HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 9 VEHICLE CODE 01-19-93REPORTS NO. 9
1-19-93
inter -Com
DATE: JANUARY 8, 1993
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: VEHICLE CODE - CITY ORDINANCES
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
The City Council requested information on the feasibility and legality of
prosecuting violators of the California Vehicle Code under Tustin City
ordinances if such were enacted to duplicate the Vehicle Code.
Such an undertaking is illegal under the California Constitution.
REFERENCES
California Constitution, Article 11, Section 6, Note 129, "The state in its
sovereign capacity may control all public streets and except as the
control is relinquished to municipalities it remains with the state
legislature to be exercised [Western Union Telegraph Co. v.
Hopkins (191 1) 116 P. 557, 160 C. 106; Key System Transit Co. v. City
of Oakland (1932) 13 P. 2d 979, 124 C.A. 733.1
California Constitution, Article 11, Section 6, Note 130, "The regulation
of traffic upon the streets of a city is not a 'municipal affair' over which
local authorities are given power superior to that of the legislature."
[Pipoly v. Benson (1942) 125 P. 2d 482, 20 C. 2d 366, 147 A.I . R. 515;
Helmer v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1920) 191 P. 1001, 48
C. A. 140.1
California Vehicle Code Section 32 states, in part, "Whenever local
authorities are given the power to take action by ordinance pursuant to
�- Division 11 ... and Division 15 ...." (Division 11 is the 'rules of the
road'; Division 15 is size, weight, and load restrictions --the revenue
generating sections of the Vehicle Code.) This section reaffirms the
sovereign right of the state to control all public streets except as
specifically relinquished to local government.
Mr. Huston
January 8, 1993
Page 2
California Vehicle Code Section 21100 in Division 11 specifies which
matters may be addressed by ordinance. The City of Tustin already
performs each of the activities permitted by ordinance.
DISCUSSION
If we were to prosecute "rules of the road" violations under a City
ordinance rather than the Vehicle Code, all such cases would be handled
by the City Attorney. This would require additional staffing by the City
Attorney to handle the approximately 15,000 moving citations written
annually, which would, of course, generate more expenses for the
taxpayers of Tustin. Additionally, it would amount to double taxation,
in that the taxpayers are already funding the services of the District
Attorney's Office and will continue to do so.
Historically, any attempt by cities to enhance city revenue at the
expense of county revenue (which this proposal does) has been met by
"user fees" imposed by the county for various necessary services
(courts) to make up for the impact on county revenue.
When a person is issued a California Driver's License, s/he signs and
certifies s/he understands and will obey the provisions of the California
Vehicle Code. This is the very basis of how local law enforcement can
enforce the rules of the road. There is no such written agreement to
understand and obey the provisions of the "Tustin Vehicle Code," even
if it were a verbatim copy of the California Vehicle Code. Violators of a
"Tustin Vehicle Code" could only be prosecuted under the California
Vehicle Code.
W. DOUGLAS FRANKS
Chief of Police
WDF:kh