes

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I have been involved in a number of neighbor disputes, long-running and costly.  But this is a new one.

You should definitely click on the article, but a neighbor in Washington State mowed the shortened form of an expletive in his grass with an arrow towards his neighbor so that it would appear on aerial photography.

What laws does this violate?  I cannot think of any off-hand.

Can anyone think of any legal reason that the neighbor cannot do this? I’m not sure it would violate any sign code on earth, and if a code enforcement entity tried to enforce it, it would run up pretty hard against the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Reply in comments if you have any thoughts on the subject.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2014 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

http://colehuber.com

Governor Brown Signs Brown Lawn Bill By Assembly Member Brown

By Michael Reiter Attorney at Law

You may have seen the articles about the new California law that permits dead lawns during the drought. Here is the text of AB1, introduced by Assembly Member Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino):

ENROLLED   JUNE 29, 2015

PASSED  IN  SENATE  JUNE 22, 2015

PASSED  IN  ASSEMBLY  JUNE 25, 2015

AMENDED  IN  SENATE  JUNE 16, 2015

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL

No. 1

---

Introduced by Assembly Member Brown (Coauthor: Senator Nielsen)

December 01, 2014

---

An act to add Section 8627.7 to the Government Code, relating to water.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1, Brown. Drought: local governments: fines.

The California Constitution requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented. Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, sets forth the emergency powers of the Governor under its provisions and empowers the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency for certain conditions, including drought.

This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county from imposing a fine under any ordinance for a failure to water a lawn or having a brown lawn during a period for which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency based on drought conditions.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: no   Local Program: no  

---

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:

(a) That this act is in furtherance of the policy contained in Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.

(b) The prohibition on imposing fines for failing to water a lawn or for having a brown lawn during a period for which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency based on drought conditions is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 2 of this act shall apply to charter cities.

SEC. 2.

Section 8627.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:

8627.7.

(a) During a period for which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency under this chapter based on drought conditions, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a fine under any ordinance for a failure to water a lawn or for having a brown lawn.

(b) A violation of this section is not subject to the criminal penalties set forth in Section 8665.

What does this mean?  It means that cities, counties, and the state’s only City and County (San Francisco) cannot impose a fine under existing property maintenance ordinances during the drought. The Senate Floor analysis expressly states this applies to charter cities:

 Apply to charter cities because the prohibition of fines imposed for

failing to water a lawn or having a brown lawn during a period for which the

Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency based on

drought conditions is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal

affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California

Constitution.

It passed the Assembly by a vote of 80-0  on June 25, 2015. The bill passed the California Senate by a vote of 37 Yes, 0 No, and 3 No Votes Recorded (Senators Hall, Morrell and Pavley). Senator Isidore Hall III is a Democrat representing the South Bay of Los Angeles (35th District), Senator Mike Morrell is a Republican serving the 23rd Senatorial District including Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and San Bernardino, and Senator Fran Pavley is a Democrat representing 27th District representing parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

The legislative history tells us which cities were seen by Assembly Member Brown as the most egregious violators:

From the Assembly Floor Analysis June 24, 2015:

In the most severe situation provided by the author, a homeowner in the City of Upland faced

misdemeanor charges for “failing to follow city code, and properly maintaining his front yard

and parkway space,” according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, stemming from the

homeowner’s decision to stop watering his lawn in August of 2013.  As of January 2015, that

homeowner planned to go to trial, and faced, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,

up to $4,000 in fines, or six months in jail.  The homeowner was offered a deal several times

to reduce the amount of the fine if he corrected the issue, but he opted instead to go to trial.

Assembly Member Brown also singled out the cities of Glendale and San Bernardino.

In a nightmare for municipal lawyers trying to find this section for years in the future, this law was placed in Title 2 (Government of the State of California), Division 1 (General), Chapter 7 (California Emergency Services Act), Article 13 (State of Emergency). I understand why (because it deals with the declaration of the drought emergency), but it probably would have been more visible elsewhere.

The Senate Analysis states supporters “argue that this bill is straight-forward and provides a

common sense measure to ensure households are not penalized for conserving water.”

What will a defense to an administrative citation or criminal citation for unmaintained landscaping look like?  Hopefully, local public entities will voluntarily stop citing brown lawns during the drought.  However, if they don’t, a criminal demurrer, or an appeal of an administrative citation should do the trick.

Copyright 2015 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Code Enforcement Gone Wild

I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands. Along with another Deputy, I advised what was then the Code Enforcement Department in San Bernardino.  The City of Redlands had different code enforcement issues than the City of San Bernardino, but code enforcement was an important part of my job in Redlands.

We were not on the leading edge in San Bernardino (everything we did was pioneered at larger cities), but we tried to employ as many code enforcement tools as possible. We were never successfully sued in a code enforcement case while I was there.

However, now that I represent citizens, I see all kind of ticky-tack things that other entities do.  Here is an article from the Salt Lake Tribune

“Ogden tells dad to take down his kids’ cardboard castle because it’s ‘junk'”

Now, this is in Utah, but most cities and counties in California have a similar ordinance that prohibits junk, trash, and debris in your front yard.  However, just because it’s technically illegal doesn’t mean that the City should cite for it.

Looking at the link from the story, this is the City of Ogden ordinance:

12-4-2: WASTE MATERIALS OR JUNK; PROHIBITED ON PREMISES:

A. Prohibition: It is unlawful for any owner, occupant, agent or lessee of real property within the city, to allow, cause or permit the following material or objects to be in or upon any yard, garden, lawn, or outdoor premises of such property:

1. Junk or salvage material;

2. Litter;

3. Any abandoned vehicle or inoperable vehicle.

In California, our ordinances tend not to be as vague as this code section.

Does a cardboard castle even qualify as “junk” or “litter?” If it were in California and I were reviewing a notice (which I believe I did sometimes in Redlands) or a citation (in San Bernardino), I would probably turn it down.

As I teach code enforcement officers in training, just because something can be cited doesn’t mean it should be.

I think the reaction by the resident was the right course of action.

“Had he not received the letter, he was planning on taking the castle down soon anyway. But after receiving it, he now plans to keep it up until just before the penalty.”

Copyright 2015 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

The use of Dr. for People who have earned JDs

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

You may have read the stories in the local press about the President of San Bernardino Valley College using “Dr.” before her name.  As of today, the page linked above is titled “Meet the President of SBVC, Dr. Gloria Fisher.”

The controversy is that the doctorate comes in the form of a juris doctor degree from a California accredited law school.

What does the world think of using Dr. for those with juris doctor degrees?

JDs are the primary degree for graduates of law school in the United States at this time. You will sometimes see people who went to law school, but are not licensed used it at the end of their name, for example, John Smith, JD.  In fact, on the page linked above, the note is signed, “Sincerely, Gloria M. Fisher, J.D. [,] President”

A good overview of a non-legal perspective on the issue is from this blog post from the Economist.

A good argument is made in a post from the legal blog “Above the Law”: Any Lawyer Who Calls Himself ‘Doctor’ Like a Ph.D. Should Get Punched In The Mouth”

I am a part-time instructor of code enforcement law at Santiago Canyon College.  I get paid more with a juris doctor degree (which is treated like an MA), but I assure you I have never, and will never, use Dr. before my name

‘The use of the term “Esquire” is another topic (briefly discussed in the Above the Law post) for another day.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Copyright 2014 Michael Reiter

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

More On Constitutionalist Nonsense

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

One of the more relatively popular posts on this website is this post on  Constitutionalists.

From time to time, I run across them in either my Code Enforcement or my Civil Rights practices.

However, I don’t wish to debate the issues.  If you have a code enforcement issue, you must realize that the government has police powers to deal with code enforcement issues. The police powers are in the California Constitution:

“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) Often referred to as the “police power,” this constitutional authority of counties and cities to adopt local ordinances was described by the Supreme Court in Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District (1985) 29 Cal.3d 878, 885, as having the following broad scope

“Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. Apart from this limitation, the police power of a county or city under this provision is as broad as the police power exercisable by the legislature itself.” 85 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 21 (2002).

This is not up for debate. 

That does not mean that the police powers are unlimited. In particular, code enforcement often does not follow the law, whether it is the City’s own processes in the municipal code, a charter provision, California law when applicable, or the California or United States Constitution.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2014 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Leaving Your Keys In the Ignition In Your Car In San Bernardino: It’s Against the Law Part Two

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I wrote the original Leaving Your Keys In the Ignition In Your Car In San Bernardino: It’s Against the Law article, I did not have the benefit of an article from the San Bernardino Sun.  Here’s the ordinance, which is still in force:

10.16.140 Removal of ignition key.
A. It is unlawful for any person having charge or control of a motor vehicle to allow
such vehicle to stand upon any street, alley or parking lot upon which there is
no attendant, when such motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the
ignition of the vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.
B. Any person convicted under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
nor more than two dollars; and such person shall not be granted probation by
the court, nor shall the court suspend the execution of the sentence imposed
upon such person.
(Ord. MC-460, 5-13-85; Ord.3880 §2 (part), 1980; Ord.2613,1964; Ord. 1652 Art. 4 §14, 1941.)

A story in the San Bernardino Daily Sun on April 20, 1955, Page 13, gives some background to the crime problem in San Bernardino about 15 years after it was already adopted.  The article had a photograph and was headlined “S.B. 20-30 Club Seeks To Reduce Car Thefts.”

Members of 20-30 Club No. 3 have taken on the project of helping to reduce car thefts in San Bernardino.

Hundreds of motorists Saturday will find yellow cardboard key replicas under their windshield wipers with a warning that “keys in the car” is a direct invitation to auto thieves.

“The project is one of the many efforts of the 20-30 Club to help in building a better community,” said Lloyd E. Harmon, second vice president and project chairman.

Club officers pointed to recent statistics indicating that 55 per cent of juvenile crimes in the theft of cars are aided and abetted by persons leaving their keys in cars.

Copyright 2014 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Abusive Code Enforcement

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

I have begun to notice a pattern in complaints about code enforcement agencies lately.

One is that certain cities (especially large charter cities) have changed their opinions regarding what they want out of code enforcement. They used to want to use code enforcement tools to eliminate blight and come into compliance.  Now, it seems that many cities want to generate revenue from code enforcement instead of compliance.

The second pattern is that code enforcement is abusing their discretion.  In order to make money, little infractions become major code enforcement violations.  Dormant trees in the winter become unmaintained landscaping. A burnt patch of summer grass becomes lack of landscaping.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2013 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Assemblymember Cheryl Brown introduces AB 801 (2013) to deal with copper theft.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Assemblymember Cheryl R. Brown introduced AB 801 four days ago, which strengthens the law regarding the theft of copper.  When I was an in-house municipal lawyer, particularly in Redlands, the theft of copper, including things like plaques from City parks was a big problem.  This bill is an attempt to further deal with this issue.  The bill is attempting to amend Business and Professions Code section 21608.5.

BILL NUMBER: AB 801	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Brown

                        FEBRUARY 21, 2013

   An act to amend Section 21608.5 of the Business and Professions
Code, relating to business.

	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   AB 801, as introduced, Brown. Junk dealers and recyclers:
nonferrous materials.
   Existing law requires junk dealers and recyclers, as defined, to
maintain written records of all sales and purchases made in the
course of their business, and makes a violation of the recordkeeping
requirements a misdemeanor. Existing law prohibits a junk dealer or
recycler from providing payment for nonferrous material, as defined,
unless the payment is made by cash or check, the check is mailed or
the cash or check is provided no earlier than 3 days after the date
of sale, and the dealer or recycler obtains a photograph or video of
the seller and certain other identifying information, as specified,
which information is to be retained by the dealer or recycler, as
part of the written record of purchases, for a specified period of
time.
   This bill would require junk dealers and recyclers to obtain
specified information before providing payment for nonferrous
materials marked with an indicia of ownership, as defined, and would
require that this information be retained as part of the written
record of purchases. Because a violation of the recordkeeping
requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 21608.5 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
   21608.5.  (a) A junk dealer or recycler in this state shall not
provide payment for nonferrous material unless, in addition to
meeting the written record requirements of Sections 21605 and 21606,
all of the following requirements are met:
   (1) The payment for the material is made by cash or check. The
check may be mailed to the seller at the address provided pursuant to
paragraph (3) or the cash or check may be collected by the seller
from the junk dealer or recycler on or after the third business day
after the date of sale.
   (2) At the time of sale, the junk dealer or recycler obtains a
clear photograph or video of the seller.
   (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the junk dealer or
recycler obtains a copy of the valid driver's license of the seller
containing a photograph and an address of the seller, a copy of a
state or federal government-issued identification card containing a
photograph and an address of the seller, a passport from any other
country in addition to another item of identification bearing an
address of the seller, or a Matricula Consular in addition to another
item of identification bearing an address of the seller.
   (B) If the seller prefers to have the check for the material
mailed to an alternative address, other than a post office box, the
junk dealer or recycler shall obtain a copy of a driver's license or
identification card described in subparagraph (A), and a gas or
electric utility bill addressed to the seller at that alternative
address with a payment due date no more than two months prior to the
date of sale. For purposes of this paragraph, "alternative address"
means an address that is different from the address appearing on the
seller's driver's license or identification card.
   (4) The junk dealer or recycler obtains a clear photograph or
video of the nonferrous material being purchased.
   (5) The junk dealer or recycler shall preserve the information
obtained pursuant to this subdivision for a period of two years after
the date of sale.
   (6) (A) The junk dealer or recycler obtains a thumbprint of the
seller, as prescribed by the Department of Justice. The junk dealer
or recycler shall keep this thumbprint with the information obtained
under this subdivision and shall preserve the thumbprint in either
hardcopy or electronic format for a period of two years after the
date of sale.
   (B) Inspection or seizure of the thumbprint shall only be
performed by a peace officer acting within the scope of his or her
authority in response to a criminal search warrant signed by a
magistrate and served on the junk dealer or recycler by the peace
officer. Probable cause for the issuance of that warrant must be
based upon a theft specifically involving the transaction for which
the thumbprint was given. 
   (7) If the materials are marked with an indicia of ownership, the
junk dealer or recycler obtains a proof of ownership record,
including, but not limited to, a receipt from the indicated owner or
a bill of lading, from the person selling or delivering the materials
that shows that person has lawful possession or ownership of the
materials. Copies of these documents shall be maintained by the junk
dealer or recycler as part of the written record of the transaction.

   (b) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall not apply if, during
any three-month period commencing on or after the effective date of
this section, the junk dealer or recycler completes five or more
separate transactions per month, on five or more separate days per
month, with the seller and, in order for paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) to continue to be inapplicable, the seller must continue to
complete five or more separate transactions per month with the junk
dealer or recycler.
   (c) This section shall not apply if, on the date of sale, the junk
dealer or recycler has on file or receives all of the following
information:
   (1) The name, physical business address, and business telephone
number of the seller's business.
   (2) The business license number or tax identification number of
the seller's business.
   (3) A copy of the valid driver's license of the person delivering
the nonferrous material on behalf of the seller to the junk dealer or
the recycler.
   (d) (1) This section shall not apply to the purchase of nonferrous
material having a value of not more than twenty dollars ($20) in a
single transaction, when the majority of the transaction is for the
redemption of beverage containers under the California Beverage
Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, as set forth in
Division 12.1 (commencing with Section 14500) of the Public Resources
Code.
   (2) Materials made of copper or copper alloys shall not be
purchased under this subdivision.
   (e) This section shall not apply to coin dealers or to automobile
dismantlers, as defined in Section 220 of the Vehicle Code.
   (f) For the purposes of this section,  "nonferrous
  the following te   rms have the following
meanings:  
   (1) "Indicia of ownership" means words, symbols, or registered
trademarks printed, stamped, etched, attached, or otherwise displayed
on the exterior surface of the materials that reasonably identify
the owner. 
   (2)     "Nonferrous  material" means
copper, copper alloys, stainless steel, or aluminum, but does not
include beverage containers, as defined in Section 14505 of the
Public Resources Code, that are subject to a redemption payment
pursuant to Section 14560 of the Public Resources Code.
   (g) This section is intended to occupy the entire field of law
related to junk dealer or recycler transactions involving nonferrous
material. However, a city or county ordinance, or a city and county
ordinance, relating to the subject matter of this section is not in
conflict with this section if the ordinance is passed by a two-thirds
vote and it can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
that the ordinance is both necessary and addresses a unique problem
within and specific to the jurisdiction of the ordinance that cannot
effectively be addressed under this section.
  SEC. 2.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Leaving Your Keys In the Ignition In Your Car In San Bernardino: It’s Against the Law (and you’ll be fined $2 before P&As).

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I never once saw this section enforced, with its circa 1964 $2 fine:

10.16.140 Removal of ignition key.
A. It is unlawful for any person having charge or control of a motor vehicle to allow
such vehicle to stand upon any street, alley or parking lot upon which there is
no attendant, when such motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the
ignition of the vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.
B. Any person convicted under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less
nor more than two dollars; and such person shall not be granted probation by
the court, nor shall the court suspend the execution of the sentence imposed
upon such person.
(Ord. MC-460, 5-13-85; Ord.3880 §2 (part), 1980; Ord.2613,1964; Ord. 1652 Art. 4 §14, 1941.)

What’s the background on this law?

First, the 1941 ordinance, Ordinance 1652 is available online.  The ordinance repeals a variety of ordinances and adopts an overarching scheme for regulating traffic in the City of San Bernardino. Difficulty?  Article 4 has no section 14.  Another added difficulty, is that I didn’t see any similar language anywhere in the text of the ordinance. However, the language (especially the two dollars) sounds archaic.

The Municipal Code annotation is incorrect, because the section does not come from Ordinance 1652 as originally adopted.  Ordinance 2613 from 1964 amended Ordinance 1652 by adding section 14.  There is no legislative history or findings in the ordinance itself (and there are no minutes online), which reads in pertinent part:

 SECTION FOURTEEN: No person having charge or control of a
motor vehicle shall allow such vehicle to stand upon any street,
alley or parking lot upon which there is no attendant, when such
motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the ignition
of said vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.
Any person convicted under this Section shall be punished
by a fine of not less nor more than Two Dollars ($ 2. 00); and such
person shall not be granted probation by the Court, nor shall the
Court suspend the execution of the sentence imposed upon such
person.

Ordinance 3880 (November 20, 1979) (not 1980 as shown in the annotations), Section 2 amended Section 14 to be titled SECTION FOURTEEN: Removal of Ignition Key.

The ordinance was codified in 1980, I believe, but I have not seen that ordinance.  It divided it into section (a) and (b), capitalization was changed, as was the reference to ($2.00) in section (b).

MC-460, Section 120, enacted May 15, 1985, amended the codified version, 10.16.140(a) to read:

A. It is unlawful for any person having charge or control of a motor vehicle to allow
such vehicle to stand upon any street, alley or parking lot upon which there is
no attendant, when such motor vehicle is unattended, without first locking the
ignition of the vehicle and removing the ignition key from such vehicle.

The backup from the City Attorney’s Office included removing archaic laws, but apparently, section B remained.

Item 7i on the July 2, 2012 agenda included a re-adoption of this section as part of a cleanup regarding reorganized departments, however, upon watching the video of that meeting (there does not appear to be minutes available online), it was tabled on a 7-0 motion by Council Member Wendy J. McCammack because of the need for further reorganization by the City Manager.

Copyright 2013 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com