Recount Procedures If Necessary In the Redlands City Council Election November 2016

People are asking about the recount procedure in the Redlands City Council Election.

California Elections Code section 15620 et seq. governs recounts requested by voters.  Any voter may file a request for a recount pursuant to Elections Code section 15620.  The request must be filed no later than five days after the completion of the official canvass.  The completion of the canvass occurs when the elections official signs the Certification of  Election Results.  Elections Code section 15620(c).

The request must be in writing, specify the contest to be recounted, and state on behalf of which candidate (in this case), slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed.  Elections Code section 15620(a).  The request may specify the order in which precincts shall be recounted, it may specify the method of counting to be used, and any other relevant material to be examined.  Elections Code sections 15622, 15627, 15630. The choice of method is either a manual recount (as defined in section 15627), or  by means of the voting system used originally. Elections Code sections 15627(a).

When I observed the recount requested in the 2014 31st Congressional District, certain precincts (186 out of 477) thought to have anomalies were requested to be reviewed first in accordance with Elections Code section 15622.  When insufficient results were found, the recount was suspended.

If it is not a statewide measure, as this is not, the request needs to be filed with the county election official responsible for conducting the election, unless the City canvasses their own returns, which is not the case here.  Elections Code section 15620(a).

“Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, any other voter may request the recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request.”  Elections Code section 15623.

The election official will post a notice stating the date and place of the recount at least one day before the recount, and the candidates will be notified by overnight mail or personally.  Elections Code section 15628.

A recount is open to the public, and must start no later than seven days following the receipt of the request and shall be continued daily, except for Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, for no less than six hours a day until completed.  Elections Code sections 15626, 15629.  A manual recount must be conducted under the supervision of the election official by recount boards, (each consisting of four San Bernardino County voters), appointed by the election official.  Elections Code section 15625.

While the recount is public (section 15629), No ballot can be touched “without the express consent of the elections official or the election officer supervising the special recount board.” Elections Code section 15630.

The regulations provide further details about observers and spokespeople:

“(a) Any person may observe the recount proceedings, subject to space limitations of the recount location selected by the elections official pursuant to section 20816.
(b) Upon request by the elections official, each interested party shall appoint one of his or her representatives to serve as a spokesperson authorized to make decisions with respect to the recount on behalf of the interested party, or the interested party may serve as his or her own spokesperson. When accompanied by an elections official or his or her designee, the spokesperson shall have access to all areas where ballots are recounted by hand or tabulated by machine.
(c) Questions other than ballot challenges shall be routed through the spokesperson, who shall then direct the question to the elections official or his or her designee. Official discussions with any interested party concerning resolution of questions shall include each interested party or his or her spokesperson.
(d) The elections official may require any requestor, interested party, representative, or observer of the recount proceedings to log in and receive an identification badge before entering the recount location. If required, identification badges shall be worn at all times and returned to the elections official at the end of the day.
(e) Requestors, interested parties, representatives, and observers shall not interfere in any way with the conduct of the recount, touch any voting system components, ballots, tally sheets or other special recount board materials, sit at the official recount worktables, place any material on the official recount worktables, talk to members of the special recount boards or supervisors while they are processing ballots or other recount materials or assist in recount procedures.
(f) The elections official may deny entry to the recount location to any person who fails to comply with the requirements of this section.” 2 CCR section 20820.

The procedure for challenging a ballot is that the person challenging the ballot states a reason, the person counting the ballot shall “count it as he or she believes proper and then set it aside with a notation as to how it was counted” and the “elections official shall, before the recount is completed, determine whether the challenge is to be allowed. The decision of the elections official is final.” Elections Code section 15631.

The Code of Regulations provides further detail:

“(a) A challenged ballot shall be set aside with a notation indicating the precinct number, the method by which it was originally counted for the official canvass, e.g., direct recording electronic voting system, scanner or hand count, the challenge number assigned to the ballot, the reason for the challenge, and the identity of the person making the challenge.
(1) A ballot that was counted in the official canvass, including a counted vote by mail or provisional ballot, may be challenged only on grounds of disqualifying distinguishing marks or some other grounds visible on the face of the ballot so that the ballot can be isolated and removed from the count if the elections official determines that the ballot was not properly cast.
(2) A voted ballot that was not counted in the official canvass, including a rejected unopened vote by mail or provisional ballot, may be challenged and added to the count if the elections official determines that the ballot was properly cast.
(b) Resolution of challenged ballots shall take place in a segregated area within the recount location, separate from that being used to perform the recount, as determined by the elections official, to avoid confusion and mixing of ballots.
(c) Challenges shall be resolved each day after all special recount boards complete their work, or more often if necessary, as determined by the elections official, but in any event before the conclusion of all recount proceedings. The determination of the elections official on a challenge shall be final. The elections official shall maintain a record of each challenge and the determination on each challenge.” 2 CCR section 20823.

Every vote in every precinct must be recounted, or the results are null and void, and if a different candidate wins, the results of the official canvass will be changed.  Elections Code section 15632.  A copy of the results shall be posted conspicuously in the office of the election official.  Elections Code section 15633.

Manual recounts have this procedure:

“(a) One of the four special recount board members shall read the ballot and call out the vote cast for the contest subject to recount on that ballot; one shall observe that the correct call was made, and two members shall each separately and independently record the votes as called out.
(b) Prior to beginning the actual manual recount, the elections official shall instruct all members of the special recount boards, requestor, interested parties, representatives and observers on the procedures to be followed for the recount and shall provide them with copies of these recount regulations, any local documentation concerning recount procedure, and documentation on how to interpret and read the votes cast on the ballot, consistent with federal and state law and the State Uniform Vote Count Standards. The instructions and documentation shall include a statement that in the event of a challenge, the determination of the elections official shall be final.
(c) Vote by mail and early-voted ballots cast from a precinct subject to recount shall be tabulated separately from ballots cast in a polling place on Election Day.” 2 CCR section 20831.
Since the Redlands Municipal Election was a “vote for multiple” election, if a manual recount is requested, the following procedure applies:
“Manual recount tabulation on a voting system in a “Vote for Multiple” contest is subject to the following requirements:

(a) Prior to counting the ballots for the contest subject to recount, and in the clear view of the requestor, spokespersons and observers, all ballots for the precinct shall be separated into stacks that do and do not contain the contest. Those that contain the contest shall be sorted as follows:
(1) Ballots that were not voted for the contest (under-voted);
(2) Ballots that were over-voted for the contest;
(3) Ballots indicating a vote for the first candidate listed on the ballot for the contest; and
(4) Ballots that do not indicate a vote for the first candidate listed on the ballot for the contest.
(b) Starting with the voted ballots, one member of the special recount board shall state the candidate or position for which the vote was cast making sure the requestor, interested parties and their representatives can observe the contest subject to recount.
(c) After the vote is stated and counted, the counted ballot shall be placed on the table, with the counted ballots placed in stacks of 10 (or 25).
(d) Two members of the special recount board shall record the votes stated, marking hashes in succession on their individual tally sheets. Each of these two board members shall announce when he or she has counted 10 (or 25) votes. If both members call out 10 (or 25) counted votes at the same time, the tally shall continue forward for the next 10 (or 25) ballots. If both recorders do not reach 10 (or 25) additional votes on the same ballot, then the count for the last interval of 10 (or 25) ballots shall be stricken from their tally sheets and those ballots recounted.
(e) A requestor or an authorized spokesperson may request to inspect any ballot. Tallying shall be halted while the ballot is presented to the requestor or spokesperson for closer inspection. At no time may any requestor or spokesperson touch or come into physical contact with any of the ballots. Tallying will resume once the inspection is completed, which the requestor or spokesperson shall complete in a reasonable amount of time.
(f) Once all the votes for the first candidate have been recorded, the valid voted ballots shall be resorted into two stacks:
(1) Ballots that were voted for the second candidate in the contest; and
(2) Ballots that do not indicate a vote for the second candidate in the contest.
The ballots voted for the second candidate shall be calculated in accordance with (b) through (e) above. Tallying shall continue in this manner, until the votes for each candidate in the contest have been recounted and tallied.
(g) After all voted ballots have been counted and tallied, the two special recount board members who have been recording the votes will each independently calculate the total votes for each candidate or position on their tally sheets. When both have completed totaling, they will each announce their totals one candidate or vote position at a time. If both announce the identical vote total for each candidate or position in the recounted contest, the recount of that precinct shall be deemed complete and the results reported to the elections official. If the special recount board members announce different vote totals for any candidate or vote position in the recounted contest, the recount tallies recorded and announced will be examined. If the difference can be explained by the special recount board or supervisor, or by the elections official or his or her designee, it shall be corrected on the tally sheet. A written explanation shall be made on an attachment to the tally sheet. In the event of an unexplained discrepancy, the results for that precinct shall be discarded and the recount of that precinct will start over.” 2 CCR section 20833.

There is a cost associated with a recount, and the amount for this Redlands Municipal Election recount, should it occur, will depend on a variety of factors.  The election official determines the amount of the deposit necessary to cover the costs of the recount for each day.  The voter filling the request must deposit, before the start of the recount and at the beginning of each day, the amounts to cover the cost of each day.  If the results are reversed, the deposit must be returned.  Elections Code section 15624.

How much will the recount be, if one is requested?  San Bernardino County does not give the typical fees, but the Lesli Gooch recount (which was a manual recount) was $6,300 for one day which changed one vote: http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-recount-halted-20140626-story.html

A City Council election in Victorville in 2014 with an 12 vote discrepancy would have cost $4,400 a day.

The estimated cost of a recount in the 8th Congressional District in 2012 was “$11,335 for the first day’s recount. [The requestor] will pay roughly $6,000 for each day after that.”

A 23 vote differential in a Hesperia Unified School District election had an estimated $8,000 per day recount cost. http://www.hesperiastar.com/article/20071119/NEWS/311199993

There is also an automatic manual recount (countywide) established by Election Code section 15360.  By law, a random sample of ballots from every election must be recounted manually to verify the computer count.  A minimum of one percent of all votes cast is included in the process.  This must occur before the election is certified.  The automatic manual recount is open to the public.  A court explained it like this:

“1 percent manual tally” is a procedure used in California to test whether there are any discrepancies between the electronic record generated by a voting machine and what is essentially a manual auditof that electronic record. Essentially, after each election, the “official conducting the election” is to conduct a “public manual tally of the ballots tabulated” by any voting machines “cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the elections official.” (§ 15360.)  Nguyen v. Nguyen (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1636, 1643.

There are court challenges available after the recount, but since the recount in this case is mere speculation, they will be discussed at a later time.

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.

 

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517
      Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Filing Late Government Claims (Tort Claims) in California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Generally government claims for personal injury and personal property damage are due with a public entity within six months of an incident, with some notable exceptions.

However, if a claimant fails to file a government claim within the sixth months, there is a procedure to file a late claim.

(a) When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.

(b) The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.

(c) In computing the one-year period under subdivision (b), the following shall apply:

(1) The time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss as a minor shall be counted, but the time during which he or she is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or conservator of his or her person shall not be counted.

(2) The time shall not be counted during which the person is detained or adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if both of the following conditions exist:

(A) The person is in the custody and control of an agency of the public entity to which a claim is to be presented.

(B) The public entity or its agency having custody and control of the minor is required by statute or other law to make a report of injury, abuse, or neglect to either the juvenile court or the minor’s attorney, and that entity or its agency fails to make this report within the time required by the statute or other enactment, with this time period to commence on the date on which the public entity or its agency becomes aware of the injury, neglect, or abuse. In circumstances where the public entity or its agency makes a late report, the claim period shall be tolled for the period of the delay caused by the failure to make a timely report.

(3) The time shall not be counted during which a minor is adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if the minor is without a guardian ad litem or conservator for purposes of filing civil actions. California Government Code section 911.4.

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.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517
      Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

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.

A: 300 E. State St. #517, Redlands CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

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.”

A: 300 E. State St. #517, Redlands CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

Waldo Willhoft, City Attorney of San Bernardino

This post was originally written in October 2013, but never published.

Last night was the San Bernardino County Bar Association’s Annual Installation & Awards Banquet at the National Orange Show in San Bernardino.  The back of the program has the Past Presidents of the San Bernardino County Bar Association’s Past Presidents from 1875-1913.  Of interest to me was the 1960-1961 President, Waldo Willhoft.

I knew that Waldo Willhoft was City Attorney of San Bernardino for one term, from 1951 to 1955.  In 1955, the Charter was amended to make the City Attorney a full-time position.  Here’s what else I have learned about Waldo Willhoft:

Waldo Willhoft, J.D. ’30, was elected City Attorney of San Bernardino, Calif., by a precedent-shattering write-in campaign, which commenced forty-eight hours before the election last spring and resulted in a write-in vote of 8,642 for Willhoft and 4,659 for the incument [H.R. Griffin].  Mr. Willhoft’s first act upon taking office was to appoint as his Deputy his office associate, A.J. Flory ’48. Both men are continuing in the private practice of law at 415 Andreson Bldg. San Bernardino.

The [University of] Michigan Alumnus, Volume 58, Page 30.

You can see an example of Mr. Willhoft’s stationary in Ordinance 1980, which gives his Andreson Building address.

According to the State Bar of California, his full name was Waldo Oscar Willhoft, he was admitted in June 1931, and his bar number was 12549.  He was born on August 14, 1903 in Nebraska City, Nebraska.   He died on July 11, 1982 in San Bernardino.  His father was Herman Willhoft, a cabitnet maker, and his mother was Marie Vitzikam.

He is buried in Encampment Cemetery in Carbon County Wyoming with his wife, Mildred Parkinson Willhoft, who lived from 1906-1997. According to the 1930 University of Michigan Michaganenesian Yearbook, he received an LLB in Law, he was from Nebraska City, Nebraska, and was a member of the Lawyer’s Club, Sigma Tau Delta and the Michigan Law Review.  After Michigan, he became associated with a fellow Michigan alum, Charles J. O’Conner, Class of 1900 of O’Conner & Findlay in the Arcade Building in Colton.  He wrote a book in 1929 published by Prentice Hall, called Modern Debate Practice and was the former debate coach in Peru, Nebraska.

In 1936, he lived at 1058 North 8th Street in Colton at the Porter Apartments with his wife Mildred. He was listed as the City Attorney of Colton and his office was at 159 North 8th Street in Colton.  By 1949, he had moved to San Bernardino, and lived at 741 24th Street, and worked at 320 North E Street, Room 415.  In other words, he worked in 415 Andreson Building.

Later, Waldo Willhoft served as special counsel for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino regarding the Meadowbrook Project and related litigation (including Andrews v. City of San Bernardino, (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 459). RDA Minutes, June 2, 1960, and as acting Agency counsel, May 3, 1962 and again in 1964 in the absence of William J. Ward, Agency Counsel.

Prior to being elected City Attorney for San Bernardino, Waldo Willhoft was City Attorney for the City of Colton as early as 1934, as seen in the case of American Co. v. City of Lockport (1934) 220 Cal. 548.

 

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

An Update: The Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions in the Proposed San Bernardino Recall 2013

I’m not sure why this was not posted at the time, but for historical interest, here is a post that supposed to appear in 2013.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

San Bernardino Residents For Responsible Government, the political action committee behind the proposed recall,  contacted me today regarding the last post on the Notices of Intention to Circulate Recall Petitions in the Proposed San Bernardino Recall for November 5, 2013.

The Petitions were drafted by Michael L. Allan, a Pasadena attorney.  The decision to use process servers was also his decision.  The rest of the petitions will be released to the public on Monday, as listed on their website.  They say they have not filed the petitions against Wendy McCammack and Rikke Van Johnson yet. San Bernardino Residents For Responsible Government says they are giving the office holders 14 days to respond to the petitions.

Per the Charter of the City of San Bernardino, Section 122:

Within seven (7) days after the filing of the notice of

intention, the officer sought to be recalled may file with the City Clerk an answer in

not more than 500 words to the statement of the proponents and if an answer is

filed, shall serve a copy thereof, personally or by certified mail, on one of the

proponents named in the notice of intention. At the time the proponents publish

the notice and statement referred to above, the officer sought to be recalled may

have the answer published at his/her expense. If the answer is to be published the

officer shall file with the City Clerk at the time the answer is filed a statement

declaring his/her intent that the answer be published. The statement and answer

are intended solely for the information of the voters and no insufficiency in the form

or substance thereof shall affect the validity of the election or proceedings. The

notice and statement as referred to above, and the answer, if it is to be published

shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, as described

in Sections 6000 to 6066 of the Government Code, adjudicated as such.

Seven (7) days after the publication of the notice, statement and answer, if it

is to be published, the recall petition may be circulated and signed.

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.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

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.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517
Redlands, CA 92373-5235
T: (909) 296-6708

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com