Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tellis v. Municipal Court for Central Judicial District of Marin County
Citations: 5 Cal. App. 3d 455; 85 Cal. Rptr. 459; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1452Docket: Civ. 26899
Court: California Court of Appeal; March 17, 1970; California; State Appellate Court
Appellants, charged with violating a Marin County ordinance requiring an occupancy permit for residential use of moored vessels, sought a writ of prohibition from the superior court, claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional. The superior court denied the petition, leading to this appeal. 1. The ordinance is deemed a valid exercise of police power aimed at public safety, particularly regarding sanitary sewage disposal from moored vessels, and is supported by California law (Cal. Const. art. XI, § 11). 2. Appellants argued the ordinance infringes upon their Fourth Amendment rights by requiring a waiver for the occupancy permit. The court found no such requirement, as inspections are contingent upon the health officer having reasonable cause, and entry without a warrant is not authorized. 3. Appellants contended that federal jurisdiction over vessels precludes local regulation. However, the court noted that the vessels in question were not involved in interstate commerce, and local health regulations are permissible under federal law. 4. Claims of state preemption by the Harbors and Navigation Code were dismissed, as that code reserves local authority to counties for such regulations. 5. The court rejected arguments of arbitrary discrimination between land and floating dwellings, stating the ordinance applies comparable sanitation standards to all living quarters. 6. Appellants asserted unconstitutionality for applying the ordinance to vessels built before its enactment. The court found this argument unsubstantiated, as appellants did not prove their vessels predated the ordinance or show a balance of equities favoring their claim. Ultimately, the court affirmed the order, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate the ordinance's invalidity.