Loading...
Resolution No. 2889 ; till 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2889 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON, URGING THE $'l"ATE LEGISLATURE TO AOOPl'LEGISLATlVE PROPOSALS TO STEM '.3 THE '~$1'tOWING CRIn RATE. 4 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 5 WHEREAS, under date of December 29, 1966, Evelle J. 6 Youager, District Attoraey of Los Aageles County, has cC)DIDlunicated 7 his legislative proPQsals to the City of Veraon,aDd 8 WHEREAS, the Cit~ Council of ~he Citrof VernoD is 9 desirous of the state Legislature adoptiag such propesals, 10 NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.: 11 SECTION '1: That the City Council of the City of VerDOn. 12 does hereby find that the legislative proposals dated July 5, 1966, 13aad proposed by Evelle J. Younger, District AttorBey of the Coullty 14 of Los Angeles, are desirous and will aid in the steDUl.iag of th, 15 growing criDle.rat~h 16 SECTION 2: That th' City Council of the' City ,of Vernon. 17 hereby urges the California Stat. Legislature toe.act statutes as 18 suggested by the above described letter and legislative proposals 19 of Evelle J. Younger, District .Attorney of .the County of Los 20 Angeles. 21 SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Ver:aoD. 22 shall certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon aDd 23 thereafter the same shall be in. full force aDd effect. 24 ADOPTED aBd APPROVED this 7th day of February, 1967. 25 26 27 28 29 C.../' A~CitY Clerk 30 31 32 1. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 , .. lit . 'f _", 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) '.3 4 It F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk of the City of ~er.on, do 5 hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 6 2889, was duly adopted by the City Couacil of theCi ty of VerDon, 7 and approved by the Mayor of said City, at a regular meeting of 8 the City CouDcil, which meetiag was held on February 7, 1967. "'~ditY Clerk 30 2. 600 HALL OF JUSTICE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 RECEIVED' 2-":<1 "/-C ~ r:lTy I VIER - CLERK COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY EVELLE..I, YOUNGER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY February 17, 1967 City Council City of Vernon City Hall 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California Attention: F.A. Ziemer, City Clerk I am deeply grateful for the action you have taken in regard to our legislative program. It is significant that so many officials in high office have seen the need for a more militant war on crime. Your action assures me that you believe in doing con- crete things to afford our citizens the service and protection they deserve from law enforcement. Sincerely, mgw 600 HALL OF JUSTICE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 RECEIVEf'"' 2 -..:< J U /-C --;;---.-' ~ > r. A. Z~M . .9ITy c' ~ cf? '-c-F?K COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY EVELlE..J. YOUNGER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY February 17, 1967 City Council City of Vernon City Hall 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California Attention: F.A. Ziemer, City Clerk I am deeply grateful for the action you have taken in regard to our legislative program. It is significant that so many officials in high office have seen the need for a more militant war on crime. Your action assures me that you believe in doing con- crete things to afford our citizens the service and protection they deserve from law enforcement. Sincerely, mgw i I U ec: Police Chief City Attorney CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA February.S. 1967 Honorab Ie Lawrence E.. Walsh Senator from the 30th District State Capitol sacr_ento. Californla9S8l4 Dear S1r: Enclosed you.,ill find acertifled copy of Re.olutionNo.. 2889 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCILor THE CITY OF VlRNOB URGING THE STAtE LEGISLAtURE to ADOn LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO STEM tHE GRCWING CRIKE RATE,whieh was adopted by the City Council at its meeeing held February 7, 1967. Yours very truly J F.. A. Ziemer, City Clerk PAZ: 11. enc. cc: Police Chief City Attorney CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA February 8" 1967 l( n, \-::::JJ' Mr. Daniel J .Creeoon Room 811" El Mi%'ador Hotel Sacramento, California 95814 J Dear Sir: Enclosed you wtllfind a eertif.i.ed copy<of Re.olut.lon No. 2889 - A. RESOLUTION. OF THE CIn COUNCIL or THE CITY. OF . VERNON URGI.NG THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO STEM THE GRa.1.1NG CaD-tE RATE. which was adopted by the City Council at lte meeting held February 7. 1967. Yours very truly, F. A. Ziemer, CltyClerk FAZ:11. enc. u cc: Police Chief City Attorney CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA February 8, 1967 Honorable Floyd L.Wakefield A$semblyman fJ:Qmthe S2nd District State Capit.ol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Sir: Enclosed yo~will .find a certified copy of aelOlutlon No. 2889 ... A RESOLUTION OF THE CrrY COUNCILor THE CITY Of VD:NOI URCINGTHE STATE LEGISLA'l'UlU:. TO .ADOPT.LECIS.LATIVI PROPOSALS TO STEM THE GR,<J.1ING CRIME lATE. which was adopted by the City . Council ..tits me.tins held February 7, 1967. You!."" very truly ~ FAZ: 11. ene'. F. A. Ziemft, CIty Clerk cc: Police Chief City Attorney CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA FebrUa'ty.8, 1967 County of Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney 600 Hall of Justice Los Angel.. ,Caltfornta90012 Attention: Mr. BvelleJ. Younger Dlstrlct Attorney Gentlemen: In accordance with your communication dated.Dec_ber.. 29, 1966,enelosed youwil1 find a certified copy of R.esol11tlon No. 2889 ...A RESOur.rION OF THE. CmCOUN'CIL or THE CITY OFVJERNON URGING. TRESTATE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT LEGISLATIVE PllOPOSALS TOS'tEM Till!:. GR~ING CRIMI RATE, which wa.adopted by tn. City Council at it. meeting held 'ebruery7, 1967. Copies of thisr.solut.ion will beeran_it.tad to,ourrepre- sentatives in the Stat. Legislature. Yout's very truly, F .A. Ziemer, City Clerk FAZ:ll. ene. ~ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY RECELVED ~~'7 E. A. ZIEMER ClrY CLERK . 600 HALL OF JUSTICE LOS ANGELES, CAL,IFORNIA 90012 EVELLE J. YOUNGER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY .JAN 17 1961 December 29, 1966 City Council City of Vernon City Hall 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California ,.~ JAN 3 19511 .lfIn' ~ --I-, ~L. ~,~. rV ". ..~} Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: As you know, local law enforcement faces its greatest challenge in the form of the growing crime rate. In order to meet this challenge we .must constantly strive for greater efficiency. We need, among other things, new and more effective legislative tools. I am enclosing a memorandum describing our legislative program. The passage of these proposed laws is, in my opinion, essential to enlightened and progressive law enforcement. I hope your Council will consider these proposals as soon as possible. The endorsements we have received from other Cities in Los Angeles County are very en- couraging. An endorsement by you in resolution form would certainly strengthen the hand of law enforcement. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Sincerely, jve EVELLE J. YOUNGER DISTRICT ATTORNEY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS July 5, 1966 . . July 5, 1966 In order to effectively carry out its mission in the never- ending battle against crime, law enforcement must have assistance from the Legislature in providing new laws and changes in existing laws. This pamphlet contains certain proposals which have suggested themselves as needed additions and changes to our criminal law and are essential to enlightened and progressive law enforcement. These suggested actions are not a panacea for the crime problem, nor do they represent the sum total of all of our needs in the legislative field. We intend to periodically review these suggestions with a view to possible additions or changes in the recommended program. Meantime, these proposals will form a nucleus of an affirmative legislative program for this coming year. These proposals are in areas which have a broad interest and impact and which, in my opinion, can be enthusiastically supported by all interested and responsible in ividuals. PREEMPTION Bill An act to add Section 9613 to the Government Code. Effect Provides that a statute shall not be construed to interfere with or prevent local police, sanitary, and other regulations as provided by law even though there may be a state law in connection with the same or a related subject unless: 1. The local regulation is a duplication of a state law; 2. The local regulation attempts to authorize something which is expressly prohibited by state law; 3. The local regulation attempts to authorize something which is prohibited by state law; or 4. There is a comprehensive scheme of state legislation on the same subject and the state legislation expressly provides that it has occupied the entire field of such legislation or that further regulation in the field is expressly prohibited. Background Recent California Supreme Court decisions have held that action by the state legislature in a given area of law implies an intent by the legislature to prohibit any local action in that same area. Historically, specific problems of local interest and concern were found to be best solved by local laws. Police problems vary tre- mendously between populous urban counties such as Los Angeles and San Francisco and more sparsely settled rural counties like Yolo or Shasta. The peculiar problems of certain local areas require the attention and experience of the local law makers at the time when the problems arise and are current; since our State Legislature meets only every other year in a general legislative session, the present state law can leave local governments without relief for as long as two years. Also, the preemption by implication doctrine of the Supreme Court makes the constitutionality of local ordinances doubtful until the appellate courts decide whether or not the particular local ordi- nance is one affected by that doctrine, a determination which is 1 both expensive and time consuming. This Bill would reverse the legislative interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court by providing that new state statutes will not have the effect of nullifying consistent local laws unless the State Legislature expressly says that its statute is intended to preempt all local laws dealing with the same general subject. PORNOGRAPHY Bill An act to amend Section 311.9 and add chapter 7.6 (commencing with Section 313) to title nine of part one of, and repeal Section 311.3 of, the Penal Code. Effect Defines morally corruptive matter as "that which an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would conclude as improper for distribution to minors under 18 years of age because the predominant appeal of the matter, taken as a whole, is to the prurient interest of such minors, that is to say, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, which goes substan- tially beyond customary limits of candor in describing or repre- senting such matters to a minor under 18 years of age." Makes it a misdemeanor to sell or furnish "morally corruptive matter" to minors under the age of 18, Provides exceptions for public library and parent-child transactions; allows defense of "good faith reliancetl under specified circumstances such as where the minor claims to be 18 and uses false Government-issued identification cards or licenses to support such a claim. Background This Bill does not attempt to limit or censor in any ~ay what ma~erials adults in the community desire to read or v~ew. Nor does it limit or censor in any way what materials parents may furnish their children or which juveniles may obtain through their school or public library. What it does do is establish a community-determined standard as to what material can be furnished to minors from such sources as newsstands and mail order houses. This standard is different in intent and purpose from that applied to transactions between adults. 2 The bill is an attempt to stem the indiscriminate flow of pornographic materials to minors emanating from sources whose only concern with what they sell or to whom they sel1 it is the profits involved. Our society has long recognized its rights and its duty to protect minors from physical hazards which the minor, because of his immaturity, may not be able to fully recognize or appreciate for himself. For that reason, the sale of tobacco and liquor to minors has long been prohibited and the working conditions of minors have been regulated. It is just as important and just as right that we should now protect the development of the mental health and morals of our juveniles during their formative years. Rather than permitting persons to sell anything they choose to children, this law would provide for contemporary community standards to act as a safeguard and to establish what is so "morally corruptive" as to be dangerous to the mental health and morals of juveniles. It would protect a parent's right to determine what his child should see or read. Such morally corruptive material could not be legally sold directly to juveniles unless the seIler, in good faith, believed the buyer to be over the age of 18, nor could it be sold by mail unless the purchaser signed a declaration that he was of age to receive the material. The law further provides that the minor who uses false identification or falsely signs the necessary mail order age decla- ration could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor. In most respects, the safeguards for the sellers and the punishment of minors who fraudulently circumvent the law are identical to our present statutes dealing with the sale of alcoholic beverages. SEARCH AND SEIZURE Bill An act to add Section 1538.5 to and amend Section 153.9 of the Perial Code. Effect Directs that the issue of whether certain evidence should be excluded because it was obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure must be raised by a defendant as early as possible during criminal proceedings and provides for a right of appeal by the People on that issue. 3 Background The determination of whether a search by a peace officer was reasonable is controlling of the question of whether any evidence seized as a result of the search may be used in court to convict a defendant. Certainly a defendant has the right to have the court make that determination; however, it should be done as a protection for society's right to be free of unreasonable searches and not for the purpose of unnecessarily prolonging a trial or for a trial tactic resulting in acquittal because of a technicality. At the present time, defendants have many options during the course of a prosecution as to when to attack evidence which they contend is the product of an unreasonable search and seizure. They may continue to exercise each of these options despite unfavorable results in any earlier action they may have taken. Unfortunately, the prosecution is not in a similar position in the event that the defendant is successful in anyone of his attacks. For example: Suppose a defendant who is charged with the illegal possession of heroin raises the issue of search and seizure at his preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing magistrate decides that the search and seizure was valid, admits the evidence, and binds the defendant over for trial in the Superior Court. The defendant can now seek a writ from the District Court of Appeal to prevent his trial, based on his contention that the search and seizure was invalid despite the ruling at his preliminary hearing. If he does that, the prosecution will have an opportunity to present its views as to why the original ruling was correct and, in the event the defendant receives a favorable ruling from the District Court of Appeal, the prosecution may appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. However, the defendant may decide that it is to his benefit to wait until the prosecution tries to introduce the heroin into evidence at his trial before objecting that the officers obtained it as a result of an illegal search and seizure. If the trial judge rules that the search and seizure was invalid and so refuses to admit the evidence, not only does the defendant go free but the prosecution will never have the opportunity of having an appellate court review the legality of the search and seizure. This bill would limit the defendant to one search and seizure attack, other than an appeal from a conviction, and would require him to make it as early as possible during the legal proceedings. The bill would also give the People the right to appeal these technical rulings without subjecting the defendant to more than one trial. 4 I KIDNAPING Bill An act to amend Section 209 of the Penal Code. Effect Provides that the jury may impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole or of death where a defendant kidnaps for the purpose of forcible rape or sexual child moles- tation, and injures the victim. Background One who kidnaps for ransom or robbery and who harms his victim is deserving of a more serious punishment than the kidnaper who does not harm his victim. For that reason, and as a deterrent to inflicting harm on victims, our law now provides that the jury can impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole or of death in such cases. Many of our most serious and heinous crimes occur where women and children are kidnaped, sexually assaulted, and injured. It seems obvious that these crimes are deserving of as severe a punishment as kidnaping for robbery or ransom. It also seems obvious that innocent women and children are entitled to the protection which this deterrent affords. PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE Bill An act to add Section 2141.5 to the Business and Professions Code. Effect Would make the practice of medicine without a license a felony when done under circumstances or conditions which cause, aggravate, or risk great bodily harm, serious mental or physic.al illness, or death. 5 . .. GRAND JURY Bill An act to amend various sections of the Government Code ana Penal C6derelating to Grand Juries. Effect To permit the empaneling of additional Grand Juries for specific assignments by the court on ita own motion or at the request of the District Attorney. Background Historically, each county in the State of California has had just one. Grand Jury which serves for a full year. 6 . ~ The Grand Jury has had essentially two roles: (1) that of investigating and examining the operation of the various governmental agencies within the County, and (2) hearing evidence of criminal charges and deliberating upon the finding of indictments. Experience in the County of Los Angeles with its large population and numerous large governmental departments has shown that one Grand Jury cannot effectively handle all of its assigned tasks without a tremendous burden upon the time of the members of the Grand Jury. There are many cri~inal cases which could and should be handled by the Grand Jury if time and the schedule of the Jury will permit. Many times this haB not been possible. If this suggested machinery were established it would permit the District Attorney to request the court, or would permit the court on its own motion, to impanel additional Grand Juries within the County for the purpose of hearing specific cases or undertaking specific investigations. This would in turn allow the main Grand Jury to devote more of its time to its assigned duties of investigating into the operating of County government and to make a more significant contribution to the administration of criminal justice. 7 ~ JUVENILE COURTS LEGISLATION Bill An act to: (1) Add Section 681 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, (2) Amend Section 682 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, (3) Amend Section 658 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Effect These three statutes permit the District Attorney to appear and participate in juvenile court hearings if: (1) There is a contested issue of law or fact; (2) The minor is represented by counsel; (3) The petition charges the minor with a violation of state law; or, (4) The possibility exists that the minor will be tried as an adult rather than a juvenile. Provision is also made to allow the District Attorney to represent the interests of the minor child in the event of inade- quate parental supervision or guardianship; or if the minor is destitute, lacks the necessities of life or whose home is unfit by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity of his parents or guardians. Provides further that the probation department must not release minors without first notifying the District Attorney in the event it is alleged the minor is destitute, or without super- vision or in need of protective custody; or if the minor is the victim of an unfit home or release would endanger his person or morals; or if either the minor's previous record or the present offense warrant temporary detention for the public welfare. If the District Attorney objects to release of the minor the final determination is made by the juvenile court judge. The clerk is directed to notify the District Attorney of these proceedings. Background ~ Ordinarily a minor ought to be released to the care of his parents or guardian, those who have his best interests at heart. But to do so in some instances would expose the child to continuous danger of personal injury or abuse, as, for example, a child sex- ually molested by a stepfather ought not to return to his care. 8 ~ ~ In other cases the atmosphere of the home hampers, rather than facilitates, the welfare of the child. The instances of parental depravity, or abandonment of parental responsibility qre too frequent. If the minor is returned to an unhealthy environment, he is subject to the very influences which may have resulted in his detention. To assure protection for the best interests of the minor, this legislation permits the District Attorney to appear in behalf of the minor and present all available evidence to the court. For many years juvenile proceedings were conducted informally and without the trappings of a criminal trial. But in those cases charging the juvenile with violation of state law, the courts have slowly added protection ordinarily available only in a criminal trial for adults. Recently minors were permitted to have counsel at their hearings, presumably to effectively present legal objection to offered evidence. The probation department, charged with the responsibility for preparing the case impartially and for the welfare of the minor, is placed in the unenviable role of attempting to present a neutral position while trying to defend it against attack. In drafting their petitions and in preparing reports, probation officers are ill-equipped to consider constitutional and statutory questions which may arise. To assist the probation department in the fair and orderly presentation of their cases, and to disengage them from an unwanted adversary role, the new legislation allows the District Attorney to appear and participate in juvenile hearings if: The minor contests an issue of law or fact against a charge of violating a state law, and, he is represented by counsel; or, the issue is whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult. 9 SACRAMENTO ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL 95814 THIRTIETH SENATORIAL DISTRICT RECEIVED :2-I?-G7 F. A. ZiEiVlER CITY CLERK LAWRENCE E. WALSH CALIFORNIA LEGISLA TURE ~Cltatc February 14, 1967 Mr. F. A. Ziemer, City Clerk City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, California 90058 Dear Mr. Ziemer: This will acknowledge receipt of Resolution No. 2889 from the City of Vernon with regard to crime rate in California. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important subject. Sincerely yours, C=.~C'-'-\-~~E~<t ~L oJ){ LAh'RENCE E. WALSH LEW:dr