Motion to Dismiss or Affirm — Schackman v. California

wee

~Hasey Scmactiaa® and ‘Hay a Seer

“i ha - Appellants,

Boat vs.

| PEOPLE OF THE STATE oF CALIFORNIA, - ars

Sar From the Appellate Department of the Superior

os Stata ot Cale Set the: Conny of

Low Angele.

" moTi0N to AFFIRM: —— AND/OR

_DISMISS = ‘aPEBAL.

Rocer ARNEBERGH,

City Attorney, ..

Puitip E. Grey,

Assistant City Attorney,

Wm. E. Doran,- :

Deputy City Attorney,

40-P City Hall,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90012,

- ioe Attorneys for Appellee.

““"Purker & Sou, lac. Law Printers, Los Angeles’ Phone MA. 69171

.

.

em te

S

SUBJECT INDEX

Page

BIL acissstuntinsiveeneericnteiapetgnte ‘oe

Argument ...........--.---ssoessoo 7

oa I.

Section 39.04 of the-Los Angeles Municipal Code

is not unconstiutionally vague or indefinite ......

- IL. |

_ The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States does not require that an op-

erator of a. business have actual notice’ of the

Fire Ordinances regulatipg the conduct of his

business

III.

This case does not involve in any way convictions

based upon illegally obtained evidence ...............

apa IV. s

The sentences imposed did not constitute cruel and

IE IE cseneethcentttcccteernsisensienntesnncnenes

Appellants’ subjection to jury trial did not deny

them -equal protection of the laws under the

Fourteenth Amendment to. the Constitution of

I NI teihcientnicnnncnicenesiinnntiinninines

VI.

Various offenses were properly wank in the same

“dgmplaints al nahcsniniiaellaaebalibleahcadilbatholai

a

ee

8

10

11

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A.. ‘Sento. 311 and 311.2 California

. Penal Code ~

Appendix B. Section 39.04, Municipal: Code of the

City of Los Angeles

Appendix C: Section 39.50(a), Municipal Cove of

the City of Los Angeles :

Appendix D. Section 39.50(b), Municipal Code of

the City of Los Angeles. , ait

Appendix E. Section 57.10.02, a Code of he

City of Los Angeles .2...............

Appendix -F. Section 57. 10.23(a}, Municipal Code

- of the City of Los Angeles

Appendix G. Section 57.04.03, ees Code of the

City of Los Angehs

Appendix. H. Section ll .00(m), Municipal Code of

the City of. Las Angeles y acti

Appendix I. Section 19, California Penal Code ..

l

2

iii.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED.

Ashe v. United States ex re Valotta, 270 VU. S. 424 13. Costa

_ Beauharnais v. ‘Illinois, 343 U. S. 250 are:

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 0... 7

Ker v. California, 3/4 U.S. 23 9

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S.‘77 . con O

Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, i @

People v. Balmer, 196 Cal. App. 2a Supp. 974,17 *

CAL Rptr. 612 7

‘People v. McKenna, 116 Cal. App. 24 207, 285 P.

2d 452 13

People v. Norton,.209 Cal. App. 24 173, 25. Cal.

Rptr. 676 ..... im SS

. People v. Roberts, 182. Cal. App. 2d 431, 6 Cal.

i AR genie ‘ _ 4

People v. Spericer, 170 Cal. App. 2d 145, 338 Pp.

* 2d 484 .:....... | Ry

People v. West, 144 Cal. App. 2a 214 eee aS Tae

Polizzotto, In re, 188 Cal. 410, 205 Pac. SE 10

Robinson v. California, BES. So ID cecesnineeneienes me.

Roth v. United States, Alberts v. California. $54

U.S. 476 ........ LIE OTA ee s

United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 ianeanngnennnennsees _8

Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 oon... 10°

Zeitlin v. Arnebergh, 59 Cal. 901, 383 P. 2d 152... 3

Rules tec ;

" Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States, Rule 160... -yoeccenscssse cesetesenscenetseneenanee |

a ee ee ee

re)

iv.

_ Statutes ‘Page

California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 7° ...c..yyesssoeeo0e . Al

Catifornia Penal Code, Sec. 19 .. a

California Penal Code, Sec. 311) .ccccsecee. ca

California Penal Code, Sec. 311.2 va

California Penal Code, Sec. 954 cm

‘ \ Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec..11.00(m) .....2.....: 10

Los Angeles Municipal Code, Séc. ‘39.04 ........... 4.7

_ Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec. 39.50(a) ....sscoo.0.- 2

Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec. 39.50(b) .....2........ 2

Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sec."57.04.03 w...3, 5

Los Angeles Mimnicipal Code, Sec. 57.10.02 ...........- 2

Los Angeles Municipal Code, ‘Sec. $7.10.23(a) ........ 3

United States Constitutign, Sixth: Amendment ........ 6

United. States = Fourteenth Amendment

Jincaianaiapauasliesanasemettianaiaen 6, 12

Gr ee, wee ee

‘IN THE ©

- Supreme Court of the United States

Gusher Term Term, 1963

' No,

Harry SCHACKMAN and Harry GREEN WALD,

Appellants,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Appellee.

On Appeal From the Appellate Department of the Superior

ee eee ee oe Oe Cay

pinenesn

MOTION TO AFFIRM THE ORDER AND/OR

DISMISS THIS APPEAL.

Appeliee, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Revised Rules’

of the Supreme Court of the United States, moves

j} that the judgments of the Appellate Department of

‘the Superior Court of the State of California; for the

Gounty of Los Angeles, rendered and entered on De-

_ cember 4, 1963, be .affirmed, or that the appeals taken ;

therefrom to this court be. dismissed on the ground

that the. federal questions are so unsubstantial as to

not warran her argument, and that the said judg-

_ ments appealed from rest upon an adequate non-fed-

eral basis.

: \

oe wn

. ~*~

Statement.

These are direct appeals from judgments entered

‘ December 4, 1963, by the Appellate Department of the

Supétior: Court é the State, of es for the

County of Los Angeles.

Briefly stated, appellants were ¢ charged in separate

verified seven-count complaints with violation of -

1. Section "311.2 -of the California Penal Code

( Appendix A)—displaying obscene material.

2.° Section 39.04 of the Municipal. Code of the

City of Los Angeles (Appendix B)—neglecting

to keep premises in a clean and wholesome’ cox-

dition . ©. and permitting filthy and offensive .

matter to remain and accumulate. |

3. *Section 39.50 (a) of | ‘the Municipal Code of.

the City of ‘Los Angeles (Appendix C)—con-

ducting and maintaining a place of public amuse-

‘ment: and public assemblage’ other than in a

good, clean, sanitary condition, etc. ;

4. Section 39. 50(b) of the Municipal Code of the

City of Los Angeles (Appendix D)—conduct-

ing a- moving picture show and place’ of public ©

amusement - and public assemblage without keep-

ing clean and in good repair all floor’ coverings,

chairs, equipment, etc.

5.’ Section 57.10.02 of* the Municipal Code of the

City of Los Angeles (Appendix ve ago N

'a door in a passageway required as a means of |

egress from. a. portion of the building which

~ could nvi. be opened from the inside within 30

seconds without use of a key, tool, etc.

os

6: Section “57,10. 23{a) of the. ‘Municipal Code of

_. the City of Los Angeles, ‘(Appendix F)—own-

ing and managing a building where people work

or gather other than.a dwelling, without pro-

‘viding a door serving as a way of egress with

a sign bearing the word “Exit.” ‘

7. Section 57.04.03 of the Municipal Code of ‘the

City of Los Angeles (Appendix G)—operating

a motion picture theztre and place of assem-

ge without a permit —

The causes were consolida ed for trial and the jury

returned verdicts of guilty as to a on all

’ counts.

Appellant Cetiastenne: was parerenr to 180 — on’

Count I, 180 days on Court II, to run consecutively

- with Count I. The trial’ court declined to sentence

on Counts III and IV and imposed fines on’ Counts

~ -V, VI and VII (pp. 17 and 18 of ddcket).

Appellant Greenwald.was sentenced to 180 days on

Count I, 180 days on Count II to run concurrently.

As to Counts III through VII his metion for new

trial was grantéd and such counts were dismissed (p.

- 14 of docket). :

The appeals to the Appellate © Depa tment of the

Superior Court resulted in the reversal of Count I as

to each appellant on the ground that the material pur-

portedly obscene did not coristitute hard core pornog-

_ raphy under Zeitlin v. Arnebvergh (1963), 59 Cal. 901,

383 P. 2d 152, decided supsequent to the trial of these

actions. P

Thus, the only statutes yorum this court are those

insuring that places of public’ amusement and as-

—

semblage be maintained wiith due regard to the ‘health

and safety of the public.

The evidence ‘presented. at the trial disclosed that _

appellant Schackman owned and operated an “arcade” —

on Main Street in the City of Los Angeles and that _

appellant Greenwald was his employee. Such arcade

was open to the public and featured the showing of

motion pictures of nude girls on small individual coin-

operated projection machines located in some 24 sep-

arate booths. {R. T. 424-438].

On September 30, 1961, Officer Michael F. McGann °

of the Le, Angeles Police Department entered and

went to the redr of the arcade, which was open to the

public [R. T. 432-433]. and there viewed the moving. -

pictures on four of the .machines by ‘placing ‘money

in ‘the coin slots [R. T. 433-437]. He determined

‘that the pictures were obscene within the meaning of

Sections 311 and 311.2 of the Penal. Code of the State

of California (Appendix A).

‘The officer then conversed. with appellant Green-

wald, who revealed he had knowledge of the character .

ia the pictures being shown on. the machines IR. :

432-436].

Soon eeu appellant Greenwaid was errand for

violation of Section 311.2 of the California Pénal Code’

(Appendix A), displaying obscene material. The films

_ were taken into custody and an investigation of the

- premises ensued. , :

oy

Officer McGann testified that he ‘could see the .con-

dition of the walls and floors in the rear of the arcade

{R. T. 402-464 |, and that there. was a strong smell’

' of urine [R. T. 457-461]. During the trial there was

an abundance of testimony as to streaks and stains on

the walls of the booths and on the machines and floors .

that ‘were easily visible [R., T. 462, 494-497, 770-774).

Sgt. Robert E. Kearney, a member of the Los An-

-geles Police Department assigned to thé Scientific In-

vestigation Division testified that in.his expert opinion

Irom scientific tests performed at the arcade on the

night in question and later in the police laboratory, the

streaks and stains about the premises were human semen

[R. T. 770-774]. He further testified that each booth

had approximately 50 to 75 separate semen stains on

the -average {R. T. 771]; that laboratory tests of

scrapings taken from the arcade revealed semen [R. T.

771), and that a wet rubber prof ‘iylactic containing

“semen was found 6h the floor of the arcade [R: T.

768-770).

The investigation by Captain Buxton frem the Pub-

lic Assémblage Division of the Los Angeles Fire De-

partment revealed that the exit door: rom the premises

was obstructed and locked by means: of a padlock and

hasp and that there was no sign whatever indicating

exit at or near the exit door [R. T. 674-676]. ~Also,

there was no permit isst ued to the premises under Sec-

tion 57.04.03 of the Los Angeles rides Code [R. by

671-672).

> — | = al

Appeliants appear to present five, disiabiii on appeal

1, Whether Section 39.04 0k the /Hos Angeles Mun-

icipal Code is unconstitutionally “age or indef-

. inite. -

2. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-

' stitution of the United" States requires that oper-

ators of places of public assemblage be notified —

of the existence of fire ordinances governing

_ the conduct of such businesses.

3: Whether evidence introduced to support the con-

. victton of the counts now before this court was

obtained by illegal search and seizure. ©

4. Whether the sentence imposed constituted _

or unusual punishment.

5. Whether plaintiff’s exercise of its right under _

the California Constitution to a jury trial denied

~ appellants equal protection of the law under the

__. Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

’ the United States. .° :

6. ‘Whether the joinder of several peat rg

ferent counts of the same complaint constitutes

a denial of dne process of law or right to trial

by jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amend-

ments to the Constitution of the United States.

oe

=

ARGUMENT.

; We

Section 39. 04 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code

Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague. or Indefinite.

Section 39.04 of ‘the Mae Angeles. Municipal Code

provides: ‘

“No person owning, leasing, acting as agent for,

or occupying, or havirz charge of any premises .

_ Shall fail, refuse or neglect to keep such premises

in a clean and’wholesome condition, or permit to \

be or remain upon sich premises, any accumulation

of manure, garbage, offal, rubbish, stagnant water -

or filthy. or offensive matter® of any kind, or any

material’ which creates .offensive or obnoxious |

odors or promotes flv breeding.”

_Itis apparently appellants’ contention that such Words

as:“clean” and “wholesome” are vague or indefinite.

However, they are words of common meaning.

In People v. Balmer €1961), 196-Cal. App. 2d Supp. .

874, 879, 17 Cal. Rptr..612, it was held:

“The words clean, sanitary and good repair are

-not so vague or indefinite as to make the Admin-

istrafive Code Sections unconstitutional.”

This court has held sufficiently definite such terms

as “loud and raucous noises” (Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 °

U. S. 77), “depravity, oe unchastity” op

harnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250). “offensive, derisi

or annoying words” ( Choplinshy «. New Hampshire,

315 eas . 568). i

“~,

‘ae

~

‘ —s—

As was stated in Roth v. U nited States, Alberts v.

— 354 U.S. 476, 491:

. [T}he Constitution does not require im-

poise standards; all that is required is tha? the

language -conveys sufficiently definite warning as

to the proscribed conduct when measured by com-

mon understanding and practices. .

‘Certainly the words here in question meet the test.

— "7

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

the ‘United States Does Not Require That an

_ Operator of a Business Have Actual Notice of

the Dina Oedinanees Riguisting the Conduct of

His Business.

Appellants contend they were entitled to notice of the

‘existence of the fire ordinances manifestly enacted for

_the protéction of the public invited te come upon the

ts’ premises. “However, neither ever took the

no excuse, and, as stated in United States v. Bali

258 U. S. 250, 252:

“|. . in the prohibition or abies of par-

_ ticular acts, the state may, in the maintenance of

a public policy, provide ‘that he who shall do them.

shall de them at his: peril, and will not be heard

~ to plead in defense good faith or ignorance.’ Many

instances of this are to be found in regulatéry

measures in the exercise ‘of ‘what. is called the po-

lice power, -whére the emphasis of the statute is

evidently upon achievement of some. social. better-

ment rather than the punishment of the crimes. . . .”

The subject matter of the legislation herein ques-

tion bears little resemblance to the convict. registration _—

ordinance under consideration in Lambert v. California,

355 U. S. 225. There, the conduct involved was. wholly

passive—mere failure to register, and this court in ) such

case emphasized that : pn

“There is wide latitude in in lawmakers to de-

clare an offense and to exctude elements of knowl--

edge and diligence from its definition.” |

Surely the protection of members of the public from

the peril of fire and filth in a place of business in-_

viting their entry falls within this latitude.

7 eae ce, %

This Case Does ‘Not Involye in Any Way Convic-

tions Based Upon Illegally Obiained Evidence.

The premises purportedly searched were premises open

to the public [R. T. 432-433].

California courts have held that “Merely to observe

what is’ perfectly apparent to any mu.nber of the pub-

lic who might happen to be on the premises is not a

search” (People v. Norton (1962), 209 Cal. App. 2d

173, 176-177, 25 Cal. Rptr. 676), and “. . - Merely to

observe, what is perfectly apparent to anyone who might |

_ be within the store is not a search” (People v. Roberts

(1960), 182 Cal. App. 2c°431, 437, 6 Cal. Rptr. 161):

In- People v. West (1956), 144°Cal. App. 2d 214

220, 300 P. 2d 729, it was held that the mere looking

at that. which is open to view is not a search.” The

' West case-was cited in Ker v. California, 374 U. S.

23, 43,as authority for the ruling that seeing what

is before the observer in full view is not a search.

Of course the locked exit door, the lack of the re-

quired exit sign, and the s*men stains were in full view.

IV.

The Sentences Imposed Did ‘Not Constitute Cruel

and Unusual Puni: iment. |

Section 11.00(m) of. the Los Angeles Municipal Code

(Appendix H). provides, that any person violating any

of the provisigns or failing to coimply with any of the

- Fequirements of ‘such code shall be. guilty of a mis- _

demeanor, and unless provision is otherwise made, shall: -

‘be punishable by a. fine of not more than $500, or by

imprisonment in “the City. Jail for a. period -of | not

more than six — or by both such ond and | im-

prisonment. ;

All of the sentences aeasiid in this case were with-

in the maximum provided by such city ordinate.

- In Im re Polizsotto (1922), 188 Cal. 410, 412, 205

Pac. 676, thie court, in commenting on-a sentence under

a county ordinance, stated: “~ ,

. “It has often been held that a punishment by:

a fine of $500, or imprisonment for six months, or

both, for an ordinary misdemeanor, is neither ex-

cessive, ¢ruel,-nor unusual.” |

In Weems v. United States (1909), 217 U.S. 349,

369, this court stated that there would’ appear to be

nothing excessive, or cruel, or unusual in a fine of $50

and imprisonment at hard labor in a house of correc-

_ tion for three months imposed for keeping and main-

taining, without a license, a tenement for the illegal

sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors.

The punishment imposed for violations ofthe pro-

visions of the Los-Angeles Municipal Code is the same

“as that-imposed for general misdemeanor violations un-

= IRAE L ANNE ENE. eer Se

o . . .

c

- —

der Section: 19 of the Penal Code of the State of Cali-

fornia ( Appendix >...

Robinson v. C alifoMia, 370 U. S. 660; cited by ap-

pellants as supporting their argument that the Los An-

geles ordinances inflict cruel and unusual punishment,

was not critical of the length of time in’ jail that may

constitute the punishment, but went rather-to the point

that incarceration in jail is not appropriate »unishment

for the status of an illness, addiction to ‘narcotics.

| Vv. .

Appellants’ Subjéction to Jury Trial Did Not Deny

Them Equal Protection of the Laws Under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

‘the United States. |

- Article 4 Section 7 of the Constitution of the State

_ cf California provides:

. “The right of trial by jury shall be secured to

~ all, and remain inviolate; but in civil actions three

°

fourths of the jury may render a verdict.. A trial -

by jury may be waived iin all criminal cases, by’

the consent of both parties, expressed in open court

by the defendant and his counsel, and in “ivil ac-

tions bythe consent of the parties, *signified in

such manner as may -be prescribed by law. In civ--

il actions and cases of misdemeanor, the jury may

consist of twelve, or of any number less than

twelve upon which the parties may agree in open

court.” .

In People v. Spencer (1989). 170 Cal. App. 2d 145,

149, 338 P. 2d 484, it was held that “It is necessary

for the waiver of trial by jury to become effectual, -for

the defendant, his counsel and the District. Attorney.

to all consent.” §

te the instant case the prosecution merely did not

waive its right to trial by jury, the result being a jury

trial pursuant to the ae of the California

Constitution.

While appellants contend that this trial by jury de-

nied them equal protection of the laws under the Four-

teenth Amendment to -the Constitution of the United

States, they cite no applicable authority to support such

c

ition.

VI.

- Various Offenses Were Properly Joined in the

a . ( omplaints ‘

Same

. Section 954 of the Penal Code of the State of Cali-

fornia provides:

“An accusatory pleading. may die. two ofr

more different offenses connected together in their

commission, or different statements of the sarie

offense or two or more different offenses of the

same class of-crimes or offenses, under separate

counts, and if two or more accusatory pleadings

are filed in such cases in the same court; the court

may order them @@ be consolidated. The prosecu-

tion is not required to elect between the different of-

- . fenses or counts set forth in the accusatory plead-

ing,~but_the defendant may be convicted of any

number of the offenses charged, and each offense

of which the defendant i is convicted must be stated .

in the verdict or the finding of the court; provided,

- that the court in ‘whieh a case is triable, in the in-

terests of justice and for good cause shown, may

in its discretion order th: the differen{ offenses

or counts set forth in the. accusatory pfeading be

tried separately or divided into two or njore grours

%

en

and each of said groups tried separately. An at-

quittal of one-or more counts shall not be deemed .

anacquittal of any other count.”

In People v- McKenna (1953), 116 Cal. App. 2d

207, 210, 285 P. 2d 452, it was held:

* “offense arising out of a single transaction if each

\\. is stated in a separate count and when the of-

- is not included i in any other.” *

In the ‘complaints at hand, ‘al of the counts were

cannected ‘together ir their commission ‘arog the

transaction of operating the arcade. ‘

As stated by. this*court in Ashe v. _United States

ex rel. Valotta, 220 U. S. 424, 425, it cannot be doubted

that a state can authorize the whole story to be hrought

before a jury at once, even though two indictments

were involved, without denying due process of .law.

o ‘ " Conchision.

Appellee urges, therefore, that the appellants present

no substantial question for the decision of this court;

that the judgments sought to be appealed from should

be affirmed or the appeals dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Roctg ARNEBERGH,

. City Attorney, :

PHILIP E. Grey,

Assistant City Attorne ,

Ww.. E. Doray,

Deputy City Attorney,

Attorneys far Appellee.

. one may be convicted of more than one.

» fenses differ in their necessary elements, the one ©

Ni

eee - ~ * oe ee 8 ee, Oe tenet

| APPENDIX A.

Sections 311 and 311.2, California Penal Code.

§311. [Defimitions.}° As used in this chapter :-

(a) “Obscene” ‘means that to the average person,

applying contemporary standards, the predominant ap-

peal of the matter, taken as a whole, is to prurient in-

terest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex,

or excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary

limits of candor in description or representation of such

matters and is matter which is utterly without Tedeem-

ing social importance.: |

' (b) “Matter” means any book, magazi per,

or other printed or written material or any picture,

drawing, photograph, motion picture, or F pictorial

representation or any statue or other figure, or any _re-

cording, transcription or-mechanical, chemical or elec-

tricatTeproduction or any other articles, equipment,

_ machines or materials.

(c) “Person” means any individual, ‘partnership, firma,

association, corporation, or other legal entity.

q (d) “Distribute” means to ‘transfer possession of,

whether with or without consideration.

_ (e) “Knowingly” means having knowledge that the

matter is obscene. |

§311.2. [Sale Gr*Distribution. etc.. of obscene mat-

ter: Penalty.]. Every person who knowingly: Sends or

causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought.

into this State for sale or distribution, or-in this State

prepares, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes. or o7-

fers to distribute, or has in his possession with intent

to distribute or to exhibit .or offer to distribute. any

obscene matter i§ guilty of a misdemeanor. (Stats. ©

1961, c..2147, pp. 4427-4428, sec. 5.)

“he

a

ARE” 8 Dey Fc il SEEN HA RD OE sgh ee a WH BS el as Swe won Lk for TOYS BR ORE CINE

ee ey ee ae

APPENDIX B.

| Section 39.04, Municipal Code’ of the City’ of

‘Los Angeles.

Sec. 39.04. Premises—Keeping Clean:

No person owning, leasing, acting as agent for, or

Occupying, or having charge of any premises shali fail,

refuse or neglect to keep such,premises in a clean and.

-wholesome condition, or permit to be or remain upon

such premises, any accumulation of manure, garbage,

- offal, rubbish, ‘stagnant water of filthy or offensive

_. tion:

matter of any kind, or any material which creates of-

fensive or obnoxious odors or promotes fly breeding.

-APPEN DIX Os

‘Section 39. 50(a), Municipal Code of the City, of

Los Angeles. .

Sec. 39.50. Shows and Places of Assembly—Sanita

No: person conducting, managing or. operating ma

moving picture show or any theatre, dance hall, night

club, circus, amusement park, or other place of public

amusement or public assemblage shill fgil, refuse or

neglect to eemply with the following requirements :.

(a) The floors, wal! s, ceilings, doors, windows, stair-

“ways, hallways and evéry other: part thereof shall be

. maintained in a good, cleaz?, sanitary condition, and shall

be painted or Otherwise redovated whenever necessary.

—~j—

APPENDIX D.

‘Section 39.50(b), Municipal Code of the City of

Los Angeles.

Seb. 39.50. Shows and Places of Assembly Sani |

‘tation.-

No person conducting, managing or operating any

moving picture show or any theatre, dance hall, night”

' " club, circus, amusement park, or other place of public

amusement or. public assemblage shill: fail, refuse or

neglect to comply: with the following requirements :

. (b) All rugs, ‘carpets, or other floor coverings, tables,

choled, seats, counters, and all similar equipment shal!

— clean arid in yood repair. .

APPENDIX £:

Section 57.10.02, Municipal Code of the City of

- Los Angeles. ~

‘Sec. 57.10.02. Obstruction of Exits:

No person shall erect, construct, reconstruct, iristall,

alter. or maintain any door, gate, partition. or similar —

obstruction’ in any passageway required as a means of

egress from any portion of any building, or any public

corridor ‘or public stairway of any building, except a -

door or gate which can be removed or opened from the

inside within ‘30 seconds withe ut use of a key, tool or

“ other implement or special knowledge.

A

oil

APPENDIX F.

Section 57. 10.23(a), Municipal Code of the City of

Los Angeles. ai.

Sec. 57.10.23. Exit and Directional Signs: |

lsvery person owning or managing any building where

people live, work or gather other than a dwelling shall

provide exit and directional — as herein&iter speci-’

fied. e

A. Type—Unless otherwise cleariy and unmistakenly

indicated as an exit, every exit door serving as a way

‘of ‘egress shall have placed over or adjacent thereto a

‘sign bearing the word “EXIT” in letters not less than

five inches high. . |

APPENDIX G:

"Section 57.04.03, Municipal Code of the City of

, Los Arigeles.

_Sec. 57. 04.03. Permits Required :

No person, without a valid Permit then in effect so

to do: . . [shall] establish, operate, maintain a the-

atre, motion picture theatre, and place of assemblage.

)

— =

. APPENDIX H.

" Section 11 pate unicipal Code of the City of

| Angeles. |

Sec. ibid Violations of this Code a Misde-

meanor.

It shall be uniawful for any person to violate any

provision or fail to.comply with any of the‘ requirements.

of this Code, Any person violating any of the pro-

visions or failing to comply with any of the manda-

tory requirements of this Code," shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor

under the provisions of this Code, unless provision is

otherwise herein made, shall be punishable by fine ¢ f not

more than $500.00 or by imprisonment in the City

Jail for a period of not more than six months,’ or by

both such fine and imprisonment. Each. sych_ pefson’

shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every

day during any portion of which any violation of any

provision of this Code is committed, continued or ‘per-

mitted by such person, and shall be punishable | accord- °

ingly. ' |

In‘addition to the penalties hereinabove provided, any

condition caused or permitt:d to exist in violation of any

of the prdkisions or this Codé shall be deemed a public

~ nuisance and'may be summarily abated as such by the

City. Each day that such a condition continues shall °

be deemed tobe a new and separate offense.

PEST ANAT SRY een A aa eb alb oot Laas ea A Se eer 4. JSS Oo? 1 Raa cere pee ol

APPENDIX I.

Section 19, California Penal Code.

§19. Punishment for misdetmeanor ; punishment: not

otherwise prescribed. * :

__ Except in. cases where a different punishment is pre-

scribed ' by. any law of this State, every offense declared

to: be 2 misdemeanor is punisnable by imprisonment in |

_ the county jail not exceeding six nionttis, or by fine not,

exceeding five hundred — or by bot. (Stats. 1933,

ale c. 848, p. 2216, sec. 1.) » : : a

Le Fe ae ee eT