# People v. Weeren

> California Supreme Court · March 24, 1980 · 26 Cal. 3d 654

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549189

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HANS H. H. WEEREN Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 24, 1980
- **Citations:** 26 Cal. 3d 654; 163 Cal. Rptr. 255; 607 P.2d 1279; 14 ERC (BNA) 1250; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Richardson, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549189

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that California could regulate a California-registered vessel outside its waters so long as there was no conflict with federal law

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur.
Since title to submerged lands in the waters of Santa Barbara Channel was settled in the United States by five votes 1 of the Supreme Court in United States v. California (1965) 381 U.S. 139 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 296 , 85 S.Ct. 1401 ], I am under compulsion to accept the result.
I find it difficult to believe, however, that Congress did not intend, when it enacted the Submerged Lands Act, to recognize the respective coastal states’ original boundaries. As Justice Black observed in the dissent for himself and Justice Douglas (id., p. 188 [14 L.Ed.2d, p. 326]), during congressional deliberations on the measure the term “historic State boundaries” was used 813 times, “original boundaries” 121 times and “traditional” boundaries 114 times. A cursory examination of appendices A and C to Justice Black’s dissent (following p. 213 [14 L.Ed.2d, p. 340]) should convince any objective viewer that the waters within a line from Point Conception to Point Loma are inland waters of California surrounding California territory: San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, San Nicolas Island, Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island.
Rather than to disapprove People v. Foretich (1970) 14 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 481 ], as the majority do here, I am impressed by its rationale that the high court in California II merely defined the limits of a grant of real estate in the Submerged Lands Act and did not clearly intend to alter the political boundaries of the State of California (id., p. 13). (Also see Alabama v. Texas (1954) 347 U.S. 272 [ 98 L.Ed. 689 , 74 S.Ct. 481 ].) And as the Foretich court pointed out, the high court referred to by name and did not disapprove People v. Stralla *671 (1939) 14 Cal.2d 617 [ 96 P.2d 941 ], in which this state’s jurisdiction over waters of Santa Monica Bay, from Point Vicente to Point Dume and extending as much as 10 miles from the shoreline, was upheld. Application of the headland-to-headland principle was also approved as to San Francisco Bay in 34 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 260 (1959).
The majority reach the correct conclusion as to the application of California’s police power to the waters of Santa Barbara Channel. It is my hope, however, that an opportunity will arise for the State of California to appear again before the Supreme Court on an issue involving its title to submerged lands and political sovereignty over waters from headland to headland within the several bays and channels along our coastline. The high court’s more recent deference to states’ rights might result next time in a clearer recognition of the traditional coastal boundary of California.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied May 14, 1980.
Chief Justice Warren, who had been Governor of California, and Justice Clark, who had been Attorney General of the United States, did not participate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9549189. Public record. Not legal advice.