Anda di halaman 1dari 306

The Right to Travel via

Automobile in California

Compiled by

Philip Christian Bikle

Introduction

The right to travel via any means has essentially been lost. Modem society
consists of a ruling class and a slave class. The slave class is generally trained for
a minimum of 13 years at how to be an obedient, high functioning slave. The
highest functioning move on and receive any where from 4 to 15 more years of
training in specialized fields, all of which contain various memes injected by the
ruling class.
Very few people come into contact with the "law", unless it is for
automobile related traffic tickets. The consequence of ignorance of the law results
in the systemic exploitation of the slave class. The ignorance of the slave class is
extorted by the ruling class. Year after year the ruling class imposes more and
more legislation to tax and burden the slave class to the point that the slave class
has no opportunity to learn even the basics of law in order to defend against the
abuses of the ruling class. Some in the slave class manage to find the time to
study law, usually as a result of suffering terrible abuse at the hands of corrupt
Commissioners, Magistrates, and Judges. Some have their children stolen from
them, others have their entire life savings and possessions taken. In my case, I
began researching automobile related law due to being financially tight on
resources yet having an abundance of time on my hands as a result of being bed
stricken from chronic health issues.
This text consists of my appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal regarding
the facts concerning driver licensing in California. I have included certified

copies of the Acts of the Legislature related to the topic of licensing for the
commercial use of the highways. In addition, I have included the numerous
exemptions of those who do not engage in commerce upon the high ways from
the requirements of licensing, the documented evidence that the California
Legislature intentionally obfuscated the intent of the licensing laws, the evidence
that the California Judiciary all receive parts of the fines and fees from traffic
tickets in direct violation of the California Constitutional prohibition of Judges
receiving fines and fees from cases, and additional interesting and useful facts
regarding the right to travel via automobile.
Please spread this text to all who would find it interesting and useful.
Spread word of my case in the 9th Circuit, which the Court can sit on indefinitely
without ruling. If there is more of an outcry for this right and for a ruling on this
case perhaps they will make a ruling. There are billions of dollars in unlawfully
acquired monies involved in this nationwide racket by the Judges in the BAR
association. Many Judges may not be aware of these facts, but if they do learn the
facts that are contained in this document, how do you think they will handle it? It
will effect the retirement of Judges across the land. Could an honest Judge come
out on this issue with out retribution by others?
The only way the right to travel via any means will become a right again, is
if the slave class demands it. How important is it to you that you should be free to
go where you want, how you want, and when you want? Every aspect of your life
will eventually be at the whim of a technocratic ruling class if there is not
sufficient resistance to their tyranny. Even if you don't know any one else who
takes this seriously, don't let it deter you. The general masses are followers. Focus
on what you can do and do it. When there are enough of us doing this then the
rest will follow.

If you find the research that I have taken the time to compile useful and you

would like to donate towards my current and future endeavors, feel free to
contact me at my_experience@safe-mail.net.

Philip Christian Bikle

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 1 of 64

Philip Christian Bikle

2
3

4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

I {-!
~.Uu

,_ j

')

'"

... f11/,

lu l'f

F I L E D - - - - -- - DOCKETED _.,O~AT:=-E- -

INITIAl.

7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bilde

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

)APPEAL

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) APPELLANT'S BRIEF

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

19

City of Lakewood irt Los Angeles County;

20

Defendants

ORIGINAL

21

Case: 14-55077

2
3
4

5
6
7

9
10

11
12

13
14
15

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 2 of 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF Tfffi CAS ........................................ .. ....................... .................7
Nature of the Proceeding ........... ............................. ............ .. ... .................................. ?
Notice of Appeal................................................................. ...................................... 7
Jurisdiction .... ..................................................................... .......................................7
Nature of the Judgment.......... .......... ........................................................... ........... ?-8
Questions Presented ........... ............ ................................... ............. ...................... 8-1 0
Summary

of Argument. ..................................................................................... . ll-13

Summary ofFacts .. ................................. .................. ................... .............. ... ..... l3-14


ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR............................... .. .... .............. ....... ................... l4-16

Argument..................,............. ... ... .................. ......................................... .......... l6-45


I. Statutory and State Constitutional Analysis ......................... ................ l?-43
II. Federal Law Analysis ............................................................ ............ 43-45
CONCLUSION.......... ............................ .............. .................................. ........... ...... 46
ADDENDUM................................................ .... ................................. ............ ... 47-50

16
17

18
19

20
21

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES


United States Constitution, Amendment IV .......................................................... .47
United States Constitution, Amendment V .................................................... ....... .4 7
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV ........................ ......................... .47-48

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 3 of 64

California Constitution, Preamble .......................................................................... .48

California Constitution, article I, section 1.............................................................48

California Constitution, article I, section 3(b)(2) ....................................................48

California Constitution, article I, section 26 .......................................................... .48

California Constitution, article VI, section 17................................................... 48-49

Statutes, 1905, Chapter 612 (DCXII) ................................................................ 17-1 8

Statutes, 1913, Chapter 326.................................................................................... 17

Statutes, 1925, Chapter 412 ....................................................................................21

10

Statutes, 1937, Chapter 679 .................................................................................... 25

11

Statutes, 1941, Chapter 39...................................................................................... 26

12

Statutes, 1957, Chapter 482....................................................................................28

13

Statutes, 1959, Chapter 3 ..................................................................................28, 33

14

Statutes, 1961, Chapter 1615 .................................................................................. 30

15

Statutes, 1963, Chapter 74 ...................................................................................... 32

16

Statutes, 1971, Chapter 213 ................................................................................... .3 2

17

Statutes, 1984, Chapter 621 ....................................................................................33

18

Statutes, 1990, Chapter 1359.................................................................................. 33

19

Statutes, 1993, Chapter 272 ................................................................................... .33

20

Statutes, 1993, Chapter 1292 ................................................................................. .34

21

Statutes, 1996, Chapter 10......................................................................................35


Statutes, 2003, Chapter 222 ....................................................................................35
3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 4 of 64

Statutes, 2004, Chapter 755 .................................................................................... 36

Statutes, 2007, Chapter 630 .................................................................................... 37

California Vehicle Code 310................................ 11, 16, 28, 30, 32, 33, 43, 45,49

California Vehicle Code 12500....... 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 28-37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49

6
7

Certificate of Compliance with type-volume limitation, typeface requirements,


and type style requirements ............................................................ Attachment

APPENDIX

Dismissal Order.. ........................................................ .,............................. Attachment

10

11
12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

3
4

Page: 5 of 64

Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 199 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235.


(Supreme Court of California, 1926)...................................................... 23, 25
Beamon v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 180 Cal.App.2d 200,

4 Cal.Rptr. 396. (1960) ................................................................................. 30

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) ................................................ 43

8
Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925) ........................ ........... ......... 12, 16, 23, 43

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684, 214 P. 42.


(Supreme Court of California, 1923) .... .... .............................................. 20, 29
Chapman v.Aggeler, 47 Cal.App. 2d. 848, 119 P.2d 204. (1941) .........................36
Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432,
261 Cal.Rptr. 574; 777 P.2d 610 (1989) ........... ... .......................... ............... 37
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ...... .......................... .44
Ex parte Schmolke, 199 Cal. 42, 248 P. 244.
(Supreme Court of California, 1926).. .............. ...... ...... .................. .......... .... 25
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) .................... ........................... .44
Holmes v. Railroad Commission of California et al., 197 Cal. 627,
242 P. 486. (Supreme Court of California, 1925)......... ................................ 23
In the Matter of Application of Stork, 167 Cal. 294, 295-296, 139 P. 684.
(Supreme Court ofCalifornia, 19 14) ..... ................ .................... ...... .. 18-20, 29

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 6 of 64

Jackson v. San Diego, 121 Cal. App. 3d. 579, 587,

175 CaL Rptr. 395. (1981) ............................................................................ 38

Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................8, 14, 38

Olajide v. California Deparment of Motor Vehicles, No. Al33375,

(Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16) 20 12)............................................................. 8, 14, 38

People v. McKay, 27 Cal.4th 601, 607 (2002)........................................................ 14

Rosenfield v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 (1983) ............................ .37

Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. Heaton, 105 CaL 162, 165

9
10
11

[38 P. 693] (1894) ........................................................................................37


Urban Renewal Agency v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm.,
15 Cal. 3d. 577, 125 Cal. Rptr. 485, 542 P.2d. 645. (1975) ......................... .36

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Case: 14-55077

-oB/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEotry: 6

Page: 7 of 64

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


2

Jurisdiction

Bikle brought this action before the United States District Court pursuant to

42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(3), 1986 and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and this jurisdiction is founded

upon 28 U.S. C. 1331 and 1343(a) (3) and (4).

Jurisdiction of this Court of Appeals is invoked under Section 1291, Title

28, United States Code, as an appeal from a fmal judgment of dismissal with

prejudice, on December 13, 2013, in the United States District Court for the

10

Central District Court of California, in Santa Ana. Notice of appeal was timely

11

filed, on January 10, 2014, in accordance with Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal

12

Rules of Appellate Procedure (F.R.A.P. ).

13
14

Nature of the Proceeding


This is a civil case in which the Appellant, Philip Christian Bikle, appeals

15

the judgement of dismissal with prejudice entered pursuant to Federal Rule o

16

Civil Procedure 12(b) ( 1).

17

18
19
20
21

A copy of the complaint was provided to the District Clerk in order to allow

compliance with F.R.A.P. ( 11 )(b)(2).

Nature of the Judgment


The trial court found that Bikle's complaint against Defendants failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that it was frivolous. The trial

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 8 of 64

court alleges that all of Bikle's claims, " ... stem from the underlying premise that

because he does not use his vehicle for commercial purposes, he is not required to

have a driver's license." The trial court alleges that a nearly identical 1983 claim

was rejected as frivolous by the Ninth Circuit. The trial court relies upon the

Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2007) case and the California

Court of Appeals case Olajide v. California. Department of Motor Vehicles, No.

A 133375, 2012 WL 893879 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012) for dismissal. Bikle's

charges of conspiracy to deprive Bikle of his due process rights, Fifth Amendment

claims, Ninth Amendment claims and state-law tort claims under supplemental

10
11
12

jurisdiction were dismissed.


A copy of the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice is attached at

the end of this brief.

Questions Presented

13

14

1)

Has the Legislature of the State of California made a classification

15

whereby all chauffeurs or drivers of motor vehicles for hire are

16

required to pay a license, while all other drivers of vehicles are

17

classed as 'operators,' and are not required to secure a license or pay

18

a license fee?

19

2)

Has the Legislature of the State of California provided exemptions

20

from the requirement to obtain a driver's license, which includes a

21

chauffeur's or an operator's license, for those persons who use an

Case: 14~55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 9 of 64

automobile upon the highways but who do not transport persons or

property for hire?

3)

by the Legislature. of drivers of motor vehlcles into the two classes

described, and the exaction of a license fee from the one and not from

the other, indicate that California Vehicle Code section 12500(a)

applies to the class of persons who use their automobile on the

highways but who are not chauffeurs or operators of motor vehicles

for hire?

10

4)

are not chauffeurs or operators of motor vehicles for hire be arrested

12

for violating California Vehicle Code 12500(a)?

13

5)

vehicles for hire have to provide a peace officer with a driver's license

16

upon demand?

17

19
20
21

Does a member of the class of persons who use their automobile on


the highways but who are not chauffeurs or operators of motor

15

18

Assuming (3) is answered in the negative, can a member of the


class of persons who use their automobile on the highways but who

11

14

Assuming (1) or (2) are answered in the affirmative, does the division

6)

Assuming (5) is answered in the affirmative, is a United States


Passport sufficient for identification purposes in place of a driver's
license?

Case: 14-55077

7)

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 10 of 64

Assuming (6) is answered in the affirmative, does a person have to

provide a thumbprint after providing a U.S. Passport for

identification?

8)

If a member of the class of persons who use their automobile on the

highways but who are not chauffeurs or operators of motor vehicles

for hire does not provide a driver's license to an officer upon demand,

is that probable cause to run background checks on the person's

automobile?

a)

10
11

permissive?
b)

Assuming (a) is answered in the affirmative, can penalties be


enforced against a person for allegedly violating eve 12500 (a)?

12
13

Is the term "may", in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 12500 (a)

c)

Assuming (2) is answered in the negative, does a peace officer have

14

the authority to initiate a seizure of a person who is alleged to have

15

violated said statutory section?

16

d)

Assuming (2) is answered in the negative, does a peace officer have

17

the authority to initiate a search of a person's absolutely owned

18

property on the grounds that said person allegedly violated said

19

statutory section?

20

Summary of Argument

21

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 11 of 64

The District Court misinterpreted the law pertaining to driver's licenses in

the State of California. It further applied the incorrect law to Bikle. The cases that

the District Court relied upon also misinterpreted the Legislative Acts regarding

driver's licenses. The misinterpretation, by California State Courts, may have been

a result of the vague and over-broad language of the. Califomja Vehicle Code 3 10

and 12500, or it may have been the result of a biased judiciary, influenced by the

fines and fees from traffic tickets which get laundered through local Cow1ty

General Funds before portions are extracted and placed into the Judges Retirement

Funds I & II in spite of a California Constitutional prohibition on Judges receiving

10

portions of fines and fees. See California Constitution Article 6 Section 17.

11

Officer Santos unlawfully detained Bikle. Furthermore he searched Bikle's

12

absolutely owned, personal property with out probable cause. Officer Santos and

13

Officer Hayes along with their employing agencies Los Angeles Sheriffs

14

Department, Los Angeles County, and the City of Lakewood in Los Angeles

15

County have engaged in a criminal conspiracy to convert Bikle's lawful right to

16

travel via automobile, with out obtaining a driver's license, into the privileged, and

17

licensed, activities of a "chauffeur" and/or an "operator". The California

18

Legislature created exemptions from licensing requirements for individuals who

19

do not fit the description of a "chauffeur" or an "operator" as these terms have

20

been defined repeatedly by the Legislature in the acts which create the laws

21

relating to the chauffeur's licenses and operator's licenses, which are conjointly
known as the "driver's license" .
11

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 12 of 64

The aforementioned officers conspired to extract money from Bikle by


2

using the United States Postal Service fraudulently, to convey that criminal

prosecution had been initiated and that a criminal case had been opened against

Bikle, when in reality there had been no initiation of prosecution by a prosecuting

attorney, who is the only lawfully vested person responsible for initiating a

criminal prosecution. This constituted fraud and a conspiracy as per 1985(3).

Bikle is a member of the class of persons who utilize the public right-of-way and

who are not obligated to obtain a driver's license, as can clearly be seen by careful

examination of the California Legislative Acts and Califotnia Supreme Court

10

decisions pertaining to the subject. Bikle had the rights to: travel via automobile

11

and to due process pursuant to the 14th amendment. Peace officers are not

12

authorized in California to initiate a criminal prosecution. In attempting to do so,

13

and by conveying that such criminal prosecution was initiated, the officers

14

conspired against Bikle and violated the aforementioned rights.

15

Bikle should be allowed to amend his complaint such that all due process

16

violation claims under the Fifth amendment are properly claimed under the 14th

17

amendment, which applies to State actors.

18

Bikle should be allowed to amend his complaint such that all right to travel

19

via automobile claims are properly brought under the 14th amendment. See Buck

20

v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 45 S. Ct. 324, 69 L. Ed. 623, 38 A . L. R. 286.

21

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 13 of 64

Bilde should be allowed to pursue his state-tort claims pursuant to Federal

Court supplemental jurisdiction. Bikle does not expect to have an impartial venue

in the State arena given the potential Judicial biases presented in this appeal.

The District Court dismissed Bikle's complaint on errors. The dismissal with

prejudice should be vacated and the case should be remanded to continue where it

left off.

Summary of Facts

The following is a subset of the alleged facts from the original complaint.

Bikle requests that all of the alleged facts be taken into consideration with this

10

appeal; however, this subset summarizes the core issues on appeal, to wit:

11
12

Bikle was arrested and issued a citation, by Officer A. Santos, for allegedly

13

violating Califmnia Vehicle Code 12500(a) and 16028(c), no driver's license and

14

no insurance, respectively. Bikle informed the Officer that he was not engaged in

15

the business of transportation, that is, transporting persons or property for hire.

16

Bikle informed the Officer that the California Statutes only required those engaged

17

in aforementioned activities to hold a driver's license and insurance. The Officer

18

listened but ignored these facts.

19

When prompted for identification, Bikle provided the Officer with a United

20

States Passport, which should have been sufficient for identification purposes. See

21

13

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 14 of 64

People v. McKay, 27 Cal.4th 601, 607 (2002). Officer Santos demanded a

thumbprint from Bikle, who complied under duress.

Officer Santos also searched, without probable cause, Bikle's absolutely

owned, personal property, a Ford F-150 with the Vehicle Identification Number

(VIN) of "1FTEX14H1PKA12440". The VIN was then used to perform searches

for information on the property.

Following this Officer Santos and Officer Hayes conveyed, via the United

States Postal Service, that a criminal case had been initiated against Bikle. The

employers of said Officers, including the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, the

10 City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles County, failed to
11

adequately train said officers.

12
13

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

14

The District Court misinterpreted tbe law.

15

(A)

This error included relying upon the following cases, in which the

16

involved courts in tum misinterpreted the law: Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x

17

514 (9th Cir. 2007) and Olajide v. California. Department of Motor Vehicles, No.

18

A133375, 2012 WL 893879 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012). Neither of these cases

19

resulted in an accurate reflection of the California Acts responsible for drivers

20

licenses, nor did the involved courts acknowledge California Supreme Court case

21

law which upholds a distinction between the class of persons who engage in the

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 15 of 64

business of transportation versus the class of persons who merely use the roads as

a matter of right, which includes controlling an automobile on the roads.

(B)

The trial court erred in the interpretation of the terms of California

Vehicle Code 12500 as the California Legislature clearly defined them. "May"

does not mean ''shall". The former is permissive and the latter is mandatory.

The District Court applied the wrong law.

The District Court erred by applying the law, which regulates persons who

engage in the business of transportation, to Bikle, who does not engage in the

10

business of transportation and who merely uses his automobile as a means of

11

getting from one place to another, without direct or indirect compensation. The

12

District Court should have used the classification scheme established by the

13

California legislature, and repeatedly cited by the California Supreme Court, to

14

discern that Bikle is a member of the class of persons who are exempted from

15

obtaining a drivers license.

16

There are other reasons why the District Court's judgement was wrong.

17

The District Court may not be aware of facts that create a strong question as

18

to the ability of the current Califomia Judiciary to act in an impartial manner when

19

it comes to the issue of the classification of users of automobiles as those who

20

require a driver's license and those who do not. The California Judge's Retirement

21

Funds both obtain money from the County General Fund, where a judge is seated,
and this County General Fund gets a portion of fmes and fees from "traffic courts"
15

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 16 of 64

which deal with automobile related issues. The California Constitution prohibits

such a scenario to avoid the prospect of creating a biased Judiciary. See California

Constitution, article I, section 26 & California Constitution Article 6 Section 17.

Furthermore, under Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307, 45 S. Ct. 324, 69 L.

Ed. 623, 38 A. L. R. 286. it was stated clearly that a citizen who uses the public

highways for profit is engaging in a privileged activity, which the State may

regulate; however, those who do not make a profit from transporting persons or

property for hire upon the public highways have a right to use the road for

vehicular travel. So while the District Court claims that Ninth amenchnent rights

I0

can not be enforced under a 1983 suit, Bik1e still has the right to travel upon the

11

public right-of-way via automobile, while not engaging in commercial activities

12

via the 14th amendment.

13

Other specific issues on appeal.

14

The California Vehicle Codes 31 0 and 12500 are unconstitutionally vague

15

and broad. These sections of the California Vehicle Code have been amended to

16

become unconstitutionally over-broad and vague and cannot form the basis of a

17

criminal complaint.

18

Argument

19
20

I.

Statutory and State Constitutional Analysis

21
1

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 17 of 64

On the District Court's misinterpretation of the law and subsequent

application of the wrong law.

In order to better understand the District Court's misinterpretation of the law

with regards to "driver's licenses" in Calif01nia, it is necessary to examine the Acts

of the Legislature, the case history. and potential biasing factors for the California

Judiciary on this topic.

In 1905 the legislature passed, "An act to regulate the operation of motor

vehicles on public highways, and making an appropriation for the purpose o

carrying out the objects of this act.'' See Notice # 1. In this act the term "chaffeur"

10

means any person operating a motor vehicle as a mechanic, employee or for hire.

11

These individuals were required to pay a registration fee in order to operate a

12

vehicle. The individual would then be issued a number and aluminum badge with

13

that number up upon it, which was to be wom when they were engaged in

14

providing services.

15

In 1913 the legislature passed, "An act to regulate the use and operation of

16

vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration

17

and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of registration fees

18

therefore; to provide for the licensing of persons operating motor vehicles; to

19

prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public highways; to

20

prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner

21

thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons of any bonus
or discount or other consideration for the purchase of supplies or parts for motor
1

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 18 of 64

vehicles, or for work or repairs done thereon; to provide penalties for violations o

provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines and forfeitures

imposed thereon; to provide for the disposition of registration and license

fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to provide for carrying out the objects o

this act and to make an appropriation and to create a revolving fund therefore; and

to repeal all acts or parts of acts either in conformity or in conflict with this act."

See Notice #2. This act retained the purpose of 1905 act regarding chauffeurs. Any

person who operates a motor vehicle and who directly or indirectly receives pay or

any compensation whatsoever for such operation or for any work or service in

10

connection with motor vehicles was considered a chauffeur. Section 7 indicated

11

the requirements for a chauffeur license. There were no requirements created for

12

anyone else to obtain a license of any form.


In 1914 the California Supreme Court gave an opinion on the case Ex arte

13

14
15
16

17

fees~

Stork:
''The sole contention in this regard is that the Legislature,
without reason and warrant, has made an arbitrary classification
whereby chauffeurs or drivers of motor vehicles for hire are
required to pay a license, while all other drivers of vehicles are
classed as 'operators,' and are not required to secure a license or
pay a license fee ...

18

19
20

21

That the occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation


and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee is beyond
question. ' When the calling or profession or business is
attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific
knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation
properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.'
[Citations]
1

Case: 14-55077

2
3

5
6

7
8

9
10
11

12
13

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 19 of 64

There are unquestionable elements of similarity, even of


identity, between the driving of an automobile by a professional
chauffeur and the driving of a like vehicle by a private owner,
designated in this act as an 'operator.' Thus it may not be
gainsaid that the ignorance of the one is as likely to result in
accident as the same ignorance upon the part of the other. The
recklessness of the one is as likely to result in injury as the
recklessness of the other. It is equally dangerous to other
occupants and users of the highway whether the unskilled or
reckless driver be a chauffeur or ' operator.' All these matters
may be conceded, and yet there are others of equal significance
where the differences between the two classes of drivers are
radical. Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur
offers his services to the public, and is frequently a carrier of the
general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs
in a class by themselves, and entitle the public to receive the
protection which the Legislature may accord in making
provision for the competency and carefulness of such drivers.
The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car.
He is entrusted with the property of others. In the nature of
things, a different amount of care will ordinarily be exercised by
such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own
car and risking his own property. Many other considerations of
like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been
said to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the
classification adopted.

14
15
16

17
18

In conclusion it may be said that, while on reason we hold the


classification to be sound and the license fee therefore legal, no
case where any court of last resort has taken a contrary view has
been called to our attention, while, besides the intimations in the
cases above cited, this precise conclusion was adopted by the
Court of Appeals of Maryland in Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 553,
87 Atl. 1080." In the Matter of Application of Stork, 167 Cal.
294, 295-296, 139 P. 684. See also Notice #3.

19

This California Supreme Court case has never been overturned and has been

20

ignored by lower courts in California. The case may be old, but as will be

21

demonstrated, this classification scheme, of those who engage in business upon the

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 20 of 64

highways of the state and those who simply use the highways for purposes o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

vehicular travel, is still in existence.


In 1923 California Supreme Court gave the following opinion on the issue
of placing minors in a class by themselves:
''The application of the law to minors in a class by themselves is
not unreasonable or arbitrary. The argument that the law
attempts to put into a class by themselves all minors,
irrespective of their age, experience, ability to drive, or their
fmancial responsibility, is one that should be presented to the
legislative department and not to the courts. In re Stork, 167
Cal. 294, 296, 139 Pac. 684. While some minors are more apt at
learning to run motor vehicles than others-possibly more apt
than many adults-the fact remains that they are minors. They
are in position to be, and in a vast number of cases are, intrusted
with the control and operation of motor vehicles upon the
public highways. While an automobile is not, in and of itself, a
dangerous machine, it may become such in the hands of a
careless and indiscreet person. The statute prohibiting the
operation of motor vehicles upon the public highways by
minors, without their first having obtained licenses which can
only be procured upon an assumption of liability for their
negligence by parent or guardian, is in effect a determination by
the Legislature that minors have not that discretion and
judgment which entitles them to unrestrained permission to
operate such vehicles upon the public thoroughfares, freed from
all parental liability for their negligence except in those cases
where it can be established that they are acting as the agent or
servant of the owner of the car causing an injury. Daily v.
Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 415, 425, 133 S. W. 351. The
Legislature no doubt had in mind the fact that the authorities are
in accord in holding that, as a general rule, in an action based on
the negligent running of an automobile, the owner of the car
who was not present at the infliction of the injury cannot be
held liable, except it be shown that the person in charge not
only was the agent or servant of the owner, but also was
engaged at the time in the business of his service. Daily v.
Maxwell, supra; Bryant v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 174 Cal. 737,
742, 164 Pac. 385." Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684, 214 P.
42. (1923). See also Notice #12.
2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 21 of 64

1
2

Adults who use their automobiles on the highways and who do not engage in the

business of transportation are not required to have an operator's or a chauffeur's

license.

In 1925 the legislature passed, "An act to impose a license fee for the

transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon public streets,

roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for

certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions hereof and

for the disposition of the amounts collected on account of such licenses; to make

I0

an appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in

11

conflict herewith." See Notice #4. In this act the term "operator":

12

13
14
15
16
17
18

19

"
shall include all persons, firms, associa6ons and
corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public
highway in this state and thereby engage in the transportation of
persons or property for hire or compensation, but shall not

include any person, firm, association or corporation who


solely transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports his or its own property, or employees, or both, and
who transports no persons or property for hire or
compensation, but all persons operating freight carrying
vehicles so exempted shall be required to obtain.from the state
Board of equalization and to display exempt emblems in a
manner hereinafter provided." [Emphasis added by Appellant
via bolding and italicizing.]

20

These operators are required in section 2 to obtain a license from the board of

21

equalization of the state of California to operate each and all ofthe motor vehicles
which the operator desires to operate. Individuals who do not engage In
21

Case: 14-55077

08/.29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 22 of 64

transportation of persons or property for hire are not required to obtain an

operator's license."

The California Supreme Court issued the following opinion in 1925:


4

5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12
13

14

15
16
17

18

"Petitioners emphasize the words which we have italicized and


insist that this tule is limited in its application to common
can-iers. We think it is equally applicable to all persons who
seek to make a special and private use of the public highways
by transacting their private business thereon and that it applies
with equal force to private carriers who engage in the business

of transportation for hire upon the public highways. The


reason for the rule which authorizes the state to prohibit the
private use of the highways by such carriers is not that they
are common carriers; it is that they are making a private use
of the public highways, which are owned and paid for by the
public, and which are open alike to all persons."
""The gist of our conclusion in that case may be briefly stated
as follows: The Legislature by the 1919 amendment to the Auto
Stage and Truck Transportation Act plainly intended and
attempted to extend the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission
to private carriers when engaged in the business of
transportation companies as there defined and to subject such
private carriers to the burdens, obligations, and limitations
imposed by that act. The question, then, is whether the state has
the power to impose such burdens and limitations upon private
carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of
their business, or whether its power in this behalf is limited in
its application to public carriers. It is now universally

recognized that the state does possess such power with respect
to common carriers using the public highways for the
transaction of their business in the transportation of persons
or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the
Supreme Court of the United States:

19
20
21

'A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the


right to travel and transport his property upon them [the
public highways] by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make
the highways his place of business by using them as a
common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may
be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without
2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 23 of 64

violating either the due process clause or the equal protection


clause.' Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307, 45 S. Ct. 324, 69

L. Ed. 623, 38 A. L. R. 286." [Emphasis added by Appellant via


holding and italicizing.] Holmes v. Railroad Commission of
California et al., 197 Cal. 627, 242 P. 486. (1925). See also
Notice #11.

3
4

The High Court indicates clearly the reason for the rule which authorizes state
5

regulation via the licensing of a certain set of persons who use automobiles for the
6
specific purpose of transporting persons or property for hire upon the highways.
7
In 1926 the California Supreme Court provided an opinion in the case of

Bacon Service Corporation v. Russ relating to the issue of using automobiles and
9

who is required to obtain a license. The following are excerpts from the opinion:
10

11
12
13
14

"In July, 1924, he was threatening criminal prosecutions against


the respondent for alleged violations of the provisions of an act
entitled 'An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of
persons or property for hire or compensation upon public
streets, roads and highways in the state of California by motor
vehicle; to provide for certain exemptions; to provide for the
enforcement of the provisions hereof and for the disposition of
the amounts collected on account of such licenses, * * *'
approved June 13, 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 706).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

As indicated by its title, the act was designed to impose. a


license tax upon those engaged in the business of operating
motor vehicles upon the public highways for the transportation
of persons or property for compensation. Section 1 defines
certain words and phrases employed in the act. The term

'operator' is declared generally to include all persons, firms,


associations, and corporations who operate motor vehicles
upon any public highway in the state and thereby engage in
the transportation of persons or property for hire or
compensation. The term 'motor vehicles' is defmed to mean
and include all vehicles, automobiles, trucks, or trailers
operated upon or over the public highways of this state whether
23

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 24 of 64

the same be propelled or operated by steam or electridty or


propelled or operated by combustion of gasoline, distillate or
other volatile and inflammable liquid fuels. The term 'gross
receipts from operation' is declared to include all receipts from
the operation of any such motor vehicle beginning and ending
entirely within this state and excluding revenues from interstate
commerce.

Section 2 of the act provides:

' Each operator of a motor vehicle within this state who

2
3

7
8

transports or desires to transport for compensation or hire


persons or property upon or over any public highway within
this state shall apply to and secure from the board of
equalization of the state of California a license to operate
each and all of the motor vehicles which such operator desires
to operate or which such operator from time to time may
operate.'

10

11

Section 1 excludes from the definition of the term 'operator'

13

every one 'who solely transports by motor vehicle persons to


and from or to or from attendance upon any public school,' and
also every one 'who solely transports his or its own property,

14

or employees, or both, and who transports no persons or


property for hire or compensation. '

12

15
16

The next exemptio11. applies to those who use said public

17

highways for the transportation of their own property or


employees or both and to those who transport no pers01zs or
property for hire or compensation. It is obvious that those who

18
19

20
21

operate motor vehicles for the transportation of persons or


property for hire enjoy a different and more extensive use of the
public highways. They are thereby enabled to engage in
business on the public highways and to provide for themselves
a livelihood, particularly because of the existence of the public
highways and the facilities thereby afforded. Such extraordinary
use constitutes a natural distinction and a full justification for
their separate classification and for relieving from the burden of
the license tax those who merely employ the public highways
2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEn try: 6

Page: 25 of 64

for the transportation of their own property or employees."


[Emphasis added by Appellant via holding and italicizing.]
Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss, 199 Cal. 21, 248 P. 235.
(1926). See also Notice #8.

1
2

3
4

Clearly the California Supreme Comt recognized the classification scheme ofthos

who engage in the business of transportation versus those who use thei

automobiles without engaging in the business of transportation. The latter class i

not required to obtain a license in order to use their automobile upon the highway

of the state.

Again in 1926 the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of

I0

In the matter of the application of Paul Schmolke for writ of habeas corpus. Th

11

following excerpts are relevant:

12
13
14

"It is not the type of vehicle, but the peculiar nature of the
business conducted upon and over the public highways, that
justifies the classification of the statute for licensing
purposes." Ex parte Schmolke, 199 Cal. 42, 248 P. 244. (1926).
See also Notice #9.

15
This statement by the California Supreme Court is of the utmost importance with
16
regards to who is required to obtain a license. It is the business of transportation
17
via automobile upon the highways that is being regulated, NOT the non-business
18
use of an automobile upon the highway.
19
In 1937 the legislature passed, "An act to amend sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 o

20
an act entitled "An act imposing a license fee or tax for the transportation o
21
persons or property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads an

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 26 of 64

highways in the State of California by motor vehicle and providing that this ac

shall take effect immediately," approved May 15, 1933; to add sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

10, 12, 15 and 21 to said act; to renumber and amend sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13,

14, 16, and 17 of said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15 of said act; relating to the

taxing of operators engaged in the transportation of persons or property upon th

public highways by motor vehicle and providing that this act shall take effec

immediately." See Notice #5. Section l(a) of the act states, the term "operator'

shall include all persons engaging in the transportation of persons or property fo

higher or compensation by or upon motor vehicles upon any public highway in th

10

state, either directly or indirectly, but shaJI not mean nor include the following:

11

(1) any person transporting his own property in his own motor vehicle;

12

provided, however, that any such person making a specific charge for sue

13

transportation shall be deemed to be an" operator" hereunder;" Section 2 create

14

the requirement of obtaining a license to engage in the business of transportatio

15

upon the highways of the state. Those deemed an operator are the only one

16

required to obtain said license. Again, those who do not engage in business have n

17

obligation to obtain an operators license. Perhaps one can see a pattern at this poin

18

with regards to the separate functional usage of automobiles and the obligations o

19

one class of persons as a result thereof.

20

In 1941 the legislature passed, "An act to add Part 4, comprising sections

21

9601 to 10501, inclusive, to division 2 of: and to add section 50010 to, the revenue
and taxation code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to taxation
2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 27 of 64

and the raising of revenue, including the provisions of "An act imposing a license

fee or tax for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation

upon the public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor

vehicle and providing that this act shall take effect immediately," approved May

15, 1933, as amended, and repealing acts and parts of acts specified herein." See

Notice #6. Section 9603 states: ''operator" includes: (a) any person engaging in

the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation by or upon a

motor vehicle upon any public highway in the state, either directly or indirectly.

(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the transpmtation of persons

10

or property under a lease or rental agreement when pursuant to the terms thereo

11

the person operates a motor vehicle furnished or exercises any control of, or

12

assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in whole or in part in, the

13

transportation of persons or property in the motor vehicle furnished. "Operator"

14

does not include any of the following: (a) Any person transporting his own

15

property in a motor vehicle owned or operated by him unless be makes a

16

specific charge for the transportation. This subdivision does not in any way

17

limit any other exemption granted by this section." Chapter 2 of the act imposes a

18

license tax upon operators at section 9651. Chapter 3 requires every operator who

19

engages in the business of transportation to obtain a license. Once again, there is

20

no requirement for an individual who is not engaged in the business o

21

transportation to obtain a license to utilize their automobile upon the highways.


2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 28 of 64

In 1957 the legislature passed, "An act to add Sections 69.1 and 69.2 to the

Vehicle Code, relating to drivers' licenses." See Notice #7. In this short act the

"operators" license and the "chauffeurs" license are consolidated under the term "

Driver's license." Section 69.1 reads as follows: ''Driver's license." "Driver's

license" includes both an operators and a chauffeurs license!' As one can see,

there are two types of licenses under this term and both of these types of licenses

are required of in<lividuals who engage in the business of transportation.

Individuals who do not engage in the business of transportation have never been

required to obtain either license.

10

In 1959 the legislature passed, "An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle

11

Code and to add Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part 4,

12

Division 3 of the Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5 of the Revenue and

13

Taxation Code, relating to vehicles.'' See Notice #13 . General provisions within

J4

section 2 indicate that, "The provisions of this code, in so far as they are

15

substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter,

16

shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new

17

enactments." Section 310 reads, "Drivet's license" includes both an operators and a

18

chauffeurs license.'' Division 6, has the heading, "OPERATORS' AND

19

CHAUFFEURS' LICENSES", Chapter 1. ''Issuance ofLicenses, Expiration, and

20

Renewal. Article 1. Persons Required to be Licensed, Exemptions, and Age

21

limits." Section 12500 (a) states, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
highway unless he then holds a drivers license issued under this code, except such
2

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 29 of 64

persons as are expressly exempted under this code." Section 12500 (d) reads as, "It

is a misdemeanor for any person to drive a motor vehicle upon a highway as a

chauffeur unless he then holds a chauffeurs license Duly issued under this code,

except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code." Clearly, this

entire division is intended for those who engage in the business of transportation.

The division heading is comprised of the two categories of licenses issued to those

who engage in two different types of business of transportation. All of the acts

passed up to this point expressly exempted those who do not engage in the

business of transportation from obtaining either an operators or a chauffeurs

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

license or a drivers license, which includes the former two licenses.


In 1960 the California District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
provided the following opinion which relied upon the 1914 case ofln re stork:
"Classifications of persons authorized to operate motor vehicles
have been upheld with respect to minors (Buelke v. Levenstadt,
190 Cal. 684, 688, 214 P. 42); financial responsibility of
operators (Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 212 Cal. 279,
282, 298 P. 481); chauffeurs and operators (In Matter of
Application of Stork, 167 Cal. 294, 295, 139 P. 684). The latter

case, upholding the validity of a statute requiring chauffeurs


to pay a license fee but exempting all other drivers from
payment, states in respect to the differences between the two
classes of drivers (167 Cal. at page 296, 139 P. at page 685):

18
19
20
21

' Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers
his services to the public, and is frequently a carrier of the
general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs
in a class by themselves, and entitle the public to receive the
protection which the Legislature may accord in making
provision for the competency and carefulness of such drivers.
The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car.
He is intrusted with the property of others. In the nature of

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 30 of 64

things a different amount of care will ordinarily be exercised by


such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own
car and risking his own property. Many other considerations of
like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been
said to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the
classification adopted.'" [Emphasis added by Appellant via
holding and italicizing.] Beamon v. Department of Motor
Vehicles,180 Cal.App.2d 200, 4 Cal.Rptr. 396. (1960). See also
Notice #10.

2
3

4
5
6

The classification scheme which distinguishes between those who engage in the

business of transportation and those who do not engage in the business o

transportation but who use an automobile upon the highways has never been

abrogated.

10

In 1961 the legislature passed, "An act to amend Sections 310, 12500,

11

12502, 12503, 12506, 12510, 12511, 12512, 12514, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519,

12

12800, 12804, 12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551, 13802, 14605, 14606,

13

14607, 14900, 16081, 22514, 42230, and the heading of Division 6 (commencing

14

with Section 12500) of, and to repeal Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and 14604

15

of the Vehicle Code, relating to drivers' licenses." See Notice # 14. It is without a

16

doubt that this legislation, and that in the years following, are overly broad and

17

vague and therefore unconstitutional. Section 2 reads, "Section 310 of said code is

18

amended to read: 310. "Driver's license" is a license to drive the type of motor

19

vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under this code."

20

This amendment obfuscates the original intention of the term which was to

21

encompass both the operator's and the chauffeur's license. Rather than maintaining
a distinction between those who engage in the privileged activity of using the
3

Case: 14-55077

OB/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 31 of 64

highways for commercial purposes and those who use the highways as a matter o

right, this amendment eliminates such a distinction. This is stealthy government

encroachment upon the rights of the people. Section 4 states: "The heading o

Division 6 (commencing with section 12500) of said code is amended to read:

DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' LICENSES" This amendment also creates vagary about

the division. The layman is misled as to what this division is supposed to

encompass. The layman uses the word driver in a manner to describe everyone

who uses an automobile including those who engage in the business o

transportation and those who merely use their automobile to travel from point A to

I0

point B without transporting persons or property for hire. All of the legislative acts

11

up to this point clearly do not require everyone who uses an automobile to obtain a

12

license. Section 5 indicates: "Section 12500 of said code is amended to read:

13

12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then

14

holds a drivers license issued under this code, except such persons as are expressly

15

exempted under this code." Given the amendments which have occurred here the

16

layman would believe that they are required to have a drivers license in order to

17

use their automobile upon the highway. These amendments do not create any new

18

obligations. They are supposed to be restatements of provisions that have been

19

carried down through the decades. These amendments are vague and broad which

20

is unconstitutional. The California Constitution, article I, section 3(b)C2) is also

21

violated by this vague language.

31

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 32 of 64

The Legislature passed the following act in 1963, "An act to amend sections

310 and 12500 of the vehicle code, relating to drivers license." See Notice # 15.

Section 310 was amended to read, " 310. "Driver's license" is a valid license to

drive the type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is

licensed under this code." Section 12500 was amended to read, "(a) no person shall

drive a motor vehicle upon a highway unless he then holds a drivers license issued

under this code, except such persons as are expressly exempted under this code.

(b) No such person shall drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is

not of a type for which he is licensed." These amendments do not clarify the matter

10

with which they are concerned. They are broad and vague in nature. The original

11

Acts clearly dealt with individuals who only engage in the business o

12

transportation and exempted those who did not. The result is that it appears as if

13

every individual who uses an automobile is subject to the sections when only a

14

subset of individuals who use automobiles for commercial purposes are actually

15

subject to the sections.

16

The Legislature passed the following act in 1971 ~ "An act to amend sections

17

305 and 310 of the vehicle code, relating to drivers licenses." See Notice #16.

18

Section 1. states, "Section 305 ofthe vehicle code is amended to read: 305. A

19

"driver" is a person who drives or is an actual physical control of a vehicle ..." This

20

section of code overlaps with the layman's perception of who is a driver. However,

21

section 310 does not accurately reflect the original act and its intentions to regulate
those who engage in the business of transportation. After the 1971 amendment,
3

Case: 14-55077

10 : 9227555

08/29/2014

DktEntry: 6

Page: 33 of 64

section 310 reads, "31 0. "Drivers license" is a valid license to drive the type of

motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is licensed under this

code or by foreign jurisdiction." These amendments to section 310 are completely

misleading as to who is being

absent in these later amendments. As a

""Driver's license" includes both an operators and a chauffeurs license.'' The

layman would have had a more accurate perception of what a drivers license was

based upon this description.

regulated~

The clarity which existed in 1959 is


reminder~

in 1959 section 310

rea~

In 1984 the legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend Sections

10

4000, 12500, 12501, and 14605 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles." See

11

Notice # 17. In section 2 the following amendments is found, "12500. (a) No

12

person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a

13

drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who ate expressly

14

exempted under this code."

15

The legislature passed following act in 1990, ''An act to amend Sections

16

405, 2936, 12500, and 12804.9 of, and to add Section 14602.5 to, the Vehicle

l7

Code, relating to vehicles." See Notice # 18. Section 12500 (a) was amended to

18

read, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person

19

then holds a drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who are

20

expressly exempted under this code."

21

In 1993 the legislature passed following act, ""An act to amend Sections

39005 and 81033 of, and to repeal Section 81034 of, the Education Code, to
33

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 34 of 64

amend Section 14007 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 21602, 99234,

and 102051 of the Pub] ic Utilities Code, to amend Section 10 1.8 of, and to add

Section 2121 to, the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Sections 410, 635,

4453, 4461, 4604, 11713.3, 12500, 12502, 12505, 12517.2, 12524, 12802,

12804.2, 12804.7, 12810.5, 12812, 13352, 14606, 15250.5, 15250.6, 15255,

15255.1, 15275, 21456.1, 21801 , 22450, 22651 , 22658, 23157, 23161 , 23166,

23168, 23186, 23195, 34500, 34505.1, 34505.6, 35581 , 35780.3, 36305, and

40508 of, and to amend and repeal Sections 12804.9 and 12804.12 of, and to

repeal Sections 12804 and 23157 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation,

10

and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately." See Notice # 19.

11

Again, section 12500 was amended to read, "No person shaU drive a motor vehicle

12

upon the highway, unless the person then holds a drivers license issued under this

13

code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code."

14

Also, in 1993 the Legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend

15

Section 5220 of the Business and Professions Code, to amend Section 44241 of the

16

Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 407, 1808.4, 5004.1, 12500,

17

12951, 14601.2, 14601.5, 14608, 14609, 22511.55, 22511.6, 23302, and 40202 of,

18

to add Section 5902.5 to, and to repeal Section 24016 of, the Vehicle Code,

19

relating to transportation." See Notice #20. Section 12500 was amended to read,

20

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway, unless the person then

21

holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those persons who are
expressly exempted under this code."
3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 35 of 64

The Legislature passed the following act of 1996, "An act to amend sections

15975 and 29535 of the government code, to amend section 99314.6 of, and to add

sections 130051.21 and 130243 to, the public utilities code, to amend sections

188.8, 348, and 438 of, and to add section 73.3 to, the streets and highways code,

and to amend sections 1801, 4000, 12500, 12800.5, 12804.14, 21212, 22651 ,

23136, 23 137, 23158.2, and 42205 of, and to add Sections 5002.7 and 25282 to,

and to repeal section 32108 of, the vehicle code, relating to transportation, and

declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately." See Notice #21.

Section 12500 was amended to read, "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon

10

the highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this

II

code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code."

12

The legislature passed the following act in 2003, "An act to amend Sections

13

260 and 15210 of, and to add Section 35103 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to

14

vehicles." See Notice. #22. Section 260 was amended to read, "(a) A "commercial

15

vehicle" is a motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this code

16

used or maintained for the transportation of persons for higher, compensation, or

17

profit were designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation o

18

property. (b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the

19

transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial

20

vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to chapter 4 (cotnmencing with section

21

15,200) of division 6. (c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle."


Passenger vehicles that are not used for the transportation of persons for higher
35

Case: 14-55077 . 08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 36 of 64

compensation or profit are not required to be registered under the code, as ts

clearly stated in section 260. This classification is clearly harmonious with the

distinction between who is required to obtain a drivers license, which includes

either and operators or a chauffeurs license. Those who use the highways for

personal profit are not only required to obtain a drivers license for that activity, but

they are required to register their vehicle because it is used in commerce. The

license and registration allows the state to regulate their business activities.

In 2004 the legislature passed the following act, "An act to amend Sections

407.5, 12500, 12509, 12804.9, 21225, and 21235 of, and to add Section 21226 to,

10

the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles." See Notice #23. Section 12500 was

11

amended to read, "(a)A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,

12

unless the person holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those

13

persons who are expressly exempted under this code." Parts a, b, c, d, of Section

14

12500, all use the term "may". Part e, of Section 12500, utilizes the term

15

"shall". The California vehicle code section 15 reads as follows, "Shall is

16

mandatory and may is permissive." Section 12500 reads as permissive with this

17

amendment. One cannot be punished for doing what one is allowed to do by law.

18
19
20
21

"When the legislators speak through statutes, their enactments


must be given a strict interpretation. The law must be applied as
it is written. It cannot be extended by judicial interpretation."
Chapman v. Aggeler, 47 Cal. App. 2d. 848, 119 P.2d 204.
(194 1)
"When a statute prescribes the meaning to be given to particular
terms used by it, that meaning is generally binding upon the
court." Urban Renewal Agency v. California Coastal Zone
3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 37 of 64

Conservation Comm., 15 Cal. 3d. 577, 125 Cal. Rptr. 485, 542
P.2d. 645. (1975)

"It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction that the


word 'may' is ordinarily construed as permissive, whereas 'shall'
is ordinarily construed as mandatory, particularly when both
terms are used in the same statute." Santa Cruz Rock Pavement
Co. v. Heaton, 105 Cal. 162, 165; [38 P. 693]
(1894);
Rosenfield v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 198, 202 (1983);
Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 , 261
Cal.Rptr. 574; 777 P.2d 610 (1989)

In 2007 the legislature passed following act, "An act to amend Sections

1804, 5002.7, 12500, 128 10.5, 12811, 13005, 15210, 22450, and 22452 of the

Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.'' See Notice #24. Section 12500 was amended

10

to read, "A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the

11

person then holds a valid drivers license issued under this code, except those

12

persons who are expressly exempted under this code.

3
4
5

13

It should be clear upon a review of the legislative acts and case law that

14

persons who use the public highways for private gain by engaging in the business

1.5

of transportation comprise a class who is privileged and thereby requires

16

regulation via licensing, while persons who are adults and who do not use the

17

public highways for private gain are not regulated nor are they required to hold a

18

drivers license, which includes and operators or chauffeurs license.

19

None of the cases relied upon by the District Court gave an exhaustive

20

review of this subject matter. The lower California courts substituted their views

21

for those of the legislature.


3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 38 of 64

"The Court may not substitute its views for those of the

Legislature when the legislative decision has been made after

weighing policy matters as seen by the legislature." Jackson v.

San Diego, 121 Cal. App. 3d. 579, 587, 175 Cal. Rptr. 395.

(1981)

The individuals who made claims, in the cases cited by the District Court, that they

were not required to have a drivers license may not have provided the degree o

detail required for the courts that they found themselves in to make a proper

decision, or the judiciary may have been biased by the pecuniary rewards

I0

mentioned in this appeal. The potential failure on the part of those individuals to

11

provide such detail should in no way prejudice Bikle's claims. The District Court

12

erred by relying upon these cases: Ma'at-Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir.

13

2007), Olajide v. California Deparment of Motor Vehicles, No. A 133375, (Cal. Ct.

14

App. Mar. 16, 20 12). The District Court should have relied upon the legislative

15

acts and case law as included in this appeal.

16
17
18
19
20
21

There are other reasons why the District Court's judgement was wrong.
Any reasonable individual would concur that the following facts cast a
shadow of doubt over the ability of a judge to behave in an impartial manner. A
pecuniary reward exists for all judges in the State of California in the event of a
charge and conviction for all "traffic cases". The pecuniary reward is contingent
strictly upon convictions, and this reward is withheld in the event of the acquittal
3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 39 of 64

or dismissal of charges. Contingency rules structured as such completely eliminate

all appearances of impartiality. The appearance of impartiality could be maintained

by structuring the retirement benefits in such a manner as to avoid the possibility

of discrimination training with regards to the outcome of any matters decided by

the judges. That is to say, retirement allowances should never be tied directly to

any case decisions made by a judge.

7
8

In the event of a conviction for violating CVC 12500(a) or 16028(c), th


following statutes come into play with the assessment of fines:

9
10

11

12
13

14
15
16

California Penal Code (PC) 1463. All fines and forfeitures


imposed and collected for crimes shall be distributed in
accordance with Section 1463.001.
PC 1463.001. Except as otherwise provided in this section, all
fines and forfeitures imposed and collected for crimes other
than parking offenses resulting from a filing in a court shall as
soon as practicable after receipt thereof, be deposited with the
county treasurer, and each month the total fines and forfeitwes
which have accumulated within the past month shall be
distributed, as follows:
(a) The state penalties, county penalties~ special penalties,
service charges, and penalty allocations shall be transferred to
the proper funds as required by law.

17

Penal Code 1463 .22 shifts excess and fixed amounts of moneys, from convictions

18

ofCVC 16028, into the general fund described in CVC 42201 (a):

19

20
21

PC 1463.22. (a) Notwithstanding Section 1463, of the moneys


deposited with the county treasurer pursuant to Section 1463,
seventeen dollars and fifty cents ($ 17 .50) for each conviction of
a violation of Section 16028 of the Vehicle Code shall be
deposited by the county treasurer in a special account and
allocated to defray costs of municipal and superior courts
3

Case: 14-55077

1
2
3

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 40 of 64

incurred in administering Sections 16028, 16030, and 16031 of


the Vehicle Code. Any moneys in the special account in
excess of the amount required to defray those costs shall be
redeposited and distributed by the county treasurer
pursuant to Section 1463. [Emphasis added.]

5
6

7
8

PC 1463.22. (c) Notwithstanding Section 1463, of the moneys


deposited with the county treasurer pursuant to Section 1463,
ten dollars ($10} upon the conviction of, or upon the
forfeiture of bail from, any person arrested or notified for a
violation of Section 16028 of the Vehicle Code shall be
deposited by the county treasurer in a special account and
shall be transmitted monthly to the Controller for deposit in
the General Fund. [Emphasis added.]

9
10

11

The following statute would route the fines from a conviction of charg
12500(a), a misdemeanor, directly into the general fund:

12
13
14
15
16
17

CVC 42201. (a) Of the total amount of fines and forfeitures


received by a county under Section 1463.001 of the Penal
Code, fines and forfeitures collected from any person charged
with a misdemeanor under this code following arrest by any
officer employed by the state or by the county shall be paid into
the general fund of the county. However, the board of
supervisors of the county may, by resolution, provide that a
portion thereof be transferred into the road fund of the county.
[Emphasis added]

18

California Constitution Article 6 Judicial Section 20 provides that, "Th

19

Legislature shall provide for retirement, with reasonable allowance, of judges o

20

courts of record for age or disability."

21

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 41 of 64

The California Government Code (GC) 75100 establishes the Judges' Retiremen

Fund and GC 75600 creates Judges' Retirement System II Fund:

3
4

5
6

7
8

9
10
11
12

Government Code (GC) 75100. There is in the State Treasury a


fund known as the Judges' Retirement Fund. All retirement
allowances payable by law to judges shall be paid out of this
fund. The fund shall consist of all cash, securities, or other
assets paid into it in accordance with this article.
GC 75600. There is in the State Treasury, subject to the control
of the board, a trust fund known as the Judges' Retirement
System II Fund. The fund shall receive all assets paid into it
including, without limitation, judges' contributions made
pursuant to Sections 75601 and 75602 and the state's
contributions made pursuant to Section 75600.5. All retirement
allowances payable by law to judges to whom this chapter is
applicable shall be paid from that fund. Notwithstanding
Section 13340, all moneys in the fund are continuously
appropriated without regard to fiscal years, for payments which
shall be made upon warrants drawn by the Controller upon
demands made by the board.

13

Both GC 75101 and GC 75600 take moneys from the county general fund, whic

14

are then allocated to both the Judges' Retirement Fund and the Judges'

15

Retirement System II Fund:

16
17
18
19
20
21

GC 75101. The Controller shall at the end of each month


ascertain the aggregate amount of the annual salaries of judges
covered by the system, and out of the General Fund he or she
shall transfer monthly into the Judges' Retirement Fund a
sum equal to 8 percent of one-twelfth of the aggregate amount
of those salaries. [Emphasis added.]
75600.5. (a) The Controller shall at the end of each month
ascertain the aggregate amount of the annual salaries, not
including the additional compensation pursuant to Section
68203.1 , of all judges covered by the Judges' Retirement
41

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 42 of 64

System II, and out of the General Fund he or she shall transfer
monthly into the Judges' Retirement System II Fund a sum
equal to 18.8 percent of one-twelfth of the aggregate amount of
those salaries. [Emphasis added].

5
6

7
8

9
10
11

12

13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21

A conviction of any one, on the aforementioned charges, would create a


pipeline for moneys into the retirement funds for judges. The dynamics of the
aforementioned Califomia Codes provide a financial motivation for insuring a
conviction on the charges. Furthermore, there is financial motivation for the
California judiciary to ignore the legislative acts which created exemptions and
which never required a driver's license, operator's license, or chauffeur's license
from the class of persons who travel by automobile upon the highways and who do
not engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire. By ignoring to
legislative acts which control the obligations for drivers licenses the California
judiciary convetts the class of persons who the legislature has exempted from
drivers license requirements into members of the class of peTsons required to have
a drivers license. This is a conversion of the right to travel by automobile into the
privilege of operating a motor, which is a commercial activity. This creates a larger
class of persons which the judiciary can potentially convict in traffic cases in order
to collect moTe fmes and fees for retirement.
The California Judges retirement system which is cwTently in place is
unconstitutional as it violates the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment.
No one can expect a fair and impartial judiciary if the judiciary receives a
pecuniary reward if, and only if, they convict some one of traffic offenses, even if

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 43 of 64

that individual is exempted by the legislature and has never been required by the

acts of the legislature to obtain a driver's license.

II.

Federal Law Analysis

The District Court applied the wrong law.

Bikle had the right to travel and transport his property upon the highways by

automobile. The following is the correct law.

8
9
10
11

12
13
14

A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the


right to travel and transport his property upon them [the
public highways] by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make
the highways his place of business by using them as a
common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may
be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without
violating either the due process clause or the equal protection
clause. ' [Emphasis added by Appellant via holding and
italicizing.] Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307, 45 S. Ct. 324,
69 L. Ed. 623, 38 A. L. R. 286.
4

Bikle has never made the highways his place of business by using them to
transport persons or property for hire.

15
16

"To punish a person because he has done w hat the law plainly
allows him to do is a due process violation "of the most basic
sort." Bordenkircher v. Hayes.434 U.S. 357, 363.

17
18
19

Bikle was punished for doing what the law allowed him to do.

Other specific issues on appeal.

20

California Vehicle Codes 3 10 & 12500 are unconstitutionally vague and

21

broad with regard to who is a member of the class of persons being regulated and
43

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 44 of 64

who is not being regulated. It is also vague and broad with regard to the use of the

term "may", which is defined by the California Vehicle Code as permissive

whereas the term ''shall" is defined as mandatory.

These statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague and cannot form
the basis of a criminal complaint.

This statute denies a person's constitutional right to due process by failing to

adequately instruct him as to what constitutes a violation of the law. A vague

statute violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This concept is

known as void for vagueness. Vagueness is a subject of both constitutional law and

10

criminal law. It is taught in every law school in this country and has been for the

12

Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) and Connally v. General Construction Co., 269

13

U.S. 385 (1926). In Connally a statute was held to be fatally vague. The Supreme

14

Court said:

15
16
17
18
19

"The question whether given legislative enactments have been


thus wanting in certainty has frequently been before this court.
In some of the cases the statutes involved were upheld; in
others, declared invalid. The precise point of differentiation in
some instances is not easy of statement; but it will be enough
for the present purposes to say generally that the decisions of
the court, upholding statutes as sufficiently certain, rested upon
the conclusion that they employed words or phrases having a
technical or other special meaning, well enol}gh known to
enable those within our reach to correctly apply them."

20
In Grayned v. City ofRockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) the Supreme Court stated:
21
'rlt is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void

for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague


4

Case: 14-55077

3
4

5
6
7

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 45 of 64

laws offend several impmtant values. First, because we assume


that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct,
we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited., so that he
may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not
providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit
standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly
delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries
for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the
attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application."
California Vehicle Codes 31 0 & 12500 are unconstitutionally vague and broad.

9
10

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19
20
21

45

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 46 of 64

1
2

CONCLUSION

Bikle requests that the order for dismissal with prejudice be vacated and that

this case be remanded to the lower court with an order to allow Bikle to make the

aforementioned corrections to his original complaint and to proceed where it left

off. The County of Los Angles, City of Lakewood, and Los Angeles Sheriffs

Department have failed to adequately train their employees and Bikle shouJd be

allowed to pursue damages for this negligence. Bikle requests that this court order

the District Court to acknowledge the California Legislature's exemption of those

10

who do not engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire upon the

11

highways from obtaining a driver's license. Bikle also requests that this court grant

12

any other and fmther relief to which he is found to be entitled.

13
14

Respectfully Submitted,

15
16

istian Bikle, Pro Se


17

18
19

20
21

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 47 of 64

ADDENDUM

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES


3

United States Constitution, Amendment IV:


5
6
7
8

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,


papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
pruticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
United States Constitution, Amendment V:

9
10

11

12
13
14

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise


infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia~ when in actual service in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property; without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
United States Constitution, Amendment IX:

15
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
16

deny or disparage others retained by the people."


17

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1:


18
19

20
21

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and


subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life~ liberty, or propetty\ without due
4

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 48 of 64

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws."

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES


California Constitution, Preamble:
''We, the People of the State of Califonlia, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its
blessings, do establish this Constitution.''
California Constitution, article I, section 1:
"All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life
and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

10

11
12
J3

14
15

California Constitution, article I, section 3(b)(2):


"A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or
other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shaH be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation
and the need for protecting that interest."

16
17

California Constitution, article I, section 26:

18

"The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by

19

express words they are declared to be otherwise.''

20

California Constitution, article VI, section 17:

21

"A judge of a court of record may not practice law and during
the term for which the judge was selected is ineligible for public
employment or public office other than judicial employment or
4

Case: 14-55077

2
3
4

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 49 of 64

judicial office, except a judge of a court of record may accept a


part-time teaching position that is outside the nom1al hours of
his or her judicial position and that does not interfere with the
regular performance of his or her judicial duties while holding
office. A judge of a trial court of record may, however, become
eligible for election to other public office by taking a leave of
absence without pay prior to filing a declaration of candidacy.
Acceptance of the public office is a resignation from the office
of judge. A judicial officer ntay not receive fines or fees for

personal use.
6

A judicial officer may not eam retirement service credit from a


public teaching position while holding judicial office."

California Vehicle Code 310:


8

"A "driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type of motor


vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person IS
licensed under this code or by a foreign jurisdiction."

10
California Vehicle Code 12500:
11
12
13

14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21

"(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,


w1less the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under
this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted
under this code.
(b) A person may not drive a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle,
or motorized bicycle upon a highway, unless the person then
holds a valid driver's license or endorsement issued under this
code for that class, except those persons who are expressly
exempted under this code, or those persons specifically
authorized to operate motorized bicycles or motorized scooters
with a valid driver's license of any class, as specified in
subdivision (h) of Section 12804.9.
(c) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in or upon any
offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds a valid
driver's license of the appropriate class or certification to
operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision, "offstreet
parking facility" means any offstreet facility held open for use
by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly
owned facilities for offstreet parking, and privately owned
facilities for offstreet parking where no fee is charged for the
privilege to park and which are held open for the common
public use of retail
4

Case: 14-55077

2
3

08/29/2014

10 : 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 50 of 64

customers.
(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of
vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.
(e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all
times be equipped with an engine that complies with the
applicable State Air Resources Board emission requirements."

4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21

Case: 14-55077

ID: 9227555

08/29/2014

DktEntry: 6

Page: 51 of 64

Case 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Fiied 12/13/13 Page 1 of 8 Page lD #: 37

2
3

I HERF.BY CfRTifY THATTHIS DOCUMENT WAS SEHVfD BY.. \t.. '.t:,~


fiRSl CLASS MAll POSTAGE PHEPAIO, To-A!:!: ei3UP!E:tl f
"""
(ilR l'il!;l iF~) Ai TII1R llESI'ECTIVE MOSTRCEm ADDRESS Of
llECORD IN 1HIS ACTION ON THIS DAr.

DATE0: _ __

Fll.ED-::SOUTHERN DIVISIONT
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COUR

DEC I 3 2013

\_'2--_
_1..>
_ _
r_
>_-r~'""""-

CENT~I- DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-IW\J

DEPUTYCLEHK

DEPUTY

6
7

UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRI CT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PHILIP C . BIKLE,

12
13
14

Case No. SACV 13-1662-DOC (JPR)

Plaint iff,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
PREJUDICE

vs.
OFFICER A. SANTOS et al . ,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This is Plaintiff's second civil rights laws u it stemming

18

from Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy A. Santos's issu ance of

19

a traffic citation to him.

20

lawsuit on July 26, 2013, because it was f rivolous and failed to

21

state a claim against any of the named defendants .

22

fares no better.

23

The court dismissed the first such

This one

Plaintiff filed this action prose on October 23, 2013.

24

Just as with the first l awsuit, he alleges violations of 42

25

U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) and relies on the Fourth, F i fth, a n d

26

14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; this time around, h e

27

has also raised claims based on the Ninth Amendment as well as

28

state-law fraud.

(See compl.

~~

6, 75- 8 9, 90 - 95.)
1

He names as

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 52 of 64

ase 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 8 Page lD #:38

1 defendants Deputy Santos, LASD Deputy Cathy Hayes, the LASD, the

County of Los Angeles, the City of Lakewood, and various Does.

He seeks injunctive relief "to ha,lt all systemic a ctions of

denial of due process and the systematic and fraudulent

violations of the public right to trave l on the right-of-ways,"

compensatory damages , and punitive damages.

(Id. at 28-29.)

Because Plaintiff paid the full filing fee and is not a

prisoner, the Complaint is not subject to preservice screening

under 28 U.S . C. 1915(e) (2) or 1915A.

See Brown _v. Califor nia,

10 No. EDCV 11-0707 - SVW (MLG), 2011 WL 5827958, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May
11

18, 2011), accepted by 2011 WL 5828717 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18 , 2011) .

12

The Court may, however, sua sponte dismiss a frivolous, patently

13

insubstantial complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1) .

See Neitzke v.

15

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6, 109 S. Ct . 1827 1 1832 n. 6, 104

16

L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)

17

consider "patently insubstantial" complaints); see .a lso Franklin

18

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n . 6 (9th Cir. 1984)

19

complaint that is obviously frivolous does not confer federal

20

subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte

21

before service of process." {citation and internal quotation

22

marks omitted)) .

23

either in law or in fact."

24

25

26

{"A paid

A frivolous complaint "lacks an arguable basis


Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in a traffic


accident in the parking lot of the Hawaiian Gardens Casino .

27 . (Compl.
28

(courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to

~ 16.)

Defendant Santos responded to the scene and

proceeded to ask questions of Plaintiff and the other car's


2

Case: 14-55077

ID: 9227555

08/29/2014

DktEntry: 6

Page: 53 of 64

ase 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:39

driver.

(Id . , 20.)

"At this point," Plaintiff "perceived

2
3
4

license, Plaintiff responded that he did not because he "wasn't

engaged in commerce transporting persons or property for hire,

6
7

which invoked the statutory obligations of a license . "

off the inside of the driver's-side door of Plaintiff's truck.

(Id. ~ 29.)

[himself] to be under arrest and


~ 21.~

not free to go."

(Id.

When Deputy Santos asked Plaintiff if he had a driver's

,~ 24-25.)

(Id .

Santos then copied the vehicle identification number

Santos gave Plaintiff a Notice to Appear because he

10

did not have a driver's license, which Plaintiff signed "under

1l

duress" of being "taken into custodial arrest."

12

On December 15, 2011, Defendant Hayes

13

utilized the USPS to mail a document titled,

14

Correction and Proof of Service' to Plaintiff .

15

Hayes invoked the name of the People of the State of

16

California on the Notice of

17

appeared

18

Plaintiff.

19

(Id. , 42.)

prosecution

had

(Id . ,~ 29, 37.)

'Not ice of
Officer

Correction such that


been

initiated

it

against

Plaintiff makes a similar allegation against

20 Defendant Santos , adding that he is "not licensed to practice


(Id. ~~ 41, 47.)

21 law."

Plaintiff alleges that the Doe

22

Defendants were all "employed at the Los Angeles Sheriff's

23

Department'' and took part in mailing or filing the Notice to

24 Appear .
25

26

( Id. ~ ~ 9 , 4 3 - 4 4 . )

Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Santos violated his Fourth


Amendment rights by "falsely arresting" Plaintiff without

27

28
3

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 54 of 64

ase 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC- JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 4 of 8 Page ID # :40

1 probable ca use, r e quiring him to provide a t humbprint, 1 searching

2 the inside door panel of Petitioner's truck "for t h e VlN withou t


3 probable cau se," a nd u sing the VIN "to perf orm addi tional
4 searches v i a computer databases . " (Id . , , 59, 66 . } Deputy
5

Santos allegedly violated Plaintiff's Ninth Amendment rights as

well by restricting his right to travel.

(Id. , , 75-84 . )

7 Plaintiff alleges that both Santos and Hayes committed "mail


8

fraud" "by sending a communication via us,ps mail which conveyed

9 to the Plaintiff that prosecution of criminal charges had been


10

initiated against him by the People of the State of California.''

11

(Id. ,, 90-95 . }

12

under the Fi fth Amendment for all their actions, which allegedly

13

deprived him of due proce ss (id. , , 101-06), as wel l as under

.14

15

caught up in any alleged traffic related matter" (id. , 114) .

16

He further sues all the i ndividual Def endants

1985(3} for conspiracy "to defraud persons who happen to get

Finally, Plainti ff claims that the entity Defendants

17

fostered "long standing, pe rvasive pattern[s] of lawlessness" in

18

their employees as a result of inadequate training and

19

supervision.

(Id. ,, 70 - 74, 85 - 89, 96-100, 108-11 . )

20

DISCUSSION

21

Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous and fails t o state a

22

claim upon which relief might be granted.

23

from the underlying premise that because he does not use his

24

vehicle for commercial purposes, he is not required to have a

All his claims stem

25

26
27
28

California Penal Code 853 . S(a)


f o r a traffic infrac tion does not have
sa t isfactory evidence of identity in
officer may require the arr estee to
Notice to Appear .
4

provides that if an arrestee


a driver's license "or other
his or her possession," the
place a thumbprint on the

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 55 of 64

ase 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Docume nt 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #: 41

(See id . ,~ 60-62.)

driver's license.

rejected as frivo lous a nearly identical 1983 claim .

Ra v. Bateman, 234 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth

Circuit adopted the "reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in

his November 9, 2005 report, adopted in full by the district

court ," for rejecting the plaintiff's claims.

The Ninth Circuit has


In Ma'at-

Id. at 514.

The

7 Magistrate Judge found that Ma'at-Ra's claims, which stemmed in

part from his failure to provide a driver's license when asked by

a police officer who stopped him for a traffic infraction, were

10

''frivolous" and failed to state a claim upon which relief might

11

be granted.

12

& Recommendation at 4, 8, 15 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2005), ECF No.

13

103 .

14

Ra claimed, as does Plaintiff here, that he was not required to

15

have a driver's license as long as he was not using the public

16

highways "for profit or commercial purposes."

17

Petitioner's Informal Brief ,~ 73, 75, Ma'at-Ra, 234 F. App'x 514

18

(No. 05-56921), 2006 WL 2982067 .

Ma'at -Ra v. Bateman, No. 2:03-cv-02508-R-AN, Report

Review of the briefing in Ma' at-Ra makes clear that I"la' at-

Appellant's or

The Ninth Circuit upheld the

19 Magistrate Judge's finding that the claim was frivolous.

The

20

California courts have rejected similar arguments.

21

v. Cal. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No . Al33375, 20 12 WL 893879

See Olajide

22

(Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2012)

23

applies only to those "driving for the State of California or for

24

any political subdivision thereof" or "for commercial purposes"') .

25

26
27
28

(rej ec ting claim that Vehicle Code

Plaintiff's Complaint suffers from other critical


deficiencies in addition to its fatally flawed underlying
premise.
He has not pleaded any facts to support a claim under
5

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

ID: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 56 of 64

ase 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:42

(See Compl. ~ 114.)

conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons" of equal

protection under the laws, equal privileges and immunities under

the laws, or the right to vote.

perhaps otherwise class-based , invidiously discriminatory animus

lay behind the conspirators' action, and (2) that the conspiracy

aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against

private, as well as official, encroachment."

1985(3).

Section 1985(3) prohibits

To state a claim under

1985(3), a plaintiff must allege "(1) that some racial, or

Bray v . Alexandria

10

Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S . 263, 267-68, 113 S. Ct. 753, 758,

11

122 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1993)

(citations, alteration, and internal

12 quotation marks omitted).

"(T]he plaintiff must state specific

13

facts to support the existence of the claimed conspiracy."

14

v . Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004)

15

(internal quotation marks omitted) .

Olsen

16

To state a claim for conspiracy to violate his right to

17

equal protection, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that he was

18

intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated

19

and that there was no rational basis for the difference in

20

treatment.

21

120 S. Ct. 1073, 1074, 145 L. Ed . 2d 1060 (2000); see also Barren

22

v. Harrington, 152 P.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir . 1998).

23

Conclusory allegations will not suffice .

24

L.A. Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988)

25
26

dismissal of 1985(3) claim containing "legal conclusions but no

27

Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever to satisfy any of the above

28

requirements .

See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S . 562,. 564,

See Karim-Panahi v.
(affirming

specification of any facts to support the claim of conspiracy").

Case: 14-5507 7

ID: 9227555

08/29/2014

DktEntry: 6

Page: 57 of 64

Case 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:4 3

Plaint iff's Fifth Amendment claims ( see Compl . , , 101-11}

fail because "[t)he Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and

the equal protection component thereof apply only to actions of

the federal government - not to those of state or local

governments."

2001), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Galbraith v .

Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant is a federal actor;

indeed, they plainly are not.

10

Lee v. City of L.A. , 250 F . 3d 668, 687 (9th Cir.

Pla i ntiff's Ninth Amendment claims (see Compl . ~, 75-84)

11

fail because there is no fundamental const i tutional right to

12

dri ve a motor vehicle, see Miller v . Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06

13

(9th Cir. 1999), and in any event the Ninth Amendment does not

14

"independently secur[e] any constitutional rights for purposes of

15

making out a constitutional violation," Schowenqerdt v. United

16

States, 944 F.2d 483, 490 (9th Cir. 1991); Preskar v. United

17

States, 248 F.R.D . 576, 586 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

18

dismissal of 1983 claims predicated on Ninth Amendment),

19

accepted by 2008 WL 802925 (E.D. Cal . Mar. 24, 2008).

20

(recommending

Finally, because Plaintiff's federal claims all must be

21

dismissed, his state-law tort claims (Compl. , , 90-95) must be

22

dismissed as well.

23

jurisdic t ion over a state-law claim if a plaintiff raises a

24

cognizable federal claim that is substantial enough to confer

25

federal jurisdiction and shares a common nucleus of operative

26

fac t with the state claim.

27

Cir. 1995); see 28

28

dismissed before trial , the state claim should be dismissed as

A court may exercise supplemental

u .s.c.

Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816

1367.

{9th

If t he f ederal claim is

Case: 14-55077

08/29/2014

10: 9227555

DktEntry: 6

Page: 58 of 64

Case 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR Document 5 Filed 12/13/13 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:4

1 well.

United Mine Workers of Am. v . Gibbs, 383 U . S. 715, 726, 86

S. Ct . 1130 , 1139, 16 L . Ed. 2d 218 (1966).

Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's federal claims for failure to

state a claim, his state-law tort claims must a l so be dismissed .

Here, because the

Because Plaintiff's Complaint is frivolous and its

deficiencies clearly cannot be cured by amendment, the Court

hereby ORDERS that the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice .

DATEP:
DAVID 0. CARTER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11
12
13

14

Presented by:

15

JEAN ROSENBLUTH

16

Jean Rosenbluth
U.S. Magi strate Jud ge

17

18
19

20
21

22
23
24

25

26

27
28
8

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Philip Christian Bikle


RECEIVED
MOI..t.Y C. DWYER C!.EAK
U.S. COUAi OJi A~PlAI.$

AUG 2 8 2Dl~

3
FILED
DOCKETED.

4
5

Page: 1 of 14

DATE

INITIAL

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #1

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

~W

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 2 of 14

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bilde, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to regulate the

operation of motor vehicles on public highways, and making an appropriation for

the purpose of car~

7:

o~ this act."

6
7
8
9

10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20

21

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

816

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 8 of 14

STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.

CHAPTER DCXII.
An act to 1eg1date tlte opemticn" of motor vehicles on public
hig111Ways, ancl making a1~ approp1'iation for the purposo
of ca,rying cmt the objects of this act.
[Approved March 22, 1905.]

The people of the State of Cal1.fornia, 1epres6'nted in senate


and assembl;y, do enact as fol'lows:
'Mo~r
SECTJON 1. Subdivision 1. The words and phrases used
lt~~~~;st'a;lt in this act shall, for the pnrposes of this act, unless the same
upon.
be contrary to or inconsistent with the context, be con~rued
r~msd
as
follows: (1) '''motor verucle" shall include all vehicles
0
ne
propelled by any power other than muscular power, pr()VidA!,d
that nothing herein contained shall, except the provisions of
subdivisions three, four and five of section thTee and subdivision one of section four of this act, apply to motor cycles.
motor bicycles, traction engines or 1oad rollers; (2) "public
highways" shall include any highway, county road, state
road, public street, avenue, alley, park, parlnvay, driveway or
public place in any county, or jncorporated city and county,
city or town; (3) ,, closely built up" shall mean {a) the territory of any county or incorporated city and county, city or
town contiguous to a public highway which is at that point
built up with structures devoted to business, (b) the territory of any county or incqrporated city and county, city or
town contiguous to a public highway not devoted to business, where for not less than one quarter of a mile- the dwelling-houses on such highway average less than one hundred
feet apart, provided that the local authorities having charge
of such hjghway shall have placed conspicuously thereon at
both ends of such closely built up section signs of sufficient
size to be easi.Jy readable by a person using the highway,
bearing the words ''Slow down to - - miles,'' inserting in
the blank space the number of miles to which the speed is to
be reduced, and also an arrow pointing in the direction where
the speed is to be reduced; ( 4) "local authorities" shall
include all boards of supervisors, trustees or councils, committees and other public officials of counties, or incorporated
cities and counties, cities or towns; ( 5) "chn.uffeur" shall
mean a.uy person operating a motor vehicle as mechanic~
employe or for hire.
SEa. 2. Subdivision 1. Every p e1son hereafter acquiring
Owner ot
vehicle,
a
motor
vehicle shall, for every vehicle owned by him, file in
statemen t
filed with the office of the secretary of state a statement of his name and
secrebuf
address, with a brief description of the vehicle to be registered
of st e.te,
including the name of the maker, factory number, style of
vehicle and motor power on a blank to be prepared and furnished by sueh secretary of state for that purpose; the filing
fee shall be two dollars.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

TIDRTYSfXTH SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-l

Page: 9 of 14

817

Subdivision 2. 'l'he secretary of state shall thereupon file Rt'gisua. h'IS offi ce, reg1ster
.
a vof11efe.
\lull of
such statement m
sueh mo t or veh'1c1e lll
book or index to be kept for that purpose, and assign it a
distinctive number.
Subdivision 3. The secretary of state shall forthwith on ~egtstra
such registration, and without other fee, issue a.nd deliver t o lson seaL
the owner of such motor vehicle a seal of aluminum or other
suitable metal, whicb: shall be circular in form approximately
two inches in diameter, and have stamped thereon the words
11
Registered motor vehicle, No.---, State o:f Californ-ia,"
with tl1e registration number inserted therein; whjch seal
shall the1eafter at all ti:tnes be conspicuously displayed on the
motor vehicle, to which such number has been assigned.
Subdivision 4. If the vehicle has been previously regis- 11 \ebicle
tered, the certificate issued thereon shall be returned to the ~~:v~~;~l
secretary of state and in lieu thereof such secretary shall issue r eglsterc:L
to said owner a. 1:egistration seal containing the number of
such previous registration upon payment of a fee of one dollar. Upon the sale of a motor vehicle, the vendor, except a
manufacturer or dealer, shall within: ten days, return to the
secretary of state the registration seal affixed to such vehicle.
Subdivision 5. Every motor vehicle shall also at all times Number
have the number assigned to it displayed on. the back of such ~=~~~e
vehicle in such manner as to be plainly visible, the numbers dis~tar:d0 t
to be in ata.bic uwnerals, black on white background, each not ~~bi!J~.
less than three inches in height, and each stroke to be of a
width not less than half an inch, and also as a part of such
number the abbreviated name of the state in black on white
ground, such letters to be not less than one inch in height.
Subdivision 6. .A manufacturer of or a dealer in motor Mo.nnrac
vehicles shall register one vehicle of each style or type man- ~~~~~~0io
ufac~ured or. deal~ in by him, ar1d be entitled to as many ~~~~~~~le
dupllcate -reglStrat10n seals or each type or style so manu- and I1$ d t
a.s h e may d es1re
on payment of an a dd'1- enttt
e o
f actured or dealt m
clu~licate
tional fee of fifty eents for each duplicate seal. If a 1:egis- en
tration seal and the corresponding nnrnbel' shall thereafter
be affixed to and displayed on every vehicle of such type or
style as in this section provided, while such vehicle is being
operated on the public highways, it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with subdivisions one, three, five and eight
of this section) until suc.h vehicle shall be sold or let for hire.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to apply to a Whe n tot
motor vehicle employed by a manufacturer or dealer for to app y.
private use or or hire.
Subdivision 7. No motor vehicle shall be used or operated P ir.fiUoua
upon the public highways after thirty days after this act ~:m~~r.
takes effect whleh shall display thereon a. registration seal or
number belonging to any other vehicle, or a fictitious registrat ion seal or number.
Subdivision 8. No motor vehicle shall be used or operated !~:1 ~g1~
on the public highways after thirty days after this act takes o~~fatet
effect) unless the owner shall have complied in all respects :es,~ou
52

Case: 14-55077

818

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 10 of 14

STATUTES OF CALJFORNU.

with this secti01~ except that any person purchasin~ a motor


vehicle :from a manufacturer, dealer or. other person after
this act goes into effect shall be allowed to operate such motor
vehicle 11pon the public highways for a period of five days
after the purchase and delivery thereof, provided thn.t during
such period such motdr vehicle shaH bear the registration
number and seal of the previous owner under which it was
operated or might have been operated by him.
Subdivision 9. The provisions of this section shall not
NoL to
apply to
apply to motor vehicles owned by non-residents of this state
nbleles
owned by and only temporarily within this state, provided the owners
IJOIJ
Te.tildents. thereof have complied with any law req1:Uring the registration of owners of motor vehicles in force in the state, territory or federal district of theh~ residence, and the registration
number showing the initial of such state, territory or federal district shall be displayed on such vehicle substantially
as in this section provided.

SEo. 3. Subdivision 1. No person shall operate a motor


'RA.t.e or
&peed.
vehicle on a public highway at a rate of speed greater than
is reasonable and proper, having regard to the traffic and use
of the highway, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any
person, or the safety of any property; or in any evt!nt on any
public highway .where the territory contiguous thereto is
closely built up, at a greater rate than one mile in six minutes, or elsewhere :in any incorporated city and county, city
ox town at a greater rate than one mile in f our minutes. or
elsewhere outside of any incorporated city and county, city or
town, at a greater rate than one mile in three minutes; subject, however, to the other provisiom of this act.
Appro&ch
Subdivision 2. Upon approaching a bridge,. dam, sharp
ing 0 .!"
curve, or steep descent, and also in traversing such bridge,
(l
rusaJng
d
d esoent, a persou operatmg
.
bridge, etc. am, curve or
a motor -veh.1c1e
.Rato oL
shall have it under control and operate it at a rate of speed
speed.
not exceeding one mile in fiftee n minutes, and upon approaching a crossing of intersecting highways at a e;peed not greater
than is reasonable and proper, baving regard to tbe traffic
then on such highway and the safety of the pubHc.
.Ree.sonSubdivision 3. Upon appoacbing a person walking in the
f~~eo;varn- roadway of a public highway, or a. horse or horses, or other
approsch. dra~t animals, being ridden, led or driven thereon, a person
operating a motor vehicle shall give reasonable warning of
its approach, and use every reasonable precaution to insure
the safety o such person or animal, and, in the case of horses
or other draft animals, to prevent frightening the same.
Veb!elasto
Subd:ivjsion 4. A person operating a .motor vehicle shall,
~ ~~~~gbt at request or on signal by putting up the hand, from a perwhen. ' son ridi.n g, leading or ddvjng a restive horse or horses, or
other draft animals, bring such motor vehicle immediately to
a stop, and, jf traveling in the oppos.ite direction, remain stationary so long as may be reasonable to allow such horse or
animal to pass, and, if traveling in the same direction, use
reasonable caution in thereafter passing such horse or animal;.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

THIRTY-SIXTH SESSION.

Page: 11 of 14

819

provided that, jn ease such horse or animal appears badly

frightened or the pP.rson operating suoh motor vehicle is


requested to do so, such person shall cause the motor of such
vehicle to cease l'unning so long as shall be reasonably necessary to pl'event acc1dent and jnsure safety to others.
Subdivision 5. In case of aeeideni to a pe1son Ol' prop- In c:~~e or
erty on the public highways, due to the operation thereon of a n.cc ~nL.
motor vehicle, the person operating such vehicle shall stop,
and, upon request of a person injmed, or any person :present,
give such person his name and address, and, if not the owner,
the name and address of such owner.
Subdivision 6. Local authorities may, notwithstanding the P~\lllic
other provisions of this section, set aside for a given time ~~~~;~r~K
a specified public highway for speed tests or 1aees, to be con- ~!t~~;d
ducted under proper testrictions for the sa.fety of the pnbl\c. rl\ces.
SEc. 4. Subdivision 1. Whenever a person opetating 11 When
motor vehicle shall meet on a. pubHc llighwa.y any other pet- ~:~~:Lc
.son riding or driving a horse or horses or other
draft
ani- duty
otr
h
opcm or,
.
m als, or any otb er vehicl es, t h e person so operating sue motor
-vel1icle shall reasonably turn the same to the right of the
center of such highway so as to pass witltout inte1ference.
.Any such person so operating a motor vehicle, shall, on over- Whou
t aking a.ny such horse, draft ammal or otl1er vehicle, pass on ~;;,~~k~g
the left side thereof, and the rider or driver of such horse, ~;::~a~~r.
draft animal or other vehicle shall, as soon as practicable,
turn to the r.ight so as to allow free passage on the left. Any
such person so operating a motor vellicle shall at the intersection of public highways, keep to the right of the intersection
of the centers of such highways when turning to the right
and pass to the right of such intersection when turnin~ to the
left. Nothing in this subdh''ision shall, however, be construed
as limiting the meaning or effect of the provisions oi section
three of this act.
S11bdivision 2. Every motor vel1icle, while in use on a ''elucleto
public highway shall be provided with good and efficient ~U~~0~vlth
brakes, 8Jld also with suitable bell, horn or other signal, and ~~1k~.;
be so constructed as to ex:hibit, during the period from one hon'~.
hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, two lamps show- Vehicle to
ing white lights visible within a reasonable distance in the ~~d~~o~ith
direction towards which such vehicle is proceeding, showing tamp.
the registered numbe1 of the vehicle in separate arabic n\unerals, not less than one inch in height and each stroke to be
not less than one quarter of an inch in width, ann also a red
light visible in the reverse direction.
Subdivision 3. Subject to the provisions of this act, local Locatordi
authorities shall ha1e no p ower to pass, enforce or maintain ~~~~es not
any ordinance, rule or regulation requiring of a~ owner or passed.
operator of a motor vehlcle any license or permit to use the
public highways, or excluding or prohibiting any motor
vehicle whose owner has complied with section two of this aet
from the free use of snch highways, except such driveway,
.speedway or road as has been or may be expressly set apart
by law fo1 the exclusive use of hol'ses and light carriages, or

..

Case: 14-55077

820

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 12 of 14

STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.

except as herein provided, in any way affecting the registration or numbering of motor vehicles or prescribing a slower
rate of speed than herein specified at which such vehicles may
be operated, or the use o the puplic highways, contrary or
inconsistent with the provisions of this act; and all such
ordinances, rules or regulations now in force are hereby
declared to be of no validity or effect; provided, how eve,, that
.B.a.te of
the local authol'lties of incorporated cities and counties, cities
~E;~~a.t~:e and towns may limit by ordinance, rule or regulatjon herebdy loclll or after adopted the speed of motor vehicles on the public hightnances, ways, on conat
.:1~
.
provided.
1 wn t h at sue b orwnancft,
r ule or regu1atwn
shall also fix the same speed limitation for all other vehicles,
such speed limitation not to be in any case less than one mile
in six minutes and on further condition that such incorporated
city and county, city or town shall also have placed conspicuously on each main public highway where the boundary
of such municipality crosses the same and on every main
highway where the rate of speed changes, signs of sufficient
.size to be easily readab1e by a person using the highway, bearsigns on
ing the words "Slow down to - - miles" (the rate being
ft~~~ti.
inserted} and also an arrow pointing in the direction where
t he speed is to be reduced or changed, and al'3o on further
condition that such ordina.n,ce, rule or regulation shall fix tbe
penalties for violation thereof similar to and no greater than
those xed by such local autl10rities for violation of speed
limitation by any other vehicles than motor vehicles, which
penalties shall during the existence of the ordinance, rule or
regullttion supersede those specified in section six of this act,
and provided f1J.rther that nothing in this act contained shall
be construed as limiting the power of local authorities to
make, enforce and maintajn further ordinances, rules or regl.Uation.~ affecting motor vehicles which are offered to the
public for hire.
Subdivision 4. Local author itjes may, notwithstanding
"R$te of
.:peed in
the
provisions of this act, make, .enforce and maillta.in such
-public
pa.rks.
reasonable ordinances, l'Ules or regulations concerning the
speed at which motor vehicles may be operated in any public
park or parkways, but jn that event, must be signs at each
entrance of such park A.Dd along such parJ{way, conspicuously
indicate the rate of speed permitted or required, and may
exclude motor vehicles from any cemetery or grounds used
for burial of the dead.
Civil suits
Subdivision 5. Nothing in this act shall be construed to
f~le~.
curtail or abridge the right of any person to prosecute a civil
suit for damages by reason of injuries to person or property
resulting flom the negligent use of the highways by a motor
vehicle or its owner or his employe or agent.
f:'~u;iateSEC. 5. Subdivision 1. Every person hereafter desiring
~\~~~s:~~- to operate a .motor vehicle as a chauffeur shilll file in the office
tar7e of
of the secretary of state, on a blank to be supplied by such
Btu b y.
secretary, a statement which shall include his name and address
and the trade name and motive power of the motor vehicle

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

THIRTY-SIXTH SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 13 of 14

821

or vehicles he is able to operate, and shall pay a registration Fee.


fee of two dollars.
Subdivision 2. The secretary of state shall thereupon tile ~eglstr
such statement in his office, register such chauffeur in a book ~~:U'lreu.r.
or index to be kept for that purpose, and assign him a number.
Subdivision 3. The secretary of state shall forthwith, upon ~tistra.
;...._. t10n an d W1thout oth er f ee, msure

tton seal o 1
such reg.1.:s~1a
an d de)"1ver t o cbe.uJteur.
such chauffeur a badge of aluminum or other suitable metal
which sh all be oval in form, and the greater diametet of
which shall not be more than two inches, a.nd such badge shall
haTe stamped thereon the words: ''Registered chauffeur,
No. - --,State of California,'' with the registration number
inserted therein; which badge shall thereafter be worn by such
chauffeur pinned upon his clothing in a conspicuous place at
all times while be is operating a motor vehicle upon the public
highways.
Subdivision 4. No chauffeur, having registered as herein Sel\1 no~ to
. any 0ther person to Wear auoll1er.
bo worn by
prOVl ed , Shall VO1untar1.lY permit
his badge, nor shall any person while operating a motor vehicle wear any badge belonging to another person, or a fictitious
badge.
Subdivision 5. No 'person shall operate a motor vehicle as Vehlolc
~.... operuted
uottobe
a. -'I.;.Uauffem: upon t h e publ"lC hig h ways a f ter t b"u'ty d a.ys a.1.wl'
this act takes effect, unless such person shall have complied in ~i; 1~h~~~!n
all respects with the requirements of this section.
'

SEc. 6. Subdivision 1. The "Violation of any of the pro- Violation


visions of this act by any owner, chauffeur or operator of any ~~~~~s of
motor vehicle, shall be deemed a misdemeanor, punishable, ~~~~!;t by
upon conviction thereof, by a .fine not exceeding one hundred chauit'eur.
dollars for the first offense, and punishable by a fine of not ~r~~:;:
less. than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or tshment.
imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or both for a second
offense, and punishable by a fino of not less than one hundred
doll8.l'S nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars and
imprisonment not exceeding thirty days for a third or subsequent offense.
Subdivision 2. In case t he owner of a motor vehicle shall Owner
be taken into custody because of a violation of any provision ~~~~tto
of this act he shall be 01-thwith taken before the nearest entitled to
. Jll
. d ge or court, an d b e ent1t
. leo1 tmmedle.tc
.
peace, or po1we
Jnstice
o f the
uea.rin~:.
to an immediate hearing; and if such hearing cannot then be
had, be released from custody on gi:ving his personal under- Released
taking to appear and answer for such violation, at such time ~~m ~:~~n
and place as shall then be ordered, secured by the rleposit of nn:lhow.
a sum equal to the maximum .fine for the offense with wl1ich
he is charged, or in lieu thereof, by leaving the motor vehicle
owned by such person, with such justice of the peace, police
judge or clerk of such police court, or, in case such .iustice of
the peae or police judge is not accessible, be forthwith released
from custody on giving his name and address to the officer
making such arrest, and depositing with such officer a stun
equal to the maximum fine for tbe offense for which sucb
arrest is made, or in lieu thereof, by leaving the motor vehicle

Case: 14-55077

822

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-1

Page: 14 of 14

STATUTES OF CAr.fFORNlA.

owned by such person, with such officer, provided, that in such


case the officer making such arrest shal l give a receipt in writing for such sum 01' vehicle and by indorsement on such
reeeipt notify such person to appear before the nearest justice of the peace or police judge or court, on the following day,
naming him or it and specifying the place and hour. In case
&turn of security shall be deposited, as in this subdivision provided,
~~~~~~~-In it shall be returned to the person depositing forthwith on such
snitted to person being admitted to bail, on the surrender of any
be.sl.
receipt or othe-r voucher given at the time of such deposit.
Deposit
If such person shall fail to appear before the magistrate or
~~.?,~~. court at the time ordered or specified, the amount deposited
when.
by him may be declared forfeited and disposed of as money
deposited for bail in other cases, or the motor which may be
Vehicle
so left by him may be sold at public auction by orclf?r of the
sold when Justlce

d ge or court, an d f rom t h e
of t b e peace, or po11ce JU
amount realized upon such sale, a Rttm equal to the maximum
fine for the offense charged shall be disposed of in like manner, and the surplus, if any, after deducting all expenses
incurred in keeping or sale of such motm vehicle be returned
to such owner on dema.nd, but no such forfeiture and disposition of such security shall in anywise i'mpair the jurisdiction
of such justice of the peace, police judge or court to bear and
determine any such charge made against such owner, or to
inflict, upon conviction thereof, any punishment prescribed
by this act.
'Fees re SEc. 7. The amount of fees received by the secretary of
ceive<\ by
aecretary state, as in this act provided, shall be paid into the state
or sto.te,
treasury, to be paid into the general :fund of the state.
dsspo
slt\ou of.
SEc. 8. There is hereby appropriated out of any money
Appro
in the state treasury not otherwise appropriated, the ~urn of
pri&tion,
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) , for the purpose of
carrying out the objects of this act, to be used by the secretary
of state in the employment of the necessa.ry clerk or clerks;
the purchase of the necessary stationery, books, and posta.,ooe;
for the necessary in.cidental ex.penses; for the purchase of the
necessary seals and badges; for printing, ruling, binding, and
all other work performed and materials used by the state
printing office, to be used during the balance of the fifty-sixth,
and during the fifty-seventlt and tifty-ei~llth fiscal years. The
state controller is hereby di1:eeted to draw his warrant for any
claim against said sum, tbe same having been approved by the
state board of examiners, and the state treasu1'er is hereby
directed to pay the same.
SEo. 9. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent hel-ewith or
contrary hereto are, so far as they are inconsistent or contrary, hereby repealed.
SEc. 10. '!'his action shall take effect immediately.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 1 of 25

Philip Christian Bikle

AUG 2 3 2014

3
flU!>

~----~~--~=DATE
INITIAL

4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

)NOTICE #2

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

@~Y!

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5~2

Page: 2 of 25

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to regulate the

use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide

for the registration and identification of motor vehicles and for the payment of

registration fees therefore; to provide for the licensing of persons operating motor

vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public

highways; to prohibit the possession or use of a motor vehicle without the consent

of the owner thereof, and to prohibit the offer to or acceptance by certain persons

10

of any bonus or discount or other consideration for the purchase of supplies or

11

parts for motor vehicles, or for work or repairs done thereon; to provide penalties

12

for violations of provisions of this act, and to provide for the disposition of fines

13

and forfeitures imposed thereon; to provide for the disposition of registration and

14

license fees, fines and forfeitures collected hereunder; to provide for canying out

15

the objects of this act and to make an appropriation and to create a revolving fund

16

therefore; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts either in conformity or in conflict

17

with this act."

18

19
20
21

tt;k( ~

Philip Christian Bikle

f'/:)/f'f
Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2
0

FOHTJJ:;Tll

Page: 8 of 25

639

SESSIO~.

C11A P'rRR 326.


At~

act lo tegulate the 'lt.Se and ope1ation of vehicles '"1J01t the


1Jttblic ltfghways and el.~m.fJllcre; to provicle for the tegislm.tio.n anlZ ident1'jicat-ion of moto1 ~~:chicles alld fo!" tlto
payment of tcyi$ttalion fees therefor; to 7Jrovide for tho
licett8itlg of IJOJ'sons oper-ating motm cellicles; to tJrohiliit
cm-tai1~ persons f'rom ope-1ali17.g vehicles upon the public
higlucays_: to p1olribit tlle f)Ossessinn or use of (t m.otoJ
'l.'e1ticle wil.ltout tltc consent of lhe owner tltereoj, tJtJld to
pmhibit the offer to or acceptance by clwlab' perso11s of
any bmms or discmt11t or ollter consideration [01 llt.e
pmcha:;e r1{ supplie.~ or parts for motor vehiCles, ot fot
worll: m -tepail' done thereon; to rnot,ide penalties for
violations of protisi&n.~ of tki.~ ad1 and to p1ol:iclo for
tho disposifiml of fin.es and {oJfrilures imposed tltorcon,;
lo 2woridc {o1 t1ie disposition of Jeaistmtion cuul lice~tse
foes, fines a1ul fmfeitwes coUecled 1Lerelnu.To1; to provid6
for caJtying 01tt tl'Le objects of iMs acl ancZ to rnake an
atJPJ'Oln-iation and fo cJeato a t'et:olving fund tltete/or:
and to tepeal all acl!; m parts of acts eitlter 1~t con/o1mily
or in couflict 'Wilh th i~ act.
[Apluo,cd

~fny

31, llJ13.

In elteet De<'E'mbcr at, 101a.1

'l'he. people of the iJ/(Itt: of California do enact

Wi

follows:

SEO'riON 1. 'l'l1e word~ nn<l p hrnses nsed in this act shall, f)(Ouifor the purposes of this net, lmles't the same be contl'ary to or tll~.
inconf;istcnt wH.b the contc.."Ct, he construed as follows: ( 1)
"motot vehicle" shaH include nU vehicJt)~ twopelled nthe1wiRe
than by mnsculor power. execpt Ruch vehicles ns .run upon
rails or tracl,s; (2) "nutomohile, shnll iueludc nil motor vebi.
cles exc('pting motorcycles; (3) .,motorcycle" sl1a1l include ull

motor vehicles designed to trnvel on not more tlmn three wheels


in contact with i.he grounu and upon whicl1 the tider sits
astli<Je; ( 4) "puhlic highways" sl1all include n.ny ltighwny,
county rend, stnte highway or stn.tc road, public street, avenue,
alley, park, p:nkwny, drivowa~, or public place in any c01mty
or incorporntcd cit~ and count.r, city or town; (5) "business
district'' shall utctLD the tcrl'itory o.f any county or in corpornted city and c01mty, city or to\m, contiguous to public
highway, whicl1 is.at tlwt point 1nuinly built up wit.h structures
devoted to business; (G) closely built up" shall mean the
tl~rritory of any county or incorporutcd city nnd county,
oity m t<)\\ n, contiguous t<l n public ]1igl1wa.y nnt devoted
to business where for not le.r~s than a qnnrter of a mile,
the d \\'e11ing houses on s ttch highway n.vernge Jess than one
hundred feet npurt; p1ovided, that the local authorities
having charge of suclt highway sh11l l1avc placed conspicuunsly
thereon ut both C'nds of such clo!;el~ built up section sigus of
snfficitllt BiZll tn bP easily Jcudnhlc by a perROn nsiug the highway, bearing the words "Slow down to
miles" (insetting
C(

Case: 14-55077

640
'Ddlnl

tiona.

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

STATCTE.<; OF

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 9 of 25

C.AiiiFOR~IA.

in the lJlnnk space preceding the word "miles" the tate of


speed prescribed by law and also an arrow pointing in the
dit'('Ctjon of tl10 tC!l"liLOl',V where the speed is to be reduced) ;
(7) ''local nuthorit.ies'' shall include all boards of supervisors,
t1-ustees or councils, committees, and other pub1ic officials of
cmmties, incorpo1ate<l cities and counties, cities or towns;
(8) 4 (chauff.Hm" shnU mcnn any pflrson who operates a motor
vehicle. an<l who dhectly or inclircctly receives pay or any compensation whntsocvcr for such opeaation, or for any work or
scrl'ice in connection with motor vehicles, excepting only manufactlners, ngents, proprietors of gnrages, smd dealers who
do not operate for hire; protided, 1towevet, thnt nn employee
of a ma.nui~wturcr m of a dfoalcr whose principal occupation
]s that of a salcsnum shall be exempted from this definition
und slutll l1e tle.-.ignatcd ns nn operator; 1Jroticlcd. /tttl./t.er, that
a pcn-son operating a motorcycle shall not be considered as a
chauffltu unless such motoreycle is of ~'1-cater weight than four
lnmdred pounds unladen; (9) tb.e tenn "state" as used in this
act, except wliel'e otherwise cxpicssly provided, shall also inelude the territory, i:edernl clistricts and insuJar possessions of
the Unjtcd State.~; (10) "non-residents" shall apply to resip
dents of otl1or states or countries having no rcgu1at place of
. abode or businesS" ]u this state for a period of mo1e tbm1 three
months in the calendar year; (11) "owner" shall also include
nny pct'flon, fum, assocint1on, or corporation renting a motor
Yehiclc m having tho exclusive use tl1creo.f under o. lease or
otltcrwjse; (12) unumufucturet 77 or "dealer" shaJl signify
a person, firm, association, or COl'POl'ntion having in l1is, its or
t.l1~ir posesssion motor vehicles for sule 01 trade and for nse
and operation pu1-suant thereto, and shall be considered owners
of motor vehicles manufactured or dealt in by them ior the
purposes of Utis act, p1ior to sale and delivery thereof, and of
all motor vehicles in their possession and operated l>y them or
by their employee$; (13) "garage" slulll mc:m every place
or l)ludncss '\\here motor vellicll'S nre received for housing or
stol'ugc for componsntion, and excepting only Ruch ph~ees in
which motor vehicles are kept by the owners thereof, not
being dealers, "ithout payment or storage; (14) "magistrate'' shall he deemed and understood to mean and include
all justices of the peace, judges of city or city and county
criminal courts, police justices, city recorders, mayors, and
all other officers hnving the powers of n committing magistrate ; (15) "intctsecting higln~ay" shall mean any highway which joins ano1.hl't at nn ungle, whethet or not it
crosses the oH1er; (16) "operator" shall mean any person
other ihan a chaui!cur, 'vho operates a lllotor vehicle; (17)
''person'' slmll jnclude any co1poration, association, copartncrs11ip, company: firm, or othet aggr~gation of individuo.ls
which owns or controls any motor vehicle as owner, or fol" the
purpose of snle, or fo.r renting as agent~ sal\!sman or otherwise.
Dopartmcut ns used in tl1is net shall mean the state department. of c11ginccring.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 10 of 25

641
SEC. 2. Fire engines and fire patrol apparatus, police ~e C!Dpatl'ol wagons, municipal or county ambulances and such self :'(e~t!J~
propelling vehicles ns arc used neither for the conveyance ol
persoDs for hire, plPnsul'e. or busin~s, nor for the transportation of freight, such us road rollers, street or road sprinklers
und traction engines. are excepted from the provjsions of this
a<!t. except where otherwise expressly provided
SEc. 3. Every owner of n motor vchic:lc which shall be Avs,llelloporatm.l or driven upon the pul,lic highways of this state shall ~C::J~!
for t'ttch motor vehicle owned, except as herein otherwise ex- trfft n~
prcssly provided, cause to be filed by mail or otherwise with the :en~~~r:/
state t1onsttrer or his duly authorized agent, an application for
registration on a bbmk to be furnished by the state department
of engineering for that purpose, containing, in addition to such
otlter particulars as may be required by the said department,
a statement of the name, place of residence and address of the
applicant, with a brief descrjption of the motor vehicle, including the name of the maker, the nwnbcr, if any, affixed by the
maker, the character of the motor power and the amount of
sneh motor power stated in figures of horsepo'\vcr; a.nd with
such application shall be deposited the proper registration fee
as provided in secti-on seven of this act.
s~o. 4. Upon tbe receipt of an application for registration Applfi'Rof a motor vehicle ns provided in this net, the state tl'eusul"er !!7ft~~~s
slmll transmit the snme to the said department with the en- ~~~r~t em
dot'Scmcut thcrE'On that tl1e fee required by section seven of gtnearJng.
this act lta" been paid to him or his duly authorized agent and
thet('npon U1e Raid depArtment or its duly authorized agent, if
sntisiiccl that the proper fee hus been paid, shall file such applirnt.ion nnd shnll nlphnbcti~nl.ly, and also numerically, register Veblrlt's
such motm vehicle or vehicles with the name, residence and registered,
busiucss nuclrt>S.C~ oi the owner, mauufactn.rer, or dealer, a.s tllc
cnse mny be, together with the facts stated in such application,
in a book Ol' on index cards to be ltept for the purpose under a
distinc1 ive Dllmbcr nssigoed to Rltch motor vehicle by the said
deparhucnt or its duly authorized agent, which book or index
card51 shall be open to inspec:tion by the public during reasonable busines.CJ hours.
S1ec. 5. Upon the filing of such application and the pay- "Ntmlber
ment of the fees provided in this act, the said department or its ~!;.~;~cb
dul.v authorized agent shall assign to such motor vehicle a
distinctive number, nnd shall issue and deliver to the owner or
applicant a seal of aluminum, or other ~nitable metal. in such
form M may be selc<'ted by the said department, not les.~ than
two iuc~hcs in its shortMt diameter, having stamped thoreon the
word~ "Ht~gistered )I otor Vehhle No. - , Cal., 19-, '' With soat.
the registration nun1ber and the year for wnicl1 such seal is
iR~ued inserted ther~in . the form of which scnl shnll be unifortn
for any 011e year, and may be altered by the said deportment
from yeur to year; 'd1ich seal sbnll thereafter at all times be
<'Onspicnously displ~yed on tl1e motor vebi<'lc to which the
number has been assigned; provided, furtluw, that in the event Duplicate.
41

Case: 14-55077

642

Annual

n;!~ru-

Fees.

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 11 of 25

STATU'fi'..S 0:11' CALIFORNIA.

of the loss, mutilation or destruction of any such seal, the owne-r


of a registered motor vehicle may obtain from tbe said
department or its duJy authorized agent a duplicate thereof
upon :filing "ith the said department or its duly authorized
agent an affidavit showi.Dg the facts and upon the payment of
the fee provided herein for such duplicate.
SEo. 6. Sueh registration shall be renewed annually in the
same mnnDer and npon pnyment of tbe same fee as provided
for original registration, such renewal to take effect on the
first day of January of each year. Number plates and seals
furnished by the said department as provided by this aet
shall be valid only for the calendar year for which t1tey are
is~ucd.

SEo. 7. 'rhe state trensurer shall collcet fees as follows :


For the registration of every motorcycle, including the ri~llt
of the owner thereof to operate the vehicle, two dollars. For
the tegiRtration of every automobile o! less tltan twenty hotse.
powct, five clollm'S. For tile registration of every automobile of
twenty horsepower and alx>Ve, but less tban thirty horsepower,
ten dollars. ~,o:r the registration o.f every automobile of
thirty l10~epower n.nd above, but less than forty horsepower,
fifi ecn dolla1s. Fo1 the 1-egistration o cTery automobile of
fol'ty )lbrscpower nnd above, but Jess than fitt)r ho1sepower,
twen(y dolla1s. For the regist1ation of ev~ry automobile of
,...........titty horsepowet and above, but less than sixty horsepower,
-- t,,enty-five dollnrs. For the registration of every uutom()-.
DeuJI:'rs.
bile of sixty horsepowet and above, thirty dollars. 11 or the
registration of motor vehideR owned by or under the control
of a manufacturer of or deader in motor vclticlcs, if such
persons operate upon the pul>lic hjghways not more tlmn fhre
automobiles, fifty dollnrs. and ten dollars for every uutomobilc
in e:uess of five so operated. Por the rcgistratio~ of n.Jl of
the moforeycJes ownPd by or under tl1e ('ontrol of a numufac~
tnrcr of or dealer in motoreycle.CJ who does not manufacture
or deal in automobiles, including five seals to be furnished
with the cci-tificatcs of rcg:istta1ion, fi.vG iJollnrs. For tlJc
registration of every automobile and of the motor vehicles
owned by or 1mder the conttol of a manufacturer of or dealer
in mot01 le}licles, wl10 applies therefor during the period
beginning with the first d8y of August and ending i>n the
tl1irty-first day of Dceemher, in any year, one l1alf of the fore~ubstltu
going foes. For the substitution of the registration of an
tlon of
automobile for tl1at of a vehicle previously t'Cgistered in acxcglstrlltlon.
cordance with the provisions of this act, two dollars. For
tho substitn.t.ion of the registration of a motorcycle for that of
a motol'cycle previously registered in accordance with this act,
911"ut1eur's one dollar. ~.,or every original chauffeur's license, two dolJrceoe.
lars. For the renewal of any chauffeur's license to operate
automobiles, two clollars. For every additional seal of regis,\d111tlonru tration or license, fift.v cents. For every additional number
al!41s.
plate furnished to replace such plates as have been lost or
mutilated, or which at'e illegible, and for every additionnl

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 12 of 25

POB'l'IE'l'H SESSION.

number plate furnished to a manufacturer of or dealer in


motor vel1ieles whose business requires more than five pain
of snch plates, seventy-five cents. For every additional
seal furnisl1cd to replace such seals as have been lost
or mutilated, or which are illegible, and for every seal
furnisl1ed to a manufacturer of or dealer in automobiles
for 1186 on motorcycles owned by or under the control of such
persons, fifty cents ; pro1:ided, however, tbnt the state depa.r~ To stato
ment of engineering muy fllrnish without charge copies of seals ct1ftrm.
of registrution and lict-nses to operate, and eopic~ of other documents relating tlte1eto, to officers of the state or of any court
thereof or of a city or town therein.
SEc. 8. Upon the transfer of ownership of any motor Ef1llr1:1on
vehicle its registration shall expire, and the person in whose ~ra~~n ~n
name such vehicle ]s registered shall forthwith return the seal ~~~~~r or
of registration to tlte state treasruer with a written notice con
tnining the date of such tran.~fer of ownership and the name,
place of residence and address of the new owuer. A person
who transfers the ownership of a registered motor yehicle
owned hy him to anotlter, upon the filing of a new application
and upon payment of the proper fees, may have registered in
his name another motor vehicle for the remainder of the calendar year; provided, tho horsepower of such motor vehicle
is tho same as that of the motor vehicle first registered by him,
or if the vehicle sought to be registered is a motorcycle ; but
if the horsepower of the automobile is greater than that of
tl1e automobile first registered by him, the applicant shall pay.
in addition to the said fee, the difference between the fee paid
by him for the said vehicle first registered and the fee for the
l'cgistrntiou of an automobile of the higher horsepower, as pro#
vidcd in section seven of this act. A person who before the first Rcbntes.
day of August in any calendar year transfers the ownership or
loses possession of au automobile registered in his name and
who applies for the registration of another motor vehicle of less
horsepower than that of the vehicle so transferred shall be
entitled. upon payment of the proper fees set forth in section
seven of this act, to a rebate e(tuhralcnt to one half the differ.
ence between the respective fees for the higher and lower horse~
powers, and a. person under lil\e conditions who does not apply
for the registration of another automobile but who on or before
the first day of September in tl1e same calendar year files in the
office of the state treasurer a written application for rebate shall
be entitled to a rebate of one half the fee paid for the registration
of such vehicle; provided, kowever, that no such rebate shall
be paid except upon a certificate filed with the state board of
control, setting forth the facfJ:J, and signed by the state depart
mont of engineering, nnd thnt the rebate shall be paid out of
the motor vehicle fund. The said department at its discretion, RoRasllmmay assign to the motor velticle of nny person who surrenders :.:::,:S.
his registration seal as herein pl'ovidcd and who desires to reg
ister another motor vel1icle, the register numbel' of the motor Number
vehicle described in the surrendered seal. The said depart plat.

Case: 14-55077

644

RcfUIGl to

register

unsafe
maeh.incs.

power.

Etpl~ion

~ri~on:
General
dlstln-

gulshJo~r

mark for
dealers.

!<lot 1"-

pJicabte to

nonrl'Sf
dents.

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 13 of 25

Si'ATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.

ment shall furnish without charge to every person whose automobile is registered as aforesaid, who shall apply therefor
two number plates of suitable design, each number plate to
have displayed upon it the register number assigned to such
vohiele, and one numbet plate of suitable design shall Jikewi~e
be furnished by the said department for every motorcycle.
If the said department shall determine at any time that for
any reason a motor vehicle is unsafe or improperly equipped
or otherwise unfit to be operated, it may refuse to register such
vehicle, and said department may fo1 a like reason revoke any
registration alr~ady recorded. 'fhc horsepower of every automobile sought to be registered shall be determined by the said
department, and such determination shnll be final and concluJive. The registration o every motor vehicle shall expire at
midnight upon the thirty-first day of December in each year.
S::sc. 9. Every manufacturer of or deal~r in motor vehicles
may make application to the state treasurer or his duly authori1..ed agent, by mail or otherwise, upon a blank provided by the
department of engineering for a general distinguishing num~
ber or mark, instead of registering each motor vehicle owned
or contro1led by him, and with such application shall l>c
deposited the proper registration fee, as provided in section
seven of this net; and the said department m.'ly grant the nppl ieation, if satisfied of the facts stated in tl1e applicationt nud
issue to the applicant a certificate of registration containing
the name and business address of the applicant and the general distinguishing number or mark assigned to him, and made
in such form and containing such further informntion as the
said department may detern1ine; and nil :motor vehicles own<'.i
or controlled by such manufacturer or dealer shall be regarded
as registered under such general distinguishing numbe-r or mark
nntil sold or let for hire or loaned for a period of more tlum
ten B\1ooes.c:;ive days. The said department shall ful."nish transportation charges to the address of any applicant within the
state prepaid, without charge to every manufa<"turer o.f or
dealer in automobiles whose vehicles are registered in accordance with the provisions of this section :five pairs of number
plates of suitable design, the plates to lmve displayed 1.1pun. tbem
the register number which is as.~igned to the motor vehicles of
such manufacturer or (ll'nlnr, 'Yitl1 a different letter or letters
or mark on each pnir of nn.mbe1 plntcs.
SEa. 10. The provisions of this act, whether hereinbefore
or hereinalter contained, relative to registration and the display of registration or license numbers, sball not apply to n
motor vehicle owned hy a non-resident of this state who is
only temporarily within tl1is stnte, other than a fotcign corporation doing business in tlJis state; provided, that the owner
thereof shall have eomp1ied with the pl"ovisions of the law of
the foreign country or state of his residence relative to moto'l"
vehicles and the registration and operntion thereof, nnd shall
conspicuously display upon said motor vehicle, while operate<!
upon the public high,vays of this state, his registration num-

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

FORTIETH SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 14 of 25

645

ber as required by tbe provisions of the laws of said foreign


country or state; and pto~-ided1 fu1'ther, that the registration
number plate of such other country or state shall be disp1ayed
on sa~.:h motor vehicle substantially as provided in this act for
motor vehicles registered pursuant to the provisions hereof.
SEc. 11. No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle Number
on the public highways of this state unless such vehicle shall ~~!rbo
at all times have tlle distinctive number assigned to it by the ch~tln)"!4t .
said department or its duly authorized agent conspicuously
displayed both on the front of said vel1icle nn<.l at the back
tltereof. upon u 11tnnber plate of such size, form and character
as provided by the said department securely fastened to such
vehicle so as to prevent the same from s'ringing, at a minimum
clistauce o[ sixteen inches .from the ground; and DO pCl'SOD Sltall
attnch to or display on such vehicle any number plate or seal
assigned to it under n.ny motor vehicle law than this act, or
any other number plate or seal tb.an that assigned for the current year, or a fictitious number plate or senl; provided, that on motorone number plate shall be displayed upon every motorcycle eycl~.
in n ronspicuou..c:; posjtion se('l1rely fastened to the rear wheel
guard of such motorcycle, or other secure position at tl1e rear
thereof, so as to be plainly visible; and provided, ftwther,
that all letters. numbers, senlq, ancl other identification marks ~umben
shnll be kept clear and distinct, and free from grease, du.~ or ~~:!
other blurring matter, so that they Hhall he plainly visible at

all times during dayligl1t and under artificial light in the


night time.
SEc. 12. Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a b'11, GonR8,
gong. horn, whistle or other device in good working order. ~clt~:~ta.
capable of emitting an abrupt sound adequate in quality and
volume to give wat'ning of the approneh of snch vehicle to
pedeRhians and to tl1e riders or drivers of animals or of other
vebicles and to persons entering or leaving street, interurban
and rnilrond cnrs. No person shall sound such bell, gong,
horn, whistle or othel' device for any put'Posc except as a warning of danger.
S'EO. 13. (a) Every motor vehicle otl1er than a motorcycle Light Qn
while in use shall earry during the period from a half hour ~:~hiii'S
after Rtmset to a half hour before Slmrise, and at all times

when fog or other atmospheric conditions render the operation


of vehicles unusually dangerous to the traffic and use of the
higlnvny, at least two lighted lamps showing white l ights
visible under normal atmosphe1ie conditions at least five hundred feet in the direction toward which said motor vehicle
i~ pl"ocecding, and shall also carry at the rear of ench motor
vehicle n lighted lamp exhibiting one red light plainly visible
for a distance of five hnndrcd feet toward the real', and so
plnc>e<l that the number carried on the renr of such motor
vehic-le shall be illuminated by a white light in such manner
thllt such nt1mbet" ean be plainly distin~hed under normal
atmospheric conditions at a distance of not less than fifty feet
in the reverse direction to which such vehicle is proceeding.

Case: 1~55077

646
Oo motor-

eycles.

Mw.l8,
rtc,, on
t,irl'.ll.

Ohaln11.

ltnftlem,
ate.

Intoxfcnted

drivers.

Owner's

ronaent.

Chaurrenrs
muat be

llecoscd.

OJ"'Prntlou
on hlghwuy,

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 15 of 25

STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.

(b) Every motorcycle while in use sl1all carry during the


period from a half bour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise and wbenever fog, or other atmospheric conditions, render the use of the highway hy vehicles unusually dangerous
to the traffic and use of the l1ighway, at least one lighted lamp
sho" ing a white light visible under normal atmospheric conditions at lea.~t two hundred feet in tlJe direction towartl whieh
the motorcycle is ]>rocecding, And sbnll also carry at the 1ear
ot' such motorcycle one red ligl1t or one red re1lex mirror
plainJy visible from the reur.
SEc. 14. AU motor vehicles must be provided nt all times
with ndequate brakes kept in good working ordel".
S&c. 15. No tire on any motor vehicle or on any oth(lr
vehicle shall have on its peripl1ery nuy bloak, Htud, cleat.
ridge, bead or any other protuberance of metnl which projects
more than one fourth of an inch beyond t.he tread or traction
surface of the tire, but this scrtion shall not be so construed
as to prohibit the use of tire C'hains of reasonnole proportions
on motor vehiC'les when required for safety because of snow,
ice, or other conditions tending to cause such vehicles to slide
or skid, nor so as to prevent the use of trac!tion engines with
clent.~ on the driving wheels thereof on dirt or unimproved
toads.
SEC. 16. Every motor vehicle must have devices in good
working order which shall be at aU times in constant operation
to prevent excessive or unusual noiRe, annoying smoke Rild the
escape of gas, steam or oil. as well n.~ the falling out of reqidu~
from fuel, and all exhaust pipes carrying exhaust gases from
the engine shall be directed parallel to the gronnd or slight~y
upward. Devices known as "muffler cut-outs" shaH not be
used within the limits of any incorporated city and county or
city within the state.
SEc. 17. No intoxicated person shall operate or drive n
motor or other vehicle upon any public highway witl1in this
state.
SEc. 18. No person shall opeTate a motor vehirle without
the consent of the owner thereof.
SEo. 19. No person s1ull1 employ for hjro ll.C1 a ohnufFetll' of a
motor vebicJe any person not li<'Ansed as in this act provillPd.
No pel'Son shall allow a motor vehicle owned by him or unrler
his control to be operated by any person who bas no legal
right to do so, or in violation of the provisions of this act.
No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle shnl1
allow sueh vehicle to stand in any public street or public higbway unattended without first loeking or mnldng it fnst or
effectively setting the brakes thereon, and stopping the motor
of said vehicle.
SEc. 20. (a) The driver or operator of any ''chicle in
or upon nny public l1igl1way shall drive or operate such
vehicle in n careful manner with due regard for the safety
nnd eonvenience of pcde.c:;trians and all other vehicles or
traffic npon snob high''"ay, and wherever practicable shall

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

FORTIETH SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 16 of 25

647

travel on tlte right hand sid~ of such highway. When two v~hiC'les
vehicles arc passing each other in opposite directions they ~f.a~~Ftc1n
shall have the ri~llt of way, and no other vehicle to the rear d rc.:tlnnf'.
o.f either of such two vehicles shall pass or attempt to pass
such two vcllicle.~, and on all occasions the driver or operator
of nny v~hic]c, in or upon any pnb1ic highway shall travel
npon the rigltt half of sneh highway when the road ahead
on the left-lHmcl side is not clear and unobstructed !or at
least one hnndred yard~. nnd for the purposes of this section
tl1c te1m "vehicle" Rhnll include every wagon hack coach "Whic-JC'''

. h-can,
-+
b'1cycl,c, tr1eyc
1'e, aut'omob'l
carlJnge>,
omm'bns, pus
1 e,'di!Jluo<l.
sleigh, or other conyeynnce, except baby carriages, railroad,
street and inte1urbnn railway cars, in whatever mnun<-r or by
whntcver foJcc or po\Ver the Sttme may be ridden, driven or
propelled, whicl1 is or may be used for or adapted to ple118nre
riding or the transportation of passengers, baggage, mcrchandi<~e Ol' freight: upon the highway.
(b) Vehicles proct-edin~ in opposite directions shall pass
cuc:h other to the I"ight, gidng as nearly ns possible 011e half
tlle l'ond to ench.
(c) Vehicles ovcrtoldng other vehicles proceeding in the l'nl!,.tug
~nme direction shall pnss to the left thereof and shall not again ~'h::~.~o.
drive to tl1c right until ren."ona1J1y clear of sneh overtaken
vehicle.
(d) It shall be t1lc d11iy of the driver, rider or operator of a Tllth ..,,
vehicle about to be oyertnken to give way to the right in favor ~~~~~.
of the overtaking vehich, on suitable and nudihlc signal being
given by or on beb~lf or the opelator, driver or other person
in cbargoe a11d control of such overtaking vehicle if sncb ovcrtaJdng vehicle he a motor vehicle.
( o) Excepting where conttullnd by snch traffic or<linRnee.~ or M lntc-rrc~loUons ewtetcd ly Joenl authotif.i~..s ns me permitted under~::~~~~~
tl1is act vehicles approaching an inte1'8ecting road, street or
highway sht\11 be 11mler control by t1JC operntots thereof sons to
permit tho 'ehicle on tl1e rigl1t oi the vcbielc approaching to
first cross such intersecting road. street or highway.
(f) It shall be the duty of the pe1~on operating or in charge l-ll:n!'' "r
<f an o,ertaking vehi('le to sound andible and suitable signal ~:.,:;:~::::
before pnssin~ a vehicle ptocectling in tl1c same direction.
(g) .AU vel1icles appro~ching an inteTSection of a street. road Tumln.:
. t
}
. t en t10n of turmng
.
tl1Cl'eat s h-11
t urn- .!!t'<'Uons.
nt lntc>ror h 1~r1wn~,
Wit
1 t 11e m
All m
ing to the tight keep to the 1iJr11t of the center of such intersection and in turning to th~ left ~hall rnn to and beyond the
center of ~melt iuter!'ieetion. pnssing to the rigltt thereof before
tmning Rneb vehicle toward the left.
(Tt) In all passing and overtaking such assistance shall be Prf'Cautlon
giYc.m by the occupants of each vehicle respectively to the othe1 ~~:t~s:n
HB tlte circumstances shall reasonably demand in order to ia~t hon~ea .
obinin clettrmacc and nYoid accidents; every person haviu~
eonhol or charge of any motor ,,ehicle or ot.hcr vehic1c upon
any pnl.Jlie higbwny and approacl1ing any vehicle drawn by a
horse or horses, or any horse upon which any person is riding,

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

648

ID: 9224533
STATUTES Olr

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 17 of 25

CJ\LJli'Oltl\~A.

shall operate, manage nnd control snclt motor vehicle or other


vehicle in Rtlch manner H'i to exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent the frightening' of nny such horse or hol"Scs and
to insnre the safety and protection of any person l'iding or
driving the same; a.nd if such horse or horses appear frigbton(ld tho ponon in control of srtch motol' vehicle or other
v~lti~lc shall rcdnce its spee<l, and if rc()nestcd by s;;ignal or
otherwise by the driver or rider of such horse or hones sha11
not proceed fnrtltcr toward snch aninlRl or animnls tmle&'l
such movement be necessnry to nvoid accident or injury nntil
1mch animal or animaL~ be nnrler tlte control of therr driver
or rider.
srn,r1Jy
(i) The person in control of anv vehicle movina slowlv
mov nJf
.

\"l.!hfrlt-J. to fllong and upon any public llighway shall keep such vel1iele
1
t aerfgbt. n~ clos('}y os prncticnbJe to the right hnnd bonndnry of the
hhrhway, allowing more .swiftly..moving vehicles reasonably
free passage to the left.
'l'nrn l n~ .
(j) T11e person in c1unge of any vehicle in or upon any
f.lOJIJifng,
pn
blic highway shaU, before turnin~. stopping ol' changing
tt., on
hlghwo7.
tlte eoursc of such vPhiclc, and before turning such vehicle
when stnrtin~ the Rame, nrst see tbnt tlterc tS sntlicient space
for such movement to be mndc in ~afety. 11nd if the movement
or operation of otl1er ''ebicle.~ moy reasonably be affected by
such turning, stopping o1 rlumgin.g oC co1n-se, ~hn11 give plainly
visible or audihlo signnl to t'he persons OJ.)Crn.ting, driving or
in charge o:f such vehicles of his intention so to turn, stop
or clta.nge l1is course.
Paasto
(k) In pns.c:;ing rnilronrl. interurban or street cnrs operntt'd
treat mrs. in any city, town or village in this state, vehicle.lj shall he
operated with due cnre ond caution so thnt tl1e safety of pnssengers alighting from or boarding such car Rhall be protecaten.
and for that purpose said vebicl<' shall be brought to n full
stop if reasonably ncccs.qnry to attnin the objects of this subdivision.
!\rotor
( l) Every motClr vehicle when movin~ in defiles, canyons or
veblclcs an
moUDtnln mountain passes where the curvature of the rond or hi~hwny
r.a:ad.8.
prevents a clear view for a distance of one htmdred ynn.ls shall
be held under control and not permitted to coast and the
operator thereof in approaching curves shall give a warning of
his appronch with frequ('nt blast!'~ or strokes of horn, bell,
whistles, gong or othe1 adequate signaling device. and upon
all curves to the right shall keep to the inside of said curvtand upon all curves to the left shall keep to the outside of

said curve.
Pollee

~::~:

rlnC's;..t~i'

.:r~1177

'l'n<'tl on

e~~aii)I)S .

{ nl) Police patrol \vagons, police ombulances, fire patrols.


nrc engines and fire appnrntus slm11 in all coses while bt'in~
operated as such. have right of wny, with' due ref!ard to the
safety of the pnhlic; but this provision shall not protect the
driver or operRtor of any snch vehicle or his employer or principal from the consequence of the arbitrary l'xereise of this
right or for in juri~ wilfull.v inflicted.
( n) Provideil, that this section shall apply also to traction

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

FORTIETH SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 18 of 25

649

engines, road rollers and to other self-propelling vehicles, excepting fiB in this article specifically excepted, where used
neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure or
business, nor for the trmsportntion of freight.
SEc. 21. In case of accident or injury to person or prop- rn caa~ of
erty on the pnblic highways due to the operation thereon of acddcnt.
any ' 'ehicle the person operating, driving or otherwise in control of the same shall stop, and upon request of the person
injured or whose property has suffered injury, or any other
person present, shall give such person his uRine 11nd addl"ess
and the registration number of hts ve'hi~le if it be a motor
vehicle and if such person op~rp.ting, driving or otherwise in
control of Ruch vehicle is not the owner thereof, his license
nnml>er, if he is an operator or chRuffettl', and the name ftnd
address of the owner of such vehicle.
SEo. 22. (a) No races or contests for speed, whether on n ~omllrl
bet or wager or otlterwise. sball be Jtcld upon any public higl1- ~~ut
way within this stnte without the permission of the proper 8J~rmf
authorities of the state, county, city and c011Dty, city or town, on.
having jurisdiction over such portion of tbe highway as is
intended to be nRcd for snch race or conte.4:Jt. and unless Much
highway is fully and efficiently patrolled for the entire disbmce
over which such rnte or !ontcst for speed is to be held.
(b) Every person operating or d1iving .a motor or other Rate nt
vehicle on the public highways of this state ,;hall operate or l!Jloocl.
drive the same in a careful and prudent mnnner and Rt a rate
of speed not grenter than is reasonable nnd proper, bnving
regnrd to the traffic and m~e of the l1i~lrn-ny, nnd no perROn
shall operate or drive a motor or other vehicle on a public highway at such rate of speed as to endanger the life or limb of any
person or the sRfety of any property; p1ovided, thnt it shaH be
nnlawfnl to drive at a rate of speed in execs.~ of thi'rty mi1eR
nn hour; and fJrovided, fnrllter, that in nny event no person
shall operate or drive a motor or other vehicle on any pnhlir
higltway where the territory contiguous ther~t.o is eloscl~r built
up, at a greater tate of speed than one n1ilc in three niin1.1te..s,
or in the bu<Jincss district of nny incorporated city o.nd ~ounty,
city or town, at a greater rate than one n1ile in four minutes,
or nt a greater rate of speed than one mile in six minutes wl1cre
the operator's or C'hauffen.rs view of the road traffic is
ubstructed either upon approaebing an intel'Seeting way, or in
traversing a crossing or intersection of wnys, or in approaching
or traversing a bridge, dnm, trestle. causeway or viaduct. or in
going around corners or o. eurve in n stteet or highwny.
SEc. 23. The state engineering department may suspend or sua11Cn~
revoke the regisb~tion of any motor vehicle or the license ~~~~:trun
issued to any person tmder the provision,c; of thiR act, aftel' clue ~::~~1
hearing, for any enm~e which it may deem ~mffic.ient. and may Clllhle. or
order the seal and uumber plate or li<'ense to be delivered to it
'vbencver it appears 11pon hearing that the holder tltcrcof 1s an
improper or incompetent person to operate motor vchicl~s, or
is operating a motor vellicle improperly or so as to endanger

Case: 14~55077

650

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 19 of 25

STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA.

the public; nnd neither the registration seal nor the lieense
Rbnll be reissued un]ess, nftcr a hearing, the said department
determines that the operator or chauffeur should again be permitted to operate.
~Pt)Ut-a
SEc. 24. .A.pplicntion to operate motor vehicles may lJe
t~~u. etc., mode by mnil or othrrwiRc to the state treasurer upon blanks
or II<U!IIsc. prepared b.'" tJ1e state department o engineering. The fees provided in section seven slmll accompany the application. To each
person shall be ns.~ignecl some distinguishing numbcr or mmk
and the licenses; issned shall be in such fonn ns the said department may determine; they shall contain the distingui.~hing
number or matk nssifmed the licensee. his name. place of residence un<l n.ddre.~~, nntl a brief descl'iption of the lit'enscc for
1ba pni'poscs of iclcmtifi<>:ltion; nnd sueh othe1 infonnntion n.q
OhAufthe said department sh~U deem necessary. Special licens<'s
fcur'll
shn.ll
be issued to diEmtieurs, but no such license shall be is.c;ned
lk~e.
etc.
to nny person less than sixteen years of age. Every person
lirem;ed to operate motOI' vclticles ns aforesaid shall endorse his
nsmtl signat1n-e on the mnrgin of the license in the spnce pl"ovided for the purpose, immediately upon the receipt of aaid
lict>nse. and Stl<h license shall not be valid until so e11dol'Bed.
'l'he license issued to chnuifcurs Rhall be valid for one yenr only
ltntlge.
i.tom the date of i~te. The said depaTtmcnt sbaU furniRh to
c\ery elmuffeur ~o li(ellSed a suitable metnl badge with the distinguishing nnmher n..,signed. to him stamped tlleteon, without
extra clmrge t11crcfor. su~h bndge to lmvc stantped thereon the
words "R.('gjstered Chauffeur No. ----.-- Cal." with the said
license number inserted tl1erein. 'rhis badge shall thereafter
be wom hy sueh chauffeur, affixerl to his clothing in a conspi~uous place, . nt nll timeR when he is operating or d1iving a
motor \chiele upon the public higb,vny, but shall be valid only
for a perinrl of one yeRr from the dntc of issunnce. In case of
the los.Cj of such bndge a llupliC'ntc will be is.~ued hy the said
clepartment on tbc ~cndin~ of an a.ffidaYit showing the fact of
los.C) and on pnymPnt of a fee of one dollar ($1.00) to the state
trt'aRurer. .An npplicnthm for the annual renewaJ of tt clia.uffeur's license sJ1all be. accompanied by the proper fee re<Jnjred
by this act.
Register
S.Ec. 25. Upon
the rcct~ipt of an applicntion as provided in
n[ llll(lleal?
thna.
R<wtion iwcnty-Lonr of tl1is net tl1c department of engineering
shall tllcrct1pon file 1he snmP, and register the applicant in n
book or on index cnrd<J wbieh shaJl be kept in tlte Mtmc manner.
subject to public inspcctioJI. as the books or index cal'ds for
tlJ<:' registration of motor vebieles.
t:<~c nf
S.~~:c. 26. No person sha11 nRc a fi(fitions name in n!)plying
tll'tltlous
uume,
for ~mch <!hnuff<"nr's license: uo.r shnll au)~ chanifcnr. licensed
rtr . Jlrons herein providell, voluntarily permit any other person to
hlblt.cd.
possess or use bis license, or badge; nor shnll any pe1son while
opcrnting or driving a mott.1r Yehile n~e or posses., nny license
or had~e belonging to another pm"Son, or n. fictitious license or
bndgc.
SEc. 27. No person slu1ll O})ernte or drive a motor vehicle

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

FORTlE'l'll SESSIOX.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 20 of 25

651

upon a pnblic highway of this state after the thirty-flrat day of Persons
December, 1913, unless such person shall bnve complied in all ~oe:~;ln~r
rcspe"ts with the requirements of tllis a4!t; proviclerl, however, ~~~~'!:,m
tlmt a non-l'esident operator or chuuffeur who has complied J,Jy with
- 11 t b e proviSions

ttct nftc~
w1t
of t11e country or stat a of b'lS rcs1.dence DONlUlher
relative to the operation of motor vehicles, shall be exempt from :n, tm.
license hereunder for a period of tluee months; provided,
furi1tcr, that when operating a motor vehicle he shall wear n
badge assigned to him in the counn-y or state of his resitlt'ncc.
SEc. 28. Any pel'Ron who shnll drive or operate, or en use Unouthor
l.~ hway Wl'th'm of
(/W IISO
to t.ue d r1ven
or operated, upon any publ'lC ~ug
vchrrro
the state, any motor vellicle not his own, with or without n felony .
intent to steal the sam~, in tl1e absence of the owner thereof
and without such owner's consent, shall be guilty of a felouy;
ptovided. ltowever, that this section shall not be applicah1c to
motor vehicles, the iair value of wl1ieh at the time of
the commencement of saeb unnutl1orized nse is less than three
hundred dollars.
SEc. 29. Any pel'BOn who, with or without intent to steal, Unoutho"f
shall drive or operate, or cause to be driven or opct"nted, ~~~~To011
upon any public highway within this state, any motor vehicle r;~.r~1~~c;:
not his own, of a fair value, at the time of tl1e commence- tnmdrod
. ed use, of less tb;m three hun d rcll llol - dtuJsdcullttl'll n
mcnt of such unauth or1z
lnrs ($300), in the absence of the owner thereof and Jncnnor.
without such owner's consent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Smo. 30. (tJ) Any person who shall. individually or in ~rca~~ ~~.
. t"Jon W1't:b one or more others, w1')fully brea1c, lDJnre,
.
tnlur ng,
assoc1a
otc.,
tamper with or remove any part or parts of any motor vehicle. ~C::.'~~...
for the purpose of injuring, defacing or destroying such mennor.
vehicle, or temporarily or permanently preventing its useful
operation, or for any otber purpose against the will or witbont the cons(\Ilt of t1te owner of such vellicle, or who shall
in ony other manner wilfully or malieiouRly interfere with
01 prevent the :running or operation of such vehjcle, sl1all be
guiltv of a misclcmennor.
(b) Any person who shall, without consent of the owner, Gettlnc
or person in elmrge, of a motor vehicle, climb upon or into ~~eto
such vcnicle, "'hether the same llc in motion or at rest: or ~~i~;;!~h
who, whiJe RUCh vehicle lS at rem and unattended, RlJnll sent misnttempt to manipulate any of tl1c levers, th~ starting crank. demconur.
brnke~. or mechani~m thereof, or to set snid vehicle in motion
shall be f!Uilty of a misdMneanor.
SEC. 31. No clumffcnr or other person having the care of a Ollnuttt!ur
motor vel1iclc for the owner ~hn1l re<'eive m take, direct.]y or f:c~~~~cl
indhcctlv, without the written consl'nt of snell OWD(\r, any ~M~g
bonns. dil'cotmt or oth(\r cnnsidcrntion for suppliE."s or pnrts ,.,c:~;~~~~~
furnished or pnrcba~ed for such motor vehicll', or on any te.
work or Jnbor done tllt'l'eOn by otbers. or 011 thl' pn rchase of
n.ny motor vehicle for ltiR employer; and no pCtn:on fum isbing
such supp1il'S or pnrts. wol'k or lnlJor, or solling an)r motor
Vl'hicle shall give or offer nny such chauffeur or other perRon

Case: 14-55077

652

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 21 of 25

STATUTES OB' CALIFORNIA.

having the care of u motor ,~c1ticle for the tJwner tltereof,


directly or inclircctly, without snch ownel"'s written consent,
any bonus. disc01mt, Ol' othct collSideration thereon . Any
pet-son violating tllis section shall be guilty of a nusdemeanor.
Pena1t1.

Peon ltv

for violat--

Ing R80tJoD lS.

l'n'lllo

I 'Rtf'llll:nt

In lll'Pih'lltfon.
'Pt'l~t~ltr

for drn-

ln: \'t:hiC'lo
\\1tllol

iuto:d-

cn1.el.

o" nerF
)11'11111t7

for violat-

ln.: Rec-

Uou U .

Pcnnlty
fc or v lolntln~r IJIO~on 21.

SEc. 32. Excepting as in this net otl1erwisc expressly providcll, any person violntil1g Rny of its provi~Jious shnll be
deemed guilty of a mis<lcmcunor, and upon conviction thereof
unless in this act ot1H~rwise expres.'3ly provided, shall be punishable by a fine not cx:cecuing one hundred dolhrrs, or by imprison:m.ent not exceeding thil'ty days, or both, for the first offense; nnd plmishablc by :fine of not less tl10.n fifty dollnrs nor
more thnn one hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exccedin~
thirty dnys, or both, fot a second otfcn~; and punishable by
a 1iue of not leli's than ouc hundred dollars .nor more than
two hundred ancl fifty clolltJrs, or imprisonment not exceeding
thirty dnys, or both. fol' a thitod or Ruhs<.'q uont off'(\nsc.
SRc. 33. AII.v person violating any of the provisions of
~Jeetion 28 of this act shall, on conviction thereof, be punic;h-

able by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not


less tl1an one year nor more thon five years.
SEc. 34. (a) Any perRon who wi1fu1ly, . with intent to
deceive, makes a fnlsc statement in his verified application
for license n.CJ rlmui'Felll\ ~hn1l he guilty of a misdemP.flno-r.
(b) Any ]>Crson operating or dl'iviug a motor or other
vehicle w1tile intnxicatcd shall bo !l'Ui1ty of a misdemeanor,
mul 11pon eon viction thereof sl10ll b~ l)lmisbab]c hy a fine of
nut leAA than ten doll:n~ ($10) nor more than two hundred
dollm'%'1 ($200 ) ot by irnprisonmeut not exceeding thirty days,
or both, for t11e lil'st offem~e; nnd punishable by n fine of not
]e~s tlutn tw(\nty-flY"e ($2;;) cloll,us nor n1o1e than four hunaletl do1Jn I'S ( $400). or imp1'i~nnment not ICSFJ tlum ten nor
nlotc t.lmn sixty d.n.,rs. or both Fmch fine antl imprisonment,
.for n. s~cond ofTen!ilC; and puni~hn.hle hy imprisonment, withont th~ nltc'rnnti\'t' nf fine of not loss tlum thirty days nor
more thnn ninety tlnys. for n thiJcl or subsequent offense.
(c) The own('r of nny motor vf'lJicle driving the Ra.me or
cnnsing or suffering the sam(' to be driven or operated on any
public hi.ghwny of thi45 state, in violation of any of the provisions of sce1ion 11 of this act sltrul be gnilty of n nlisdemcanor, and on conviction thereof shall bo punisluible in the
manner and to the extent pl"ovided in section 32 of this act:
p1ovidod, ho1vtwer. tbat this snbdivision sha11 not affect tlttt
liabiJity to punishment of the person. other than tltc owner.
driving or operntin~ sneh motor vclticlc.
(d) Any person violating any of the proviRions of section
21 of this act sllnll he gnilt.v of a mi.sdcnwnnor; und on conviction thereof shall be punishable in tl1e mnuncr and to tl1e
c:\.'tent pro.,-iclcd in section 32 of this Ret ; ptotticle(Z, lt.oweve,,
that tl1e tine for the fl:rst offense. in case 11 fine be imposed.
shull not be lc.'1s than futy ($50) dolllil'S, and the term of

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

PORTIE'rH SRSSION.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page:
22 of 25
0

653

imprisonment, if a sentence of imprisonment be imposed, shull


be not less than ten days.
(e) Any person, other than the owner, driving or operating~~~ ta motor vehicle on any public highway of this state, knowingly tn~!~-a
violating any of the provisions of section 11 of this act shall tfon u.
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction theruof shall l)e
punishable in the manner and to the extent provided in section 32 of this act, but tbis RUbdivision shnll not :rffect tl1e
liability to punishment of the pe.rson or pcrRons owning such
vehicle.
(/) Any person violating nny of the provisions of section 1'\lnnltJ
26 of this act shnll be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on con- ~;:J;_lllt
viction the-reof shall be punishable in the manner and to the tfon 26.
extent provided in section 32 of this net; provided, 1wwever,
that the fine for the first offense, in case n fine be imposed.
shall be not ~~ than fifty ($50) dollars. nnd the term or
imprisonment, if a sentence o.f imprisonment be imposed, shall
be not less than ten days.
(g) Auy person violnting any of the provisions of section 31 Penalty
. l emcanor, and , on eonvtetJon
. . loll
tor sueviolut. act sha11 be gut'lty of a m1sc
0f t b 1s
thereof shnll be punishal>le by a fine of not less than fifty dol- tion 3l .
lRrs ($50), nor more than five hundl"Cd dollars ($500), or by
imprisonment in the count y jail for not less than sixty days
nor more than six months, or by both such fine and impl"isonment ; promded, however, that nothing in this section contained.
o~cepting as therein expressly and specially provided, sbn.ll be
deemed to modify or otherwise affect the liability to punishment of any ancl an persons violating any of the provisions of
this act, as set forth and provided for in section 32 of this act.
(It,) In addition to all other p1mishments herein provided, .Adulttonnt
the court may for a defmite period Stlspend or revoke an pcoaltlea.
operator's or ehaufte1,u's license upon conviction of the
licensee :for violation of any of the provisions of this act.
SEc. 35. All fees or other moneys paid to or collected by Feo9Dald
the state treasurer, und<'r tho provisions of this act, shall be ~.tS!otor
placed in a fund 'vhich shall be known as the umotor vehicle fund.
fund,'' wbich fund is hereby created ; providecl, that one half one bl\lf
of tltc net receipts under this act shall be returned to the conn- :;:.counties .from 'vhich r ecciYed, as determined by the places of resi-
dence of the persons to whom the licenses are issued, and all
such amounts r eturned shnll be pnid into the road funds of the
severo.l counties receiving ihc same. In the event tl1at any
county has not established a road :fund, its proportion of tho
receipts sh.a ll be retained by the state until provision for such
road fund has been made, nnd it shall then be paid over. For
the purposes ol this section the city and county o.f San Flaneisco slta11 be eor1sidcrcd a coltnty. Net -receipts in the meaning Net
of this section shall be the J.mbmce of receipts l'Ctuaining after reipta.
payment of all expenses in the administration and the enforcement of this act. In the months of January and July of each scmt
year the cngineming department shall make to the controller a :.:,~~~
report setting forth the gross and net receipts for the preceding

Case: 1~55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 23 of 25

STA'l'UTES OF CALINBl!UA.

si:< months, and thereafter the controller shall draw his warl'ant upon tl1c motor vehicle fund in favor of the county treasurer of cm:h county for the amount to which such county is
entitled. Any unexpended balance of money heretofore appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the objects of an act
entitled ''An net to regulate the operation of motor vehicles
on public highways, and making an appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this act," and all acts or
parts of acts aruondatory thereof, shall be placed under the
control of the state department of engineering and the state
controller shall transfer .said money to said ''motor vehicle
Reoord3
fund,'' and all 1l1cords now fllcd in the office of the secretary
~t ~~ of stnt.e by renson and by virtue of said last named act, shaH
~r:t'eof
upon the taking effect of this act he turned over by tbe secrettun~d
tary of state to the state tr('asurer, and snch portion thereof
~~:tu~- as may be deemed necessary by tbo state treasurer shall be
tu~-: rtcJlurt- retained by him and tho rcmaindor delivered to the department
mcnt.
f
.
.
f .
o engmeermg .or 1ts use.
!'in.e rnt(l
SEc. 36. .Any and all flncs or forfeitures ('Ollccted by or in
~~~~~ood any court for violation of any of the provisions of this act,
flmda.
- whether hy n justice of the peace, police court, <:;ity recorder's
court, city justice of the peace, or otherwise, shall be paid to the
treasurer of the county or city and county, in which Ute court
is held ; whorcupon t11c trea!>urcr of the county or city anu
county, o.t intervals of not greater than once a month shnll
place such moneys in a fund to be called the "county good
rond.~ fund," or cccity and county good roads fund," as the
;asc may bo. which shall be used by the high,vay conmli.ssion
c.1f the county or city and connty, as the case may be, or by the
hoard of snpervjsors of the county or city and county, a.~ the
case may be, if in su('h county or city and county, there shall
be no highway commission for the construction, improvement,
runintenru1ce and repair of such roads as shall be designated
by sajd highway commjssion or board of supervison, as the
case rnuy be, witl1 regard to the proper and just distribution of
the benefits uf this a<:t throughout the county or city and
(ounty.
&oord of
Sll!c. 37. A full record sball be kept by every justice of the
:ie~no pC'nce or police judge or court in this state of every <:nse in
Fcl'iec<:r- whi~h a perHon is charged with a violation of any provisions of
z::~rt.''nrt- this net or of any otbcr act relative to motor vehicles or to the
operation of such v~hicles, nnd an abstract of such record
slwll be sent forthwith by the justice of the peaco, or policP
jnuge or court to tlte state depnrtmcut of engineering. Said
abstrar:tc; sltall be made upon forms prepnred by the department, which shnll be obtained by the justice of the peace, or
po1i<'e judge or court from the county clerk of his county, aud
shall indude all necessary information as to the partit>.s to the
f'ase, the names of the offense, the dnte of the hearing. tl1e plea,
t.hc judgment, the result, the 11rnount of the fine or forfeiture as
the cnse nHlY l>c, and every su~h abstract shall be certified by
tho ju.c;ti~e of tl1o pOil<'e. poli:c Judge or elcrk of snch police

Case:

1~55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

FO&TlET.H SESSION.

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 24 of 25

655

court as a true abstract of the record of the court. 'l'he said


department shall keep hU!h records in its office, and they shnll
be open to the inspection of any person during reasonnblc
business hours. Justices of the peace and police judges anti
courts shall furnish to the departmc11t the details of all paJticula.l'ly flagrant cases which may be heard befotoe them; and
they may make sueh recommendations to the department as to
the suspension or rev~ation of the licenses and seals of registration of the persons defendant in such cases as they may deem
necessary.
SEO. 38. There is hereby approp1iated out of auy moneys Approp.rJo.jn the state treasury not otherwise appropriated the sum of tton.
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be used by the department
of enginecri11g in the employment of the nece!';sary derical and
other help; the purchnse of the necessary stationery, booltS and
postage; for the ncce8sary incidental cxperu;es; for printing,
ntling, binding, and otl1cr work performed and materials used
by the state printing oJnce and .for the printing by the state
printing office of one hundred and fifty thousand copies of
this act, which said copies are to be clistributed on demand,
without chalge, by the department. When there are suf- Ropn)'ment
ficient moneys in the said ''motor vehicle fund'' to carry out ~:.:ITo~~
the objects of this act to repay the state treasury the amounts
expended by tbe department under this appropriation, tl1c
department shall notify tl1e state controller, who, the1eupon,
shall retransfer to the general fund of the state from said
"motor vehicle fund" the equivalent of the amounts so
expended by the depnt1:ment and the une~-pended balnnce of
tlris appropriation. Moneys shall be drawn .from said sum
- of ten thousand dollal'S ($10,000), for the purposes named
in this section upon warrants duly drawn by the contl'oller
or tlJe state upon demands ma.de by the department anti
audited by the state boal'd of control.
SEc. 39. Of the moneys in said motor "Vehicle fund the Ex11endl
department of ~n&:,~ncering sllall be authorized to ~pcud ten turoa.
thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be needed, in payment of such expenses as are necessary to carry ont the provisions of this act, and n sum not to e.~cced one tbonsnnd five rttwolvlna
hundred dollars of said ten thousand dollars may, when such tuntt.
action has been authorized by the bonrd of control, be drawn
\Vithout at tl1e time furnishing vouchers and itemi.:ted statements; the sum so drawn shall be used as a revolving fund
where cash advances a1e necessary, and at the close of each
fiscal year, or at any other time, upon demand of the board of
control, must be accounted fo1 and substantiated by vouchers
and itcmizetl statements submitted to and audited by the board
of control and the controller; the engineering department shall APsi!tants'
have the power to appoint such assistance and help as it may, aaJutes.
in its judgment, deem necessary, and shall fix their salaries and
compensation and prescribe their duties. Also the state treasurei shall be authorized to expend $5,000.00 annually, or so
much thereof as may be neede~ in the employment ot the ncces-

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-2

Page: 25 of 25

S'i'.A.TUTES OF CALIFo~A.

sary clerical a.ncl other help, the purchase of stationery, books


and postage, and such other expense as he mo.y deem necessary
in the coHPction of the said tax, the said amount to be transferred from the motor \ehiclc fund into a .revolving fund; the
remainder in such revolving fund, if nny at the end of eaeh
llnlntefiscal year, to revert to the said motor vehicle fund. The
onnccof
hh:hwnys. remaining moneys in the motor vehicle fund shall be expended,
tmder the sole dh:ection of the department of engineering, for
the maintenunee of state highways \Vithout specific appropriation by the legislature, in addition to all sums aheady or here-after appropriated by the legislature for the same pni"pos~.
Moneys shall be drawn from said motor vehicle fund for the
purposes of this act upon warrants drawn by the controller of
the state, upon demands made by the department., and. audited
by the sti\te board of control.
'!'ltle ot
SEc. 40. 'fhis act shall be known and cited as the "motor
act.
Vtlbic1e act.'' An aet entitled ''An act to regulate the operation of motor vehicles OTI public highways, and making an
appropriation for the purpose of carrying out the objcctR o.f
tllis act," approved Aiarttll 22, 1905, and all acts or parts of
acts amt'ndatory thereof arc hereby e.xpres.c;ly repealed, and all
other nets and parts of acts inconsistent herewith, are hereby
repealed.
SEc. 41. The provisions o.f this act, so fur as they are the
C.mt1nu11
tfon of
Anme
as those of existing statutes, shall be eonstlued as a e:on
(':'tilltlng
11tututm. tinuation thereof~ and not as new enactments; and a reference
in a ~tatute which hns not been repealed to provisions of law
which have been 1oevised 8lUl re-enacted he1cin sha11 be construed as applying to such provisions ns so incorporated in this
act. The repl'nl of a law by this act shall not affect any act
done, ratified or <'onfirmed, or any right accrued or established,
or any a~tion, suit or proceeding begun under any of the laws
repealed before the repeal took cffeC!t; but the proceedings in
snch c~e shall, when necessary, conform to the provisions o.f
this aet.
SEc. 42. If any section, subsection, senteuce, clause or
Oonstttntfonnlfty
pltrnse
of this fH't is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
of net.
such dedsion shall not affect tbe validity of the remaining por
tions of this act. 'l'he legislature hereby declares that it would
have pnsscd this act., and each section, subsec.tion, scnt.encc,
clause, and pltrase thereof, irrcspcetive ol the fact that any one
or more other sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases be declared unconstitutional,
SEc. 43. Section 38 of this act and such provisions hereof
In effect.
ns relate to the preparation and purchase of forms. supplies.
and other work incident to the registration of motor vehicles
and licensing the operators thereof shaH take effect ninety
dnys after the final adjournment of this session of the legislature, and the remnin<lcr of this act sball take effect at midnight
on the thirty-fil'st day of December. in the yenr one thousand
nine Jtund1ed and thirteen.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

Philip Christian Bikle

DktEntry: 5-3

Page: 1 of 10

~ E C E I V E D

.,
ER CI..EAK
MOLLYC. OWVO"' Al.P!!A\.8
u.S. COURT r "" c;;n

/;U;j

1. 8 20\4

3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #3

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

@~W

Case: 14-55077

ID: 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-3

Page: 2 of 10

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of ilie foll~f?a

-t

entitled, " ;;;~~;~k" (1914).

5
6
7
8

10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17

18
19
20

21

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

- . -

~.

10: 9224533

* ,J ' -

DktEntry: 5-3

. ..

.,.

.:J -

4'

'

...

. . . . ... ...

--~

Page: 8 of 10

Westlaw
139 P. 684
167 CaL 294, 139 P. 684
(Cite as: 167 Cal. 294, 139 P. 684)
Supreme Court of California.
Ex parte STORK.
Cr. 1843.
Feb. 24, 1914.
In Bank. Application of Charles Stork for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ discharged, and petitioner
remanded.

West Headnotes
Licenses 238 :=>5

238 Licenses
2381 For Occupations and Privileges
238k2 Power to License or Tax
238k5 k. States. Most Cited Cases
The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license

tax.
Automobiles 48A

~132

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl32 k. Constitutional and statutory provi sions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k81)
Statutes 361

~1654

36 1 Statutes
36 1XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
36lkl636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361kl654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k81)

---- ~--- --- -, - -

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

.. ---- .J -

- ~ -- ---- - -- u - - J; -

DktEntry: 5-3

- -

--.. -- - - - - --...- -

Page: 9 of 10

Dividing as does St.1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one, professional chauffeurs
and requiring them to obtain a license and pay an annual license fee, the other embracing all others, who are
not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, does not constitute special legislation.

*295 **685 Walter H. Duane, of San Francisco, for petitioner.


U.S. Webb, Atty. Gen., for respondenL

HENSHAW,J.
Petitioner, a chauffeur, who refused to pay the annual license fee of $2 exacted by the provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Act (St. 1913, p. 639), suffered arrest, and has sued out this writ of habeas corpus under his
contention that the portion of the act exacting a chauffeur license fee of $2 annually is unconstitutional.
The sole contention in this regard is that the Legislature, without reason and warrant, has made an
arbitrary classification whereby chauffeurs or drivers of motor vehicles for hire are required to pay a license,
while all other drivers of vehicles are classed as 'operators,' and are not required to secure a license or pay a
license fee. Conceding his construction of the law in this respect to be sound, is the division by the
Legislature of drivers of motor vehicles into the two classes indicated and the exaction of a license fee from
the one and not from the other class so unwarranted and arbitrary as to compel a declaration from this court
that it is unconstitutional special legislation?
That the occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation and therefore permitting a regulatory
license fee is beyond question. 'When the calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires
a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and
imposes conditions upon its exercise.' Minneapolis, etc., Railroad Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 29, 9 Sup. Ct.
208. 32 L. Ed. 585. That the occupation of a chauffeur is of this character may not be questioned and has
been decided. State v. Swagerty, 203 Mo. 517, 102 S. W. 483, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601 , 120 Am. St. Rep. 671,
11 Ann. Cas. 725; Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31,74 N. E. 1035, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 215, 108 Am. St. *296 Rep.
196, 3 Ann. Cas. 487. There are unquestionable elements of similarity, even of identity, between the driving
of an automobile by a professional chauffeur and the driving of a like vehicle by a private owner, designated
in this act as an 'operator.' Thus it may not be gainsaid that the ignorance of the one is as likely to result in
accident as the same ignorance upon the part of the other. The recklessness of the one is as likely to result in
injury as the recklessness of the other. It is equally dangerous to other occupants and users of the highway
whether the unskilled or reckless driver be a chauffeur or 'operator.' All these matters may be conceded, and
yet there are others of equal significance where the differences between the two classes of drivers are radical.
Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers his services to the public, and is frequent1y a
carrier of the general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs in a class by themselves, and
entitle the public to receive the protection which the Legislature may accord in making provision for the
competency and carefulness of such drivers. The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car. He
is entrusted with the property of others. In the nature of things, a different amount of care will ordinarily be
exercised by such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own car and risking his own
property. Many other considerations of like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been said
to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the classification adopted. The argument of the peril
attending the public at the hands of the unlicensed operator driving his own car is not without force, but it can
only successfully be presented to the legislative department, and not to the courts.

---- ---- --- - - - - .. --J -

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

- -~ - -- -~

DktEntry: 5-3

.. - .:;, -- ....- - - -

In conclusion it may be said that, while on reason we hold the classification to be sound and the license
fee therefore legal, no case where any court of last resort has taken a contrary view has been called to our
attention, while, besides the intimations in the cases above cited, this precise conclusion was adopted by the
Court of Appeals of Maryland in Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 553, 87 Atl. 1080.
*297 Wherefore the writ is discharged, and the petitioner is remanded.

We concur: SHAW, 1.; ANGELLOTTI, J., LORIGAN, J.; MELVIN, J.; SLOSS, J_
Cal. 1914
Ex parte Stork
167 Cal. 294, 139 P. 684
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

...-

--- --~.- ----

Page: 10 of 10

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

Page : 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle


~ ~i~ER
., . ~R. CLERK

. tlURl' OrA~P-~~

AUG 2 8 201~

Fll!O-- - - - - - -

4
5

DktEntry: 5-4

tO: 9224533

~----~---~==DATE
INITIAL

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,

12

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #4

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-4

Page: 2 of 13

To all patties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to impose

license fee for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation

upon public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by moto

vehicle; to provide for certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the

provisions hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account o

such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this act; and to repeal all

acts or patts of acts in conflict here th."

11

12
13
14
15
16

17
18

19

20
21

PHilip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-4

Page: 8 of 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify:
5
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of

JUL 1 7 2014

&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV01/2009)

~ OSP09113643

Case: 14-55077

ID: 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-4

-1-

Assembly Bill No. 602.

Passed the Assembly April 16, 1925.

Passed the Senate April 23, 1925.

This bill was r eceived by the Governo.r, this ___~f_::.


day

of__~------A. D.

1925,

___

at../l..:'_~_o'clock~.:.M:.

Page: 9 of 13

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-4

-3 CHAPTER ':f_t_~
.A1~

act to impose a license fee fot the ttanspO?tation of persons ot ptopetty fot hi1e ot c01npensation upon public
st?'eets, toads and highways in the State of Cal-ifornia by
rnotor vehicle; to ptovide for certain exen1tptions; to 1WO
vide for the enforcement of th~ ptovisions hereof and fot
tltc disposition of the amottnts collected on accmmt of such
licenses; to make M" a1Jpropriation for the ptwpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or pa1ts of acts in confl-ict hetewith.

The people of the State of California do enact as follou:s:


SECTION 1. The words and phrases used in tlils act shall
for the purposes of this act, unless the same be c.:>utl'a!'Y to or
inconsistent with the context, be construed as follows:
(a) The phrase t 'railroad commission certifi<mte" shall be
construed to mean a certificate of public convenience and
necessity granted or issued by the railroad commission of the
State o California, authorizing a corrunou carrier by motor
vehicle to operate under the conditions prescribed by said
commis.sion, and shall also include all amendments to or
changes in such certificate IVhich may be made by said commission.
(b) The word ''operator" shall include all persons, firms,
associations and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon
any public highway in this state and thereby engage in the
transportation of persous or property for hire or compensation,
but shall not include any person, firm, association or corporation v;ho solely transports by motor vehicle persons to fUld
from or to or from attendance upon any public school or who
solely transports his or its own property, or employees, or
both, and who transports no persons or property for hire or
compensation, but aU persons operating freight carryin~
vehicles so exempted shall be required to obtain from the state
boa1d of equalization and to display exempt emblems in tile
roaune1 hereinaf-ter provided.
(c) The term " regi<>tration certificate' 1 shall include any
and all ee1ti:ficates o registration of a motor vehicle issued
by thE' division of motor vehicles of the department of fUiaoce
of the State of California, or by any governmental body
within ~R.id state under which the laws of the said state may
bu,c power or authority to register and certify to the registration of a llJotor vehicle for operation within said state.
(d) The word "motor vehicles" shall mean and include all
vehicles, automobiles, trucks or trailers operated upon or over
imblic l1ighways of this state whether the same be propelled

Page: 10 of 13

-4-

rl
4--

rl
rl
(l)

0>

ro

CL
~

'
~
.......

l!)

w
.......
~

0
(Y)
(Y)
l!)

o;:t

N
N
(J)

::!i
O'

ex>

ex>

1'1'-

L{)
l!)
I

.;:t

rl

m
ro

or

Opetated by .steam Ol' electricitJ'1


propelled or operated
by combustion of gasoline, distillate or other volatile and
inflammable liquid fuels.

(e) The term "gross receipts from operation 11 shall inclnde


all reeeipts from the operation of such mo'tor vehicle . or
vehicles beginning and ending eiitirely within this state and
a prop0rtion based upon the proportion of the mileage within
tui:s ~;tl)te to the entire mileage over which such business is
clone of gross receipts by such operator on all business passing
tlnongh, mto or out of this state, or partly within and partly
without this state, it being the intention hereof not to base all
ot' any portion o the license fee .hexeby jmposed upon any
receipts from interstate commerce, or upon the right or
]ll'il'llege. to engage in interstate commerce.
SEc. 2. Each operator of a motor vehicle within this state
wlw trausJJorts or desires to transport for compensation or
hile persons or property upon or over any pubiic: highway
within this state shall apply to <Utll secuxc from the board of
eqna.Uzation of the State 9f California a license to operate
each and all of the. motor vehicles which such operator desirc>s
to ope1atc or which such operator ll'ol'l1 time to time may
operate.
SEc. 3. Such license must be issued upon the fUin~ ""ith
said board of a verified application by the applicant or his
o1 its duly autbol'ized agent in the form to be prescribed by
said board. Said boa1d shall transmit to the state controller
each month a list of the operators of motor vehicles secmmg
licenses fron1 it under the provisions of this act, together with
the amount of tax collectible from each operator.
SEC. 4. Within twenty days after the end of each quar ter
o the calendar year such applicant shall file with the stat e
board o eqnalization a repol't upon forms to be provided by
that hoard showing such information relating to its operations
as that board may requjre to enable it to make the assessment
l1erein provided for, <provided, that if any operator refuses or
neglects to make the report herein required within twentyfive dnys after the close of any quarter, then the state board
of equalization shall from 1ts b~t information mal~e an arbitrary asses~ment for such operator. If it sha.U appear from
a t'eport thereafter filed fot such quarter that the arbitrary
tax. so iixed is in excess of the amount actually due tben the
stnte board of equalization shall be authori.zed to give such
operator a credit upon his ne'Xt quarterly report of a slm1
1vhich 1vill reduce such exce.s.":l to not less tl1an twenty-five
per cent more than tbe amount actually found to be due, and
such ope1ator shall within thirty-five days after the end of
each qnartel' pay to the state controller of the State of California. an amount equal to four per cent of said al?plicant's
gross recaipts from operation derived by such applicant from
Ol'

(Y)

-5tbe operation of such motor vehicles during the preceding


quarter; p1ovided, that there shall be dedu cted from said four
per cent of the gross receipts the amount of any county or
m.unic1pallicenses, and any city, or county or city and county
taxes paid by such operators to any city, or county, or city
aud county in this state upon any of the property actually
used a1nl necessary in the operation of such motor vehicles
for the transportation of persons or property and upon such
}Jayment said state controller shall issue a receipt, in duplicate,
to snch applicant.
S1ilc. 5. Said board of equalization shall have the power
aud authority to prescribe the forms of all r eports of gr oss
receipts from operation necessary to enable it or the state
authorities to determine t he amount and chatacter thereof,
and shall have power to subpena witnesses duces tecum at
auy point within the State of California, and the state cqntr.oller shall have the power to request the. attorney general of
said state to bring suit for the recovery of any unpaid license
fee and costs. It shall be the duty o the attorney general to
brin~: such suit on the written request of said state controller
and '111 the name of said people of the State of California in
a court of cOlllpetent jurisdiction in the county of Sacramento;
pa.ymeDt of an amount to said state controller for and on
aoeonnt of such license fee and the acceptance thereof shall
.not bar an action by the state to recover an additional amount
fo1 the same quarter 'Which may actnally he due. Any license
l1olCler may pay to the state controller all or any portion of
the license fee hereby imposed under written ptotest and may
hring an action against tlie state treasurer in his official
capacity in the superior eomt of the State of California in
nlld for the county of Sacramento, and obtain a judglllJlnt that
said lieeur;e fee bas been in whole or in part illegally or unlawfull.v ~xa cted or eollected, and s8id judgment may be made the.
hnsis for an appropriation l)y the legislatnre of said state to
reimburse said license holcler , or his, or its, heirs, e."<ecutors,
sucressors, administrators or assigns, in the ammmt of said
judgment ''"'ithout interest or costs.
SEc. 6. Upon the iss~tance of a license by said board of
equalization to an operator of a motor vehicle or vehicles said
board shall furnish to such operator duplicate emblems or plates
for each motor vehicle desired to bG operated by such operator
under such license1 which emblems shall be attached to and
conSJ)icuonsly displayed. npon each of the motor vehicles,
authorized to be operated by sa.id license, in the same manner
as is r equired for motor vehicle registration license plates.
Said emblems shall be n nmbered jn pairs. Each pair shall
bear a different 1nunber and said board shall keep a record
of the emblems sq issned, with the date of issnance, llJ.ld the
name of the operator to whom said emblems ma:v be Jssued.

6-

N
.-I

.OJ
OJ

ro

0.
~
I

lO

::
0

('t')
('t')

lO
~

N
N

en

ti

Said board shall charge and collect from such operator the
cost to the state of the ma.nnfactme and delivery to said board
of such emblems and actual costs of,mailing to licensee if not
~alled .for. 'l'here is here-by -apJ)ropriated out of any moJH~Y~
111 the motor vehicle fuel fund, not otherwise appropr iated,
the sum of five thousand dollars for the purpose of designing,
preparing and securing such emblems; said money to be
expended by said board on warrants drawn in the manner
provided by law, and saic1 amount to be a revolving fnnd . into
which shall be paid from time to time as they are collected the
amounts received flom operators o.f motor vehicles .for said
emblems a11d the legislatme may from time to time "ithc1raw
rom said fund snd1 amounts as it may deem proper; JJrovi(led,
that said fund sl1all not be decreased below the sum of :five
thousand dollars. There is also l1ereby appropriated ont of
said motor vehicle fuel fnnd the sunr of t>\enty thousand
dollars annually, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to
be used by the state boa.rd of equalization to carry out the
provisions of this act.

BEe. 7. Any person, fhm, association, or corporation who


shall use any public J1ighwa)' in this state for the trausporta-,
tion of persons or property for hire~ either as a public Ol' a
private carrier, without first obtai.o ing the license h~1e.in
provid~'d for, or without carrying upon (>aeh rnot01 vehjcle
so used the emblems herein provided fo1', or who fails, n l.'glect~
or rl:'fuses to make any return hereunder Oi' any report
required by the state board of equalization, or who makes allY
false retur11, and any petson exempt irom this tax who so
neglects or refuses to obtain and display exempt emblems as
required in subdivision (b) hereof, shall be guilt..v or a misdemeanor and shall be pnnishable by a :fine not exceeding five
hundred dollars or by imprisoll.lllent 110t exceeding six months,
or \Jy both such fine and imprisonment. Any such opPrator
of a motor vehicle wbo holds a California railroad commission
certificate ~ntitling him or it to operate as a common carrier
and wl1o fails, negLects ot refuses for the period of thirty-five
days Jrom the end of any quarter of the calendar year to pay
the license fee hereby imposed shall have his or its certjfiMtc
revoked by said railroad commission, and it shaU be mandatory upon said railroad commission to revoke said certificate
upon written complaint to it by said board o equalization
that said ope1ator has for the period of thirty days failed,
uegle~ted or refused to pay such license fee, and said !evocation shall be in addition to and independent of the penalty
for misdemeanor herein prescribed; pro'Vicled, that no snch
written complaint shall be made by such board until after
notice by registered mail or persolwl service has been giYen
such operator and he has had an opportunity to be heard
thereon. If any such operator of a motor veh~le shall fail,

l
:'

t{'

-'ineglect Ol' refuse :for the period of thirty days next succeeding the end of any quarter of ~ ?a.lendar year to ~ay the
license fee hereby in:posed, the cltv1~10n of ,moto~ vel~1eles of
the department of finance of .the :5tnte of Cah~orn!a shall
upon written complaint of srud board of eqnalttatiO~ and
upon ten days notice to SD;Ch -operator, suspertd, u.utJl ~hl'
payment of said license fee IS made, ~Y and all reg1str a;t10n
certificutes held by such operator for any motor v~hicle~
employed by him or it in the .business ~f - t~ansportat10n.
perso:p.s or property upon the h1ghways of thxs stat1J for lure.
S.Ec. 8. All snms paid to tbe state controller ~md~r aucl
hv Yirtue of this act, shall be deposited by lum m the
~t'<lte treasury to the credit of the motor vehicle fuel .fund,
snb,jrct. to the provisions o section six l1ereof and the bal1mce~ thl:',reof shall be applied and the same axe hereby
apprornjatecl oue-half to the State of On~ifor.nia to. be .devoted
exclusivelY to the maintenance :;md repa1r of pubhc h1g~ways
within this state the remaining one-hal shall he apportwned
mnon"' the respe~tive coi.mties of" this state, in the propbrtion
th::tt the number of motor vehicles registered within such
county for the preceding calendar year bears to th7 tot~l
number of motor vehicles registered in the State of Cahforma
1mcler the motor vehicle net of such state for the p1eceding
-yeur, and sneh sums so paid to said cou~tieR shall be ~lev~ted
e,xt~lnsiYelv to tl1e maintenance and repa1r of the public 1nghwaYs witliin such county; p1'ovid6d, that from any sums found
to he dne to any county under the' provisions of th~s ac~ there
shall first be deducted the tot.1.l of all county and c1ty licenses
eoliectecl in such county from the operators c-overed b y the
proYisi:ms hereof and any county, and city and county or city
taxe'; t'ollet~ted upon the operative property of such operators
within snch county. All such sums so deducted shall revert
to the 1onnties' portion of the motor v~hic~e fuel .fund 3;nd
shall be apportioned to the several counties ~o tbe propot'twn
ht'tein provided.

.
SEJc. !l 'rhis act shall not a11pl,v to hotel ~mssrs nteet1~1g
train~ or boats. no1 to tilxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles and
other like cit,r motor vehicles operating within illcorporated
r.itiN> or tow1;s or the usual transfer delivery zone ad,iaccnt
t11ereto. nor ,o;haJl it apply to snch vehicles operating between
incol'porated c.itil.'\s or towns wl1ere no portion of any statE' or
rcnmt~ higlrwny is ttavprsed in said qperntiou.
SEc. ~H. KotJum~ ill this a{t shall he constmetl to apply
io nor to -levy a Uce~se npon that part of the gross income fNlll
tl1e operation of any 1notor vehicle earned OJJ. account of
t.:fll'l'Yiug United States nu1il or parcels post under mw COlltraci: with the United States gov~rumeut e.nterecl into pr ior to
thP fir:t;t. clay ef l\Ta.' nineteen 1nmclre(1 twm1ty-tive.
SEc. lO. A11. actc:; and parts of acts in conflict hele~ith

?f

'
! '

Case:

28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-4

Page: 13 of 13

-8-

"

are hereby repealed; p1ovided;y however, that nothing herein


shall be construed as affecting or repealing the provisions of
an act entitled ''An act providing for the supervision and
regulation of the transportation of persons and property for
compenf\ation over any public highway by automobiles, jitney
busses, auto tr11cks, stages and auto stages; de1inirig transportation companies and providing for the supervision a.nd regulation thereQf by the raHroad commission; providing for the
enforcement of the provisions of this act and for the Pllllishment of violations thereof; and, repealing all acts inconsistent
with the provision of this ac~," approved May 10, 1917, as
amended.
SEc. 11. A<\.n' act entitled "An act to impose a license fee
for the tranRportation of persons or property for hire or
compensation upon public streets, roaqs, and highways in the
State of California by motor vebir.le; to provide for certain
exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof and fo1: the disposition of the amounts collected on
account of such licenses; to make an appropriation for ihe
ptuposes of this a<'t; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in
conflict herewith," approved June 13, 1923, is hereby
repealed.
SEc. 12. 1 any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this act. The legislature hereby declares that it
would have passed. this act and each section, subsection, sentence, claw;~ and pilrase thereof, irlespecti'Ve of the fact tbat
any orre or more of the sections, subsections, clauses or
phrases be declared' unconstitutional.

Gove1'nm

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 1 of 21

Philip Christian Bikle


RECEIVE D

MOlLY C. DWYER, CLERK

AUG 2 8 l lWt

0.$. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

DOCK:-ETEo----- -

4
5

INITIAL

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10

11

Philip C. Bilde

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #5

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

@ffJW

Case: 14-55077

To all

08/28/2014

parties~

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 2 of 21

please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to amen

sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of an act entitled "An act imposing a license fee or tax

for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon the

public streets, roads and highways in the State of California by motor vehicle and

providing that this act shall take effect immediately," approved May 15, 1933; to

add sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 12, 15 and 21 to said act; to renumber and amend

sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15

10

of said act; relating to the taxing of operators engaged in the transportation o

11

persons or property upon the public highways by motor vehicle and providing tha

12

ediate.;l~ _ / )

13

(/~

14
15
16
17

18
19

20
21

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

Ch. 679]

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

FIFTYSECOND SESSION

Page ~

1919

shares of each cla.c;;s or series and of the preferences, right~,


attd reo.;trJetions grauted to or imposed upon the
respective clas,.es or series of shares and/ or upon the bolder'>
thereof;
(7) To chan~ the <,tatemcut, n'> to sha1es issued or unissued ,
v the classification o ~->hares and;'or of the snl1division o any
class of slJurcs into sNi.;os. a11d/ or of the pJ:efetencec;, rights.
IHivilcgcs or re.:,trict io11'i of the -;h1ll'E'S of any class or series, o1
to repeal sucl1 statement of cla'>">ification of shares, or of the
subdivision of auy cla!>S of slwres iuto series ;
(8) To authorize the board of directors, within limitatio11s
and restrictions stated in tl.Je amendment, to fix or alter, from
time to time, the dividend rate, eorwersion rights, voting
rights, the l'edernption price or the lirtuidation preferences
of any ~rbolly unis'>ued elasc; o1 of any wholly unhsued series
of any class of shares, o1 the number of shroes constitntiug
any unissued serie~; of an:'- clas.-,;, or all or any of them;
(9) To ehang~ l;l\arel:. having par value ini:o the same or a
di:ff<.>l'Cnt JlUJllbcr of <;luue'i witl1m1t 11ar Yalue; to incre<tse or
reduce tlle pal' value o sl1ares; to ch ange shares without pa1
Yalue into the same or a diffelent number of shares with or
without any par value;
(10) To creat~ classes of par value shares together with
elasses of slwres without par value, or to create classes oi.
shares of differ<'nt pnr -values, or to rec;trict. limit, create 01
enlarge the 1oting .riglJts of c~rta in c1as~es of shares, or to
grallt to anr class or classes of shares preemptive rights to subscl'ibe for slmres. or to e11large or restrict or revoli:e existing
preemptive l'ight<> of any elas<> or cla.-.-;es of shares;
(11) To readopt and restote any provision of its articles
wlticl\ ha-s been o:;nperseded or olJ<mged by any certificate, instru
mt>nt or proceccling pnrsnnnt to lnw;
( 12) Oenerall~J to add to, on1it from, remove Ol' othetwise
alter the provi~ions the1eof in any respect lawful at the time
of the amendment and not inconsistent with tbe law under
which the c:01poration exic;t::;.
No corporation shall amend its articles to aJtt>r the statements which appear in the original ru.ticles of the names and
ad<lre<>~es of the first directors or o the number of shares subscribed and by whom.
No amendme11t changing the aggrE>gate par value of par
value shares or the number of shares without par vn.loe shall
affect tJ1e stated capital of a corporation.
privilege~

CHAPTER 679.
A-n act to amend sections 1, 2, 31 4, and 1,1 of an act e11.titled ~tat9 t9as.
"An art imposing a Licer~se fee or tax for the transporla- ~"~~~~.;d
tion of persons or property fot hire or compensation upo1\
tha pnblic streets, 'toads and. ltiohways in the State of Califorma by moto1 vehicle and provitling that this act shall

8 of 21

Case: 14-55077

1920

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

STATUTJ:S OF CKLIFORNtA

Page:. 9 of 21

[Ch. 679

t<I.ke effect irmncdiatcly,' 1 approved May 15, 1933; to add


sections 5, 6, 7, B, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 21 to saifl act; to renumber a11d amencl sections 51 6, 7, 8, 9, 12. 13, 14, 16, and 17
of said act; to repeal sections 10 and 15 of said act; relating to tlte ta.:ci'l'l(J of operators engaged in the t,ansportation of 1Jersons or property upon the public II 1ghways by
motor vehicle and providing that this act shall taAe effect
immediately.
(Approved by the Governor June 30,

1~37.

Tn effect 1mmedately 1

'Ilte poople of the State of Oali/01'11,ia clo enact as follows:


stats

ms.

ll 928.

DPftlllLIOM.

SECTION 1. Section 1 of the act cited in the title hereof


is h.ereby amended to read as follows:
Section 1. The words aod phrases used in this act shall be
construed for the p11rposes of said act, unless such construction be contrary to or inconsir-tent v.~h the context thereof,
as follows:
(a) The term 11 ope-rator'' !:.hall include all persons engaging in the transportation of persons or property for hire or
compensation by or upon motor vehicles upon any public
highway in this State, either tlirectly OL' indirectly, but shall
not mean nor include the fol)Qwing:
(1) Any pctson transpo1ting hiF: o\\'n property iu his own
motor >'ehicle; p1ovided. however, that any such pe1son makjng a speeifie charge for sneh tt~msportatiou shall be deemed
to be au '' opeJator ' he1cnude1' i
(2) Any farmer, rt>si<lt>nt of California, who occasionally
ttan<,ports property for other farmers. or who transports his
own farm product~ or who tran<;ports laborers to and from
farm work as incident in hi.,- fal'Juing operations;
(3) Any nouprofit ngricnltural cooperative aRsociation,
organized and acting witltin the scope of its powers undel.'
Cl1apter 4 of Dirisiou VI of t he Agricultural Code, to tJw
extent 011ly that it may be eng-aged in~ the tran~porting of its
own propcrt.r or the propci't.'' of its members;
( 4) Any pel>..on whose <;ole t rtmsportation of petsons or
propert: or bire or c()mpl.'no;ation eonsi:sls uf the tranr,port;.ttion of children to or from any pnblic school aucl whose total
compensation f1om ~11 SO\ll'ces for providing snell h 'allSportatioll does not exceed fifty dollar<> in any calendar lllonth.
Nothing contained in paragraph tl) above shall be construed ac; lhniti11g the E'.Xemption" for which provision is made
in paragraphs (2), (3) a11d ( 4).
(b) The term "person" shall include any individual, firm,
copartnership, joint adventure, association, corporation,

estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other


group or combination acting as a unit and the plural as well
as the singular number.
(c) The terin "motor vehicle" shall include all automobiles, trucks, tractors, or other self.propelled vehicles used for
the transportation oi persons or property upon the public

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

Ch. 679]

10 : 9224533

FJFT1-SECOND SESSION

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 10 of 21

1921

highways, otherwise than upon fixed rails or tracks, and any


trailer, semitrailer, dolly or other vehicle drawn. thereby,
not exempt from_ registration fees unde-r the laws of tl1is
State.
(d) The -term "gross receipts" shall include all :receipts
from the operation of motor vehicles entirely within this
Stat.e and a proportion, based upou the proportion of the
mileage within this State to the entire mileage over whieh such
operations extend, of the receipts from the operation of
motor vehicles passing through, .into or out of this State, or
partly within and partly without this State. The term
1
'gross receipts'' shall not include -reYenue derived by an
exp1ess company from the shipment of property over the
lines of common carriers, but shall include revenue derived
by sueh express companies from the transportation of proprrty- in motor Yehicles operated by them.
(e) The tel'm ''board'' means the State Board of Equalization.
(f) The tel'm HController 71 m_eans the State Controller.
SEc. 2. Section 2 of the act cited iu tl1e title hereof is Stats 1933,
929
hercbv amended to read as follows:
P
SeC. 2. Each operator of a. motor vehicle within this State opera.t.or-a
who transports or desires to transport for compensation or license
hirE? persons or property upon any pul>lic higl1way withjn this
State shnll apply to the board, ou such forms as the board
may prescribe, for a license to operate motor vehicles for the
transpottation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon public highways in this State.
Each application for a license must be accompanied by a Apolleatlon
fee of five dollats payable to the board. Upon the receipt of
the application o any such. operator, accompanied by such
fee, the board shall is~ue to the npplicant a license to transport for compensation or hire persons o-r property upon any
public "highway within this State; provided, however, that no
license issued heLeunder shall be construed to authorize the
operation ot any vehicle upon the -public highways of this State
eontra1y to tl1e bws now or hereafter in effect regulating the
operation of motor vehicles. No license issued hereunder
shnll be al'\signable by operation of law o-r otherwise.
All license~ issued under the pro,isions of this act shall Renewal
expire on the thirty-first day of December next succeeding
the date upon which they are issued. If any person
shall become an operator and shall fail to apply for the
license a.nd pay the fee required he1eunder withln thirty days
thereafter or shall fail to apply for the renewal of a liceDSe
previously held and pay tlte license tee o! five doDars prior to
the fhst day of J anu_ary of the succeeding year and shall
continue to act as an operatol' taxable hereunder. there shall
be added to the lice11se fee to be eharged to such person an
amount of five dollars.
SEc. 3. Section 3 o the act cited h1 the title bereof is stau. toss,
929
hereby amended to read as follows :
Jl
Gl-50017

Case: 14-55077

1922
:'\umber
rll~ts or
embi~Jns

StAts 1933,
930
.

T~1

oh gross

rcel,Pt9

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

STATUTES OF CALTFORNJA

DktEntry: 5-5

l Ch.

Page: 11 of 21

6'79

Sec. 3. Aiter obtniniug the license provided for in the


preceding section, the operator of any motor Yt:'l1icle or motor
vehicle.s shall obtain from the Department of Motor Vehicles
number plates oz emblems fol' each motoz vehicle ope~ated by
said operator indic11ting1 in such ma11ner as said department
may dt>tt'rmine, that the liCt'llSt' l1erC'in provided or has been
obtained. Such number plates or emblems shall be attached
to and conspicuously dic;played upou each of the motor vehicles
authorized to be operated by said license in such manner as
may be :required and prescribed by tl1e Department of Motor
Vehicles.
Said department may charge and collect from operators
required to display number plates or emblems under the provisions of this act, the pro rata cost to the State of the
desjgning, IUBnufacturing and distrjbution af said number
plates or emblems.
It shall be unlawful from and after the eftectivc date of this
act for any person to operate any motor vehicle for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation
upon the public highways in this State without obtaining the
license for which provision is made in the preceding section
or without having displayed upon such motor vehicle the number plates or emblems required to be displayed thereon by
this section.
Upon the issuance of any number plates for display on any
vehicle lieen~ed hereunder, the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall immediately notify the board thereof.
SEc. 4 Section 4 of the act cited in t.he title hereof is
hereby amended to read as follows
Sec. 4. A liccllSe tax ics hereby imposed upon operators
at the rate of three per cent of the gross receipts of such
operators from operations on and after the first day of the
Jnonth after the effective date of tills act. Such tax shall be
paid at the time> and in the manner hereinafter provided.
SEc. 5. Section 5 is hereby added to the act cited in the
title hereof, to read as follows:
See. 5. The ta."<. imposed hereunder shall be due and pay.
able monthly on 01' before the twentieth day of t.he month following each calendar month, the first of such calendar months
being the month of June. 1937. Each operator shall on or
before the twentieth day of July, ]937 1 and on or before the
twentieth daj' of each month thereafter prepare a return for
the preceding calendar month in such form as the board may
prescribe, showing the gross receipts of the operator, the
amount of ta~ due for the month covered by the return and
such other information as the board may deem necessary for
the proper administration of thi~ act. The operator shall
deliver the return together with a remittan<'e payable to the
ControUer .for the amount of tax due to the office of the board.
Return" shall be signed by the openttor or his duly authorized
agent, bnt need not be 'Verified by oath.

Case: 14-55077

Ch. 679]

08/28/2014

10:9224533

FJ1i"IY-SECON"O SESSION

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 12 of 21

1923

The board for good caus~ may extend for not to exceed ten
days the time for making any return and payment required
hereunder.
SEc. 6. Section 6 is hereby added to the act cited in the New sechon
title hereof, to read as follows :
Sec. 6. Any operator failing to pay any tax, except taxes o~hnquenc)
determined by the board under the provisions of sections 7 and \~~:;:;t nod
8 hereof, within the time required by this act shall pay in addi
tion to the tax a penalty of ten per cent of the unpaid amount
thereof, plus interest at the rate of one-half of one per cent a
month, or fraction thereof, from the date at which the tax
became due and payable until the date of payment.
SEO. 7. Section 7 is hereby added to the act cited in the Xe11 sN:uun
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 7. If the board is not satisfied with tb.e return and A~dltlo4
payment o tax: made by any operator, it is hereby authorized 5ellsmen
to make an additional assessment of tax. due from any sueh
operator ba.c;ed upon the information contained in the re-turn or
upon any information in its possession. .All additional assessments shall bear interest at the rate of onehalf of one per cent
per month, or fraction thereof, from the twentieth day after
the close of the month or months, as the case may be, for
which the additional assessment is imposed until the date of
payment. If any part of the deficiency for which the addi- Puottl~s
tiona! assessment is imposed is due to negligence or intentional
disregard of the act or authorized rules and regulations, a penalty of ten per cent of the amount of the additional assessment
shall be added, plus interest as above provided. If any part
of the deficiency for which the additional assessment is imposed
is due to fraud ox- an intent to evade the tax, a penalty of
twenty-five per cent of the amount of the additional assessment
shall be added, plus interest as above provided. The board
shall give to the operator written notice of such additional NotJoe
assessment. Such notice may be served upon the operator
personally or by mail ; if by mail, service shall be made in the
manner prescribed by section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure and addressed to the operator at his address as the same
appears in the records of t.he board.
For the purpose of the proper a.dministration of this act and
to prevent evasio.n o the tax hereby imposed, it shall be pre.
smned that the g ross receipts from all operations of operators
are subject to the tax hereby imposed until the contrary is
established;
SEc. 8. Section 8 is hereby added to the act cited in the Ntii'Sut~o,n
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 8. If any operator shall fail, neglect or refuse to tile l'a~ure 1' 0
a return within the time required herein, the board shall make m ere IIIII
an estimate of tbe amount of the taxable gross receipts of such
operator for the month or months for which such operator
failed to make a return aud upon the basis of such estimated
amo1mt shall compute and assess thea tax payable by such opel'
ator, adding to the amount of tax so determined a penalty Penalltes

Case: 14-55077

1924

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

STATUTES OF CALTFORNTA

New see~.1on
P~UI.lun

08/28/2014

for

reassCJ~S

Jnel)t

HeamiS

Order

Dcllll!!llefl<Y

penalt1.

New section

Nohce or
add I!lOIIII

tax

Stds 1933,
p 935

Rnoeaflon
ol lttense.

Page: 13 of 21

[Ch. 679

equal to ten per cent thereof. All such assessments shall bear
htterest at tlie rate o one-half of one per cent per month, or
fraction thereof, from tl1e twentieth day after the close of the
month or months. as the cnse may be, for which such assesst-nents are imposed until the date of payment. If the neglect
or refusal of an operator to file a return as required by this
act was due to fraud or au intent to evade the tax, there shall
bt- added to tl1e tns. n. penalty equal to twenty-five per cent
thereof in addition to the ten per cent penalty as above provided. Ptompt.ly theteafter the board shall give to the delinQltent written notice of such estimate, tax and penalty, the
notice to be served personally or by mail in the same maunel'
as prescribed for service of notice hy the provisions of section 7 hereof.
SEc. 9. Section 9 is ht>reby added to the act cited in the
title hereof, to read .as follows:
Sec. 9. Any operator against whom an assessment is made
by the board uude.r the l)rovisions of section 7 or 8 hereof may
petition for a reassessment thereof within fifteen days after
the date of mailing tlle not.ice thereof to such operator. If a
petition for reas&e~..,ment is not filed within sad fifteen day
period the amo1mt of the assessment become.<; final at the
expiration thereof.
If a petition for reassessment ig filed 'vithin. said fifteen day
period the board shall reconsider the assessment and, if the
operator has so requested in his petition, shall grant said operator an oral heRring aucl shall give the operator ten days notice
of the time 11.nd place thereof. The hoard shall have power
to continue the hearing rom time to time ac;; may be neces<>ary.
The order or decision of the board upon a petition for
reassessment shall become final fifteen days after the date of
mailing the notice therPof to such operator.
All asses.c;ments made by the board under the pl'ovisions of
sectjon 7 or 8 hereof shaH become due and payable at the time
they become nnal and if not paid when due and payable there
shall be added thereto a penalty of ten per cent of the amount
of the tax.
Any notice requhed by this section shall be served personally or by mail in the same manner as prescribed for service of notiee by tlJe provi~ions of section 7 hereof.
SEc. 10. Section 10 is hereby E~dded to the act cited in the
title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 10, E:x:eept in the case of a fraudulent retum or neglf'ct or refusal to malte a return, e'ery notice of additional
tax- proposed to be assef.l-.ed hereunder shall be mailed to the
operator witl1in three years after the rt>turn of such operator
was filed.
SEc. 11. Section 11 of the act eit.ed in the title hereof is
hPreby amended to read as follows!
Sec. 11. Whenever any operator licensed hereunder fails
to comply with an;v pro'Visim1 of thi~ act or any rule ol' regulation of the board prescrihed nnd adopted under this act, the

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

Ch. 679]

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

FU'TY-SECOND SESSION

Page: 14 of 21

1925

board, upon hearing after giving ten days' twtice in w.riiing


cau~,;e why the
license of such opetator shonld not be revoked, may revoke
such license. Tlte Department of Motor Vehicles upon receiv- susnens1ou

l'.
or motor
1ng
\H'ltten
not1ce
u:om t h e b oard t h at t )1e 1tcense
of an opera- vetuete
tor 1H1J> been revoked by the board or 1:h.at an operator has regtSttnllon
failed, neglet>ted or refused to obtain the license provided in
section 2 hereof shall su<>pend forthwith the registration of the
motor vehicles specified in such notice of such operator and
shall cause to be removed from such motor vebjcles aU number
plates ot emblems is.<;neii by said depart.ment for display upon
such motor vehicles. Thereafter it shall be unlawful to
operate snch motor vehicles upon the pnblic highways of this
St.ate until the operator h ~s f,tlly complied with tlte provisjons
of this act and a ecrtincate to that effe<'t has been issued by
the board to the Department of l\Iotor Vel1icles and the registration of the motor vehicles of such operator has been restored
by said clepartment.
'l'he license ot an operator shall be rejnstated by the board Rclnslnlt
followin!? the revocRtion of such licenc;e when the amount of ~~~~e~~ etc
license tax assessed hereunder and interest thereon together
with all penalties have been paid and the pro11isions of this
act have been fully complied with by such operator and a fee
of five dollars has been paid to the board for such reinstatement. The registration of the motor vehicles of such operator
and the number plates and emblems removed therefrom shall
be restored by the Department o Motor Vehicles upon the
ic;smmce by tbe board to said depa ttment of a certificate to the
effect that tl1c OJlerator bas fully eompl ied with the provision_s
of this act and the pa.yment to said department of a fee of five
dollars for the restoration of the registration of each motor
vehicle.
If the regi<>tration of an~ motor vehicle lu1s been suspended
as provided herein, the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
not thereafter reregister such motol' vehicle or transfer the
regi<>tration of ownership thereof upon the records of the
department unt.il Ruch time as tJ1e board has issued to said
department a rertincate to the effect that tl1e operator has
fully complied with the provisions of this act.
Transfer by the Department of Motor Vehicles of the regis- Transrer 01
tered ownership of auy motor vehicle licensed hereunder may lehtcle
be effected only aftel' a certificate of license ta..'t clearance has
been issued therefor by the board. Such certificate of license
ta..'l: clearance shall completely e:rtingnish the lien herein provided in the motor \'chicle described therein.
If the operato1 of any motor veJ1icle L'> merely the registered Payment<-~
owner thereof, and the legal owner of record reposse<>ses snell ~~n~~ ~;~:~~ 1
motor Yehicle and pays the !nll amount of tbe license tax 'clncle
of the time and place o the hearjug to show

to~etlter witl1 all intereRt thereon an(l


p('nalties. snch lo~al ownrr shnll not be required to pay tl1e fee<;
hetem required fot rein"tatement of license and restoration
o.f registration, nor shall any of the other provisions of this
section be applicable.

ns'ie.<><>ed hcre1mcler,

Case: 14-55077

1926

Ot!I JID)"

'"~"' e1~

t:JeiJ1l qr

rerunll

't A\e~ 1u
t\CHS of
1

oer ctnL

tl(r~s

lfCroJ)Is

RN:Otcry of
r:f'fotl(I(IUS
r~fun.is

CanC#II~hon.

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

S'r ATUTES OF CALIFORNJA

Page: 15 of 21

[Ch. 679

SEc. 12. Section 12 is hereby added to the act cit ed in the


title hereof, to read as follows:
Sec. 12. If the board determines that any tax, penalty or
interest has been paid more than once, or has been erroneously
or illegally collected or computed, the boatd shall set forth
that fact in the records of the board and shall certify to the
State Board of Control the amount collected in excess of what
was legally due1 from whom it \Vas collected, or by whom paid,
and if approved by that. board the same shall be credited on
any taxes then due from the operator under this act and the
balance shall be refunded to the operator, or his successors,
administrators, executors or as.'iigns, but no such credit or r efund
shall be allowed after three years from tlle date of overpayment.
If tl1e total taxe'> and licenses, excluding such State taxes
anrl license'> as are on, according to or measul'ed by gross
recE>ipts or net income or with r espect to motor whicle fuel,
becoming due and payable during n. calendar year and paid
during such year to thi-; State and its political subdivisions,
iueludiug municipalities, by au operator upon, or on account
of the operations of, his propert,\ used e~olusi,ely to prod uce
gross receipts from his operations ta~able hereunder, shall
exceed 2 per cent of such gross receipts from his operations
during such year. the amount of such excess, not exceeding,
Ilm>ever, the amount of licenl)e ta-ses paid hereunder during
r-.uch yeal', shall he subject to refund upon a verified claim
1hereior tiled with the board by such operator wit hin n iuety
days aftcr the close of such year. Thereafter the hoard shall
examine such claim and if it shall appE>ar to the !>rttisfaction
of the hoard that a refund ic; due, "hall certify to the State
Board of Control the amount thereof, and if approved by
11tat board the sa:me shall be ~~redited on any taxes then clne
f tom the operator under this act and the balance shall be
refunded to the operator , or his succesc;ors, ad min istrators.
executors or assigns, but no !>UCh cr erlit or refund shall be
allowed unless the claim therefor shall have been filed within
the time herein specified.
Any refund or any portion thereof which is erroneously
made and any credit or any portion thereof which is erroneoURly
allowed, may be recovared in an action brought by the Controller of the State in a court of competwt j urisdiction in the
county of Sacramento. in the name of the people of the State
of California. and such action shaH be tried in t he county of
Sacramento unless the cour t with the consent of the Attorney
General, orders a cltange of place of trial. The Attorney General must prosecute such action, and the provisions of tbe Code
of Civil Proeedure relating to service of summons, pleadings,
proofs, trials and appeals are applicable to the proceedings
herein provided for.
In the event that a tax bas bet'n iJlegally levied against an
operator tbe board sl1aU certify such fact to the State Board of

Case: 14-55077

Ch. 679]

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 16 of 21

1927

Control and said board shall authorize the cancellation of the


tax upon the records of the board.
SEc. 13. Section 9 of the act cited in the title hereof is ~t~~ 3 1933
hereby renumbered section 13 and is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 13. No iujnnctjon or writ of mandate or other legal ~~~:~ PBid
or equitable process sl1all ever issue in any suit, action or nrnt~t
proceeding in a;ny co1.ut against this State or against any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection under this act
of any license tax sought to be collected by the board; buJ
after paytnent of any such license tax under protest duly
verified and setting forth the grounds of objection to the
legality of sueh license tax, the opentor paying such license
tax may bring an action against the State Treasurer in the
superior court of the county of Sacramento for the recovery
of license tax so paid under protest. No such action may be
instituted more than sixty days after the last day prescribed
for the payment of such license tax without penalty, and
failure to bring suit within said si_xty days shall eonstitute
waiver of any and all demands against this State on account
of alleged overpayment of license taxes hereunder. No
grounds of illegality of the license tax shall be considered
by the court other t han those set forth in the protest tiled
at the time of the payment of the lieense tax.
If in any such action judgment is rendered for the plain- 1ceruna ur
tiff, the amount of the judgment shall first be credited on any t.'l~~
license taxes. intert>st or penalties due from the plaintiff
under this act. and the balance o the judgment shall be
refunded to tbe plaintiff. In any such judgment, interest
shall be allowed at the rate of six per cent per annum upon
the amount of licl'nse tax found to have heen illegally collected from the date of payment of such license tax to the
date of allowance of credit on account of such judgment or
to a date precedi11g the date of the refund warrant by not
more than thirty days, such date to be determined by the
Controller.
In no case shfi.IJ any judgment be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff in any action brought against the State Treasurer
to recover any license tax paid hereunder, when such action
as brought by or in the name of an assignee of the operator
-paying said license tax, or by any person, company or corporation other than the person, company or corporation that bas
paid such license tax.
SEc. 14. Section 5 of the act cited in the title hereof is StAts
1~ 1 '{,
930
hereby renumbered section H and is hereby amended to read r
as follows :
Sec. 14. .A.U licenc;e taxes, penalties and intere<;t accruing Lten or tu
hereunder shall be a lien tlj)On ali property of the operator
used in proclndng gJ"O<>s rf'cei pts ft-om operations as herein
defined; !:!<t-id lien f;h all attach at tl1e time of tlle earning of said
gross receipts and shall lul\e the effect of an execution duly
levied against all such p1operty (J ( the operator and shall so

Case: 14-55077

1928

;..;ohce to
lftpayec's

debtors

Collcotlon.

Seizure
3nd sml~.

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

STATUTES OF OALlFORNIA.

Page: 17 of 21

[Ch. 679

remain until said ta:!:es and all penalties and 1nterest accruing
thereon are paid, or the property sold for the payment thereof.
The lien created by the provisions of this act shall be paramount to all private liens or encumbrances of whatever character, and to the rights of any holder of the legal title, in
or to any vehicle the privilege o operating which is subject
to the license tax imposed hereunder.
In the event. that any operator is delinquent in the payment
of the license ta.x herein provided, the Controller may give
notice of the amount of such delinquency by registered mail to
all persons having in their possession, or under their control,
any credits or other personal property belonging to such operator, or owing any debts to such operator, at the time of receipt
by them of such notice, and thereafter any person so notified
shall neither transfer nor make other disposition of such
credits, other personal property or debts until the Controller
shall have consented to a transfer or disposition, Ol" until
twenty days shall have elapsed from and after the receipt of
such notice. .All persons so notified must, witl1in five days
after receipt of such notice, advise the Controller of any and
all such credits, other personal property or debts, in t.heir possession, under their control or owing by them, as the case
may be.
Whenever any operator shall be delinquent jn the payment of the license tax, intetest or penalties herein provided
the Controller may proceed forthwith to collect the license
tax, interest or penalties due from such operator in the following manner: The Controller may seize any property, real or
personal, subject to the lien of said license ta~ interest or penalties and thereafter sell at public auction such property so
seized, or a sufficient portion thereof, to pay the license tax
due hereunder, together with any interest or penalties
imposed hereby for such delinquency, and any and all
costs that may have been incurred on account of such seizur e
and sale. Notice of such intended sale and the time and
place thereof, shall be given to such delinquent operator
and to all person<:~ appearing o record to have an interest in
such property in writing nt least ten days before the date set
for sucb sale by jnclosing sucl1 notice in an enve~ope addressed
to said operator nt his last known residence or place of business in this State if any, and, in the case of any person appearing of record to have an interest in such property, addressed
to such person at the last known place of residence, if any,
and depositi11g the suroe in tbe United States mail, po.sta.ge
prepa,id, and by publication for at least ten days before the
date set for such sale in a newspaper of general cireulation
published jn the county or dty and county in which the property seized is to he sold; provided. however1 that if there be
no newspaper of gene1ai circullltion in such county or city
and county, then by the posting of such notice in three public places in such county or city and county ior said ten-day
period. The said notice sllall contain a description of the

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

Ch. 679)

10:9224533

PJF'TY-SECONO SESSTON

DktEntry: 5-5

1929

property to be sold, together with a statement of the amount


of the license taxes, interest, penalties and costs, the name of
the opctator, and the further statemeu.t that, unless such
license taxes, interest, penalties and costs are paid on or before
the time fued in said notice for snch sale, said property, or
so much thereof as may be nece.<;.;;ary, will be sold in accordance with law and :sai<l notice.
The Controller may seize any motor vehicles subject to the Motor
lien of said license tax, interest and penalties and thereafter 'e~lt. es
sell at private sale such motor vehicles so seized, or a sufficient
portion thereof, to pay the license tax due hereunder, together
with any interest or penalties imposed hereby for such delinquency, and any and all costs that may have been incurred
on account of such seizure and sale. Notice of such intended
sale shall be given to such delinquent operator and to all persons appearing of record to have an interest in such motor
vehicles in writing at least ten days before the sale of the
motor ,ehicl es h: jucl o:-:in~; Sllch notice in au envelope
addressed to said operator at his last. known residence or place
of business in this State, if any, and, in the case of any person appearing of record to have an interest in such motor
vehicles, addressed to such person at the last known place
of residence, if any, and depositing the same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid. The said uotice shall contain
a description of the motor vehicles to be sold, together with
a statement of the amount of the license taxes, interest, penalties and costs, the name of the operator, and the .further
statement that, unless such license taxes, interest, penalties
and costs are paid within ten days said motor vehicles, or so
much thereof as may be necessary, will be sold at private sale.
At any sale held hereunder, the property shall be sold by
the Controller in accordance with law and said notice, and the
Controller shall deliver to the purchaser a hill of sale for the
personal property, and a deed for any rea\ property so sold,
and such bill of sale or deed shall vest title in the purchaser.
The unsold portion of any property so seized may be left at the
place of sale at the risk o the operator. If, upon any such
sale, the moneys so received shall exceed the amount of all
license taxes, interest, penalties and costs due the State .f rom
such opeorator, any such excess sllall be returned to the operator, and his receipt therefor obtained. If, for any reason, the
receipt of suck operatot' shall not be available, the Controller
shall deposit such excess moneys with the State Treasurer, as
trustee for .such owner, subject to the order of such operator,
his heirs, successors, or assigns.
It is expressly provided that the remedies provided Remedtet
het'ein of the State shall be cumnlat1ve ana tJ1at no action cumu!atb'f.
taken by the Controller shall be construed to be an election
on the part of the State or any of its officers to pursue any
remedy hereunder to the exclusion of any other remedy for
which provi~ion is made in this aet.
61-A-60017

Page: 18 of 21

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

1930

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

STATUTES OF CALTFORNfA

Page: 19 of 21

[Ch. 679

SEc. 15. Section 15 is hereby added to the act cited in


the title hereof, to read as follows:
,.Jnforcc..
Sec:. 15. The board is ht>reby chargee] witlt the enforcement
rnent
of the provil';ious of this act, e.....:cept in so far a<; duties and
powers are herein vested in the Department of Motor Vehicles
and the Controller, and is hereby authoriz-ed to prescribe,
adopt and enforce rules and regulations relating to the admin.istration and enforcement of the prov-isions of this act.
bw(s 19ss.
SEc. 16. Section 8 of the act cited in the title hereof is
1 033
hereby renumbered section 16 and is hereby amended to read
'
as follows:
s~t tor
Sec. 16. The Controller shall have the power to request
~~l~~~:tor the Attorney General to bring suit for the recovery of any
t:I\!'S
unpaid license tax, interest, penalties and costs. It shall
he the duty of the Attorney Geueral to bring such suit on the
written request of the Controller and in the name of the people
of the State of California in a. court of competent jurisdiction in the county of Sacramento; payment of an amount to
the boar<! for and on account of such lic<'nse tax and the acceptance thel'eof shall not bar an action by the State to recover
an additional amount for the same month whic:h may actually
be due. In such action a writ of attachment may issue and
no bond or affidavit previous to the issning of said attachment is required.
In a11y suit brought to enfo1ce the rights of the State hereunder a certificate jssued by the hoard showing unpaid license
taxes assessed against any operator shall be prima facie evidence of the assec;sment of tlle license tax, the delinquency
thereof, the amount of the license tax, interest, penalties and
costs due and unpaid to the State, that the operator is indebted
to the people of the State of California in the amount of such
license tax, interest and penalties therein appearing unpaid
and that all the forms of law in relation to the assessment and
levy of such license tax ltave been fully complied with by all
persons required to perform administrative duties under
tills aet.
s ta(s J933,
SEc. 17. Section 6 of the act. cited in the title hereof is
11 !l3Z
hereby r enumbered section 17 and is hereby amendE-d to read
Nrll' mtwo

as follows:

Sec. 17. Every operator must keep a true and accurate


record in sucJ1 form as the board may prescribe of all gross
receipts rom the operations of said oper~tor. All such
records required hereunder must be available at all times
for the inspection of the board or its representatives, who
may require a statement under oath reflecting the contents
thereof.
Ststs 1oaa.
SEc. 18. Section 7 of the act cited in the title hereof is
32
'' ~
her eb y renumb erecl section 18 and is hereby amended to read
as follows:
~~:~s~ttc
Sec. 18. The board shall have the po,ver, and it is hereby
authorized, to prescribe the forms of all reports of gross
receipts from operations, to prescribe the forms for keeping

Case: 14-55077

Ch. 679]

08/28/2014

10:9224533

FIFTY-SEC'O:\'D

SESSIO~

DktEntry: 5-5

Page: 20 of 21

1931

records of gro')S receipts from operations, and to make any


and all examinations of the records of operators and other
investigations as it may deem necessary in carrying out the
provisions of this act.
The board may appoint accouutants~ auditors, investigators
aud such other expert and clerical assistants as it may from
time to time deem necessary to enforce its powers and perform its duties under this act.
SEc. 19. Section 12 of the act cited in the title hereof is Stat> 10,l3,
hereby renumbered section 19 and is hereby amended to read r 9~:;;
as follows :
Sec. 19. .Any person who nses any public highway in this F;11nr.to
State for the transportation of persons or property for hire or r.~~~~;~. lhS
compensation without first obtaining the license for which pro- ~~~~r emlllem.
vision is herein made, or without carrying upon each motor
vehicle so used the number platt-s or emblem<; for which provision is herein made, or who fails, neglects or refuses to mahe
any return required hereunder or any report required by the
hoard. or who makes an,y false return, m 'vho l'l'lu<re<; to permit
the board or any of its representatives to make the examination
which the board is authorized to make, or who fails to Jceep
\'eeonlr; of {! l' Of..~ receipt'\ f~om OTH'l'atiollS as may be prescribel
by the board, or who violates any other provision of this act shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such act is by any other
law of this State declared to be a felony, and upon eonviction
thereof shalll)e punished by a tine of not more thau five Jnmdred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not e-xceed
in~ six mouth<;. or b~ both ~uch tine Emd impr isonment.
SEc. 20. Section 13 of the act cited in the title hereof is st.,ts 1'13i,
hereby rt-uumbered section 20 Rncl is hereby amended to read P :me
as follows:
Sec. 20. .All taxes, int.e1est and p~;>nalties due hereunder lil1pll'rttlon
~hall h(' paid in the forJn of reuJittanccs payable to the Con- nl lnOIIe)'S
troller of the State of California and shall be deposited by
the Controller in the State treaf>m~ to the creuit of the general
fund nnd all s11ms paid to tl1e DepRrtment of ~Iotor Vehicles
hereunder shall be deposited in the State trear-ury to the credit
of t11e 1notol' vehicle fund, and are h ereby appropria1 ed O\lt
of said fnnd for the support of said department.
All remittances for taxes, together with interest and penalties thereon, received by the board hereunder shall be transmitted daily to the Controller with the appropriate advices
as to the operators by whom such remittances have been sent.
The State Controller shall keep an appropriate record of such
payments.
SEc. 21. Section 2J js l1ereb' added to the act. cited in Ne, s~e11nn
the title berl'of, to read as follo":s
Sec. 21. The board shall notif\ tne Contro!Jer of any and :>ohee to
seetions
.
7 an<l S hereof, CMifoller
a ll n.ssessments ma.d e pursuant to
as well as the amounts self-assessed under section 5 hereof, and
the Controller sl1all l<eep an appropriate record of aU such
matters.

Case: 14-55077

1932

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-5

STATUTES OF OALJFORNIA

Page: 21 of 21

[Ch. 679

SEc. 22. Section 14 of the act cited in the title hereof is


hereby renumbered section 22 and is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 22. This act shall not apply to motor vehicles operating exclusiYely within incorporated cities or towns, nor shall
it apply to such vehicles operating between incorporated cities
or towns where no portion of the public highway outside of
the corporate limits of said cities or towns ic; traversed in said
operation, nor shall this net apply to motor vehicles operated
exclusively off of public highw~ys in this State.
~L~3o toss,
SEc. 23. Section 16 of the act cited in the title hereof is
hereby renumbered section 23.
g~~~~~~i~Sec. 23. If auy section, subsection, clause, sentence or
phrase of this act which is r ea.c;;onab]y separable .from the
re.m aining portions of this act is for any reaf:.on held to be
uneoostit:utional. such decision shnll not affect the remaining
portions of thh act. The Legislature hereby declares that it
would ha.Ye passed the remaining portions of this act 'irrespecthe of the fact that at)y t-nch section, subsection, clause, sentence or phrase of this act be declaled llllconstitutional.
sufa719SS, SEc. 24. Section 17 of the act cited in the title hereof is
P

hereby renumbered section 24.


Til>< tev)
Sec. 24. This act, inasmuch as it provide!> tor ta:s: levies
for the usual current expenses of the State, shall, under the
provisions of section 1 of A11.icle lV of the Con:s.titutiou, take
eftect immediately.
stArs wa3,
SEc. 25. Section 10 of the act ched in the title hereof as it
v Pai
existed on January ~ 1937, is hereby repealed.
stnts 1933,
SEc. 26. Section 15 of the act cited in the title hereof as it
1 93
'
tl
esisted on January 1, 1937, is hereby repealed.
P.1ym~nt or
SEc. :!.7. The tax assessed by the board unt.ler the pro
fax~s toe

~ty. UtS7 n:;ions of the act cited in the title hereof with respect to the
operations of operators duriu,g the month of 1\-Iay, 1937, shall
be paid to the Controller in accordan(;e with the provi-,ions
of settiou 5 of said act as such provisions exi.c;ted on January
1, 1937, anything in said act or in this act to the contrary
uotwithstantling.
colleetion or
SEC. 28. All taxes assessed against operators prior to July
:!:::l~;10 , 1, 1937, pursuant to the provisions of tlle act cited in the title
to 1" 1Y
hereof, as those provisions existed on January 1, 1937, and
l, 1931
remaining unpaid on Jt1ly 1, 1937, shall be collected by the
Controller under the provisions of said act as amended hereby.
011~rBtlla
SEa. 29. The amendments to the act cited in the title hereof
dnte
effected by this act shall become operative on July 1, 1937,
except that the amendment hel'eby effected to section 2 of
the act cited in the title hereof shaH hecome operative on
October 1, 1937.
SEc. 30. This act, inasmuch as it provides for a tax levy
for the usual current expen~es o the State, shall, under the
provisions of section 1 of Article IV of the Constitutiou, take
effect immediately.
StAts 1933,
''

936

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-6

tO: 9224533

Page: 1 of 19

Philip Christian Bikle

2
3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,

12

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #6

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-6

Page: 2 of 19

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, "An act to add Part 4,

comprising sections 9601 to 10501, inclusive, to division 2 of, and to add section

50010 to, the revenue and taxation code, thereby consolidating and revising the

law relating to taxation and the raising of revenue, including the provisions of"

act imposing a license fee or tax for the transportation of persons or property for

hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways in the State o

California by motor vehicle and providing that this act shall take effect

10

immediately," approved May 15, 1933, as amended, and repealing acts and parts o

11

acts specified hei!-!;!

C ;f:.f

12

13
14

15

16
17

18

19
20
21

?/(}5(/Cf
I

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-6

Page: 8 of 19

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify:
That the attached transcript of 11 page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of

JUll 7 2014

&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN

Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 01/2009)

~ OSP 09 113643

Case: 14-55077

.... .... ... .


ID: 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-6

Page: 9 of 19

.,

"

. ..

1 . ~

... : ..

Assembly Bill No. 452


j

lI
Passed the Assembly March 4, 1!)-11

'I

:!

;!;i

:Passed the Senate :i\farch 10, 1941

,I

-----------~

[
I

' i

;I
l

--tl

/9______ _

This bill was r eceived by the Go-vernor this __

day

of~-~----,

1941,

~t

aL-~---o' cl~ckM.

ll
:j

II
"'i

,1

. :I
.,];
:;u
. ll

Private Sectetary of the Governor

' il

'I
I
.;.-::.
~}~~

::.11

Case: 14-5507T '08/28/2di4

. 'i

-3CHAPTER-----..d.n act to add Pad 4, compr-isi11~g Sectio1M 9601 to 10501,


incl-usive, to Divisio'n 2 o/, and to ada Section 50010 to,
the RevemM and Taxation Code, the?'eby consolidati?tg and
tevising the law relatin.g to taxation and the 1aising of
1evenue, including the provisions of "An act im-p osing a
license fee or tax for the transportation of prwsons or
property for hire o1 compensation 1tpon the public streets,
1oads and highways in the State of California by motor
vehicle and provi,ling that fhis act shall take effect immediately/' app1oved May 15, 1933, as arnended, and repealing acts and pmts of acts specified 1-wein.
The 1J01)le of the State of Oalifontia clo enact as folLows:
f1ECTION 1. Part 4, comprising Sections 9601 to 10501,
inclusive. is hereby added to Division 2 of the Revenue ancl
1'axation' Code, to read as follows:

PART 4. MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION

if

LICENSE TAX
CH.AP'I'ER

1.

GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINI'l'lONS

9601. This part is known and may be cited as the "Motor


Transportation License Tax Law."

\ 7 ehic1e

9602. Except where the context otherwise requires, the


definitions given in this chapter govern the construction of
this part.

9603. "Operator" ineludes:


(a) .Any person engaging in the transportation of persons
or property for hire or compensation by or upon a motor
vehicle upon any public highway in this State, either directly
o:r indirectly.
(b) Any person who furnishes any motor vehicle for the
transportation of pe-rsons or property under a lease or rental
agreement when pursuant to the terms thereof the person
operates the motor vehicle furnished or exercises any control
of, or assumes any responsibility for, or engages either in
:Vhole or in part in, the transportation of persons or property
1n the motor vehicle furnished.
'' Operator'' does not include any of the following :
(?-) Any person transporting his own property in a motor
veh1cle owned or operated by him unless he makes a specific

'

;
;

'
I

'

-4--

-5-

charge or the transportation. This subdivision does not in


auy way limit any other exemption granted by this section.
(b) Any farmer, resident o this State, who occasionally
transports property for other farmers, or who transports his
own farm products, or who transports laborers to and from
farm work incidentally in his farming operations.
(c) Any nonprofit agricultural cooperative association,
organized and acting within the scope of its powers under
Chapter 4 of Division 6 of the Agricultmal Code, to the
extent only that it is engaged in tbe transporting of its own
property or the property of its members.
(d) .Any person whose sole transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation consists of the transportation of children to or from any public school and whose total
compensation :from all sources for providing such transportation does not exceed fifty dollars ($50) in any calendar month.
(e) Any person engaged in the busiue:;;s of operating a
hearse or other vehicle in a proceS$ion to a burial ground or
place of interment and from the burial ground or place of
interment to a garage or place of storage.
~
(f) Any registered owner of a pleasure vehicle who, while
operating the vehicle, transports persons to his work or to a
place through which he passes on the way to his work, whether
for or without compensation, if he is not in the business of
fnrnishing such transportation.

' Gross receipts'' do not include revenue derived by. an


express company from the shii_>ment of property ov.er the lines
of common carriers but do mclude revenue deriVed by an
express compapy .f~om the transportation oi property in
motor vehicles operated by it.

9604. "Person" includes any mdividual, fum, copartnership, joint adventure, association, corporation, estate, trust,
business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combina.tjon acting as a unit.
9605. ''Motor vehicie" includes any automobile, truck,
t1actor, or other self-propelled vehicle used for the transportation of persons or property upon the public highways, otherwise than upon fixed r ails or tracks, and any trailer, semitrailer, dolly, or other vehicle dJ:awn thereby, not exempt from
registration fees under the laws of this State,

9606. . ''Gross receipts'' include all receipts from the operation of motor vehicles entirely within this State and a proportion, basetl upon the proportion of the ulll.eage within this
State to the entire mileage over which such operatiol1S esteud,
of the receipts from the operation of motor vehicles passing
through, into, or out o this State, or partly within and partly
without this State. ''Gross receipts'' as 4pp1ied in connection with operations under lease or rental agreements include
such amotmts as the board under such rules and regulations
as it may prescribe determines to be reasonable compensation
for the transportation services rendered by the operator.

9607.

''Department'' means the Department of Motor

Vehicles.
C:a.A.PTER 2.

IMPOSITION OF TAX

9651. A license tax is hereby imposed upon operators at


the rate of 3 per cent o:f the gross receipts of the operators
from ope-rations.

-g

00
N

For the p11rpose. of the proper administration of this


part and to prevent evasion of the tax it shall ba presumed
that the gross receipts from all operations of operators are
subject to the tu. until the contrary is established.
9652.

9653. This part does not apply to operators of motor


vehicles operated exclusively within incorporated cities or
between incotporated cities or incorporated cities and private property where no portion of the public highway outside the corporate limits of the cities is traversed in such
operation.
: .
.
.The tax does not apply to the gross rece1pts d~v.ed. from
the transportation o persons or property wholly W1thm mcorporated cities or between incorporated cities O! incotpm;ated
cities and private property or wholly on pnvate property
where no portion of the p.ublic highway ~utside the co;porate
limits of the cities or pr1vate property 1s traversed m such
operation.
CHAPTER

3.

0
1-'
~

q
<.0
N

+::.
(J'1

LrcENSFJS .AND EMBLEMS

.Article 1. Issuance of License


9701. Every operator of a motor vehicle within this. State
who transports or desires to transpor~ fo~ .compe~at~on ~r
hire persons or property upon a:ny public h1ghway Within this
State shall apply to the board, on such forms a.s the board
may prescribe, :for a license to operate moto~ vehicles for the
transportation of persons or property for htte or compensation 1.1pon pnblic highways in tbis State.
9702. Each application for a license shall be accompanied
by a fee of five dollars ($5) pa~rable to the board.

1J

~
('!)

1-'

1-'
0

-7-

-6Upon the receipt of the application, accompanied by


the required fee, the board shall issue to the applicant a license
to transport for compensation or hire persons or property
upon any public highway within thjs State. The board may
refuse to issue a license to any person to whom a license was
previously issued and subsequently revoked for a violation of
this part.
9703.

9704. No license issued authorizes the operation of any


motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State contrary
to the laws in e1lect regulating the operation of motor vehicles.

Article 3. Revocation of License


9751. Whenever any operator licensed under this part
fails to comply with any provision of this part or any rule ~r
regulation of the board p~escribed an~ .adopted under thiS
part the board upon hearmg, after grvmg the opera~r 10
dny~' notice in writing of the time and place of the hearmg to
show cause why his license should not be revolted, may revoke
the license.

Every license issued expires on December 31 next


succeeding the date upon which it is issued.

9752. The department upon xeceiving written notice from


the board that the license of an operator has been revoked by
the board or that an operator bas failed, neglected,. or r~fused
to obtain a license shall forthwith suspend the reg~strat~on of
the motor vehicles of the operator which are specified m. the
notice and shall cause to be removed from such motor vehicles
all munber plates or emblems issued by the department for
display upon the vehicles.

9707. If any person becomes an operator and fails to apply


for the license and pay the fee required within i!O days
thereafter or fails to apply for the renewal of a license and
pay the license fee of five dollars ($5) prior to January 1 of
the succeeding year and continues to act as an operator taxable under this pa1't, the amount of five dollars ($5) shall be
added to the license fee to be charged to the person.

9753. After the suspension of registration of a motor


vehicle and the removal of number plates or emblems therefrom it is a misdemeanor to operate the vehicle upon 't:he
public highways of this State until the ~perator fully compli~s
with the provisions of this part, a certificate to t~at e~ect IS
issued by the board to the department, and the reg1stratton of
the vehicle is restored by the department.

9705. No license issued is assignable by operation of law


or otherwise.
9706.

.Article 2.

Emblems

9726. Alter obtaining the required license the operator


shall obtain rom the department number plates or emblems
for each motor vehicle operat~d by him indicating, in such
manner as the department may determine, that the license has
been obtained.

9727. The number plates or emblems shall be attached to


and conspicuously displayed upon each of the motor vehicles
authorized to be operated by the license in such manner as the
department may require.
9728. The department may charge and collect from operators required to display number plates or emblems the pro
rata cost to the State of the designing, manufacturing, and
di~tributing of the number plates or emblems.
9729. Upon the issuance of any number plates or emblems
for display on any motor vehicle licensed under this part, the
department shall immediately notify the board thereof.

9754. The board or its authorized representatives may


impound the vehicles of an operator .whose license has_been
revoked and who continues to engage m the transportatiOn of
persons or property for hire or compensati~n after having
been duly notified by the board ~f the rev~catlon. The b?ard
or its representatives may reta.m possess10n of the vehicles
until all taxes interest, and penalties due from the operator
and all costs i'ncurred in connection with the impounding or
storage of the vehicles have been paid.
Article 4.

Reinstatement of License

9776. Subsequent to the revocation of the license of au


operator the board shall reinstate the licen~e when the ope:ator pays the all}.ount of license tax. dete~mmed toget~~r mth
interest and penalties, fully complies w1th the proVlSlOllS of
this part, and pays a fee of five clolltus ($5) to the boatd for
reinstatement.

9777. The department shallxestore the registration o. the


motor vehicles of the opelatol' a.ud the number plates and
emblems removed therefrom upon t.he issuance by the board

(X)

......

.j:>.

0
(()

N
N

~
(J1

w
w

-9-

-8to the department of a certificate to the effect that the operator


has fully complied with tbe provisions o this part and upon
the payment by the operator to the department of a fee of
five dollars ($5) for the restoration of the registration of each
motor vehicle.
9778. If the registtation of any niotor vehicle has been
suspended under Article 3 of this chapter, the department
shall not thereafter reregister the motor vehicle or transfer
the regis~ation of ownership thereof up.o n the records of the
department until the board issues to the department a certificate to the effect that the operator has fully complied with the
provisions of this part.
9779. Transfer by the department of the registered ownership of any motor vehicle licensed under this part may be
effected only after a certificate of license tax clearance has
been issued therefor by the board. The certificate of license
tax clearance completely extinguishes the lien provided for
in .Article 3, Chapter 5, of this part in the motor Vihicle
described in the certificate.
I the operator of any motor vehicle is merely the
registered owner thereof and the legal owner of record repossesses the vehicle and pays the full amount of the licen.se tax
determined together with all interest and penalties, the legal
owner shall not be required to pay the fees required for reinstatement of license and restoration o registration, nor shall
any provision of .Articles 3 and 4 of this chaptel be applicable.
9780.

Oa.APTER

4.

DETERl\11NA.TIONs

.Article 1. Returns and Payments


9851. The tax imposed by this part is due and payable
monthly on or before the twentieth day of the month following each calendar month during which taxable operations
occur.

9852: Eac.h. operator shall. on or before the twentieth day


of each month prepare a return for the preceding calendar
month in such form as the boatd may prescribe, showing the
gross receipts of the operator, the amount of tax due for the
month covered by the return, and such other information as
the board deems necessary for the proper administration of
this part. Returns shall be signed by the operator or his
dtllY authorized agent but need not be verified by oath.

9853. The operator shall deli~er the return to the office


of the board together with a reDllttance payable to the Controller for the amount of tax due.
9854. The board for good ca~e may extend for not to
exceed 10 days the time for malnug al'l.y return or payment
required under this part.
Article 2. Deficiency Determinations
9876. If the board is not satjsfied with the r~turJ?- made by
any operator, it may make a deficiency determmat10n <!f the
tax required to be paid by the operator bas~d upon .mfo_rmation contained in the return or upon any mformatlon m
its possession.
9877 All deficiency determinations, exclusive of penalties,
shall bea1 interest at the rate of one-half .of 1 per cent per
mouth, or fraction thereof, from the _twent1eth d~y after the
lqse of the month or months for wluch the defimency deter~iuation is made until the date of payment.
9878. If any part of the deficien~y for whi?h a ~eficien~y
determination is ma.de is due to negllgence or mtentlo~al disregard of this part or authoTized rules and regulat~ons! a
penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of the determmation
shall be added thereto.
9879. If any part of the deficiency for w~ch a deficiency
determination is made is due to fraud or an mtent to evade
the ta~, a penalty of 25 per cent of the amount of the determination shall be added thereto.
9880. The board shall give the operator written notice o~
its cletermination. The notice may be served personally. or
b mail; if by mail, service shall be made pursuant to. Sect10n
1b13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall be addressed to
the operator at his address as it appears in the records of the
board.
9881. Except in the case of a frau~ulent returJ?- or neglect
or refusal to make a return, every notice of a. d~c1ency determination shall be mailed to the ?perator WJ.thin three years
u.fter the return of the operator 1s filed.
A.lticle 3.

Determinations if No Return Made

9901. If any operator fails, neglects, or refuses to file !1


ren1rn within the time required, the boa1d ~all make an estlmate of the amount of the taxable gross rece1pts of the opera-

o(X)

--N

(X)

.)::...

0
(!)

N
N

-10-

-11-

tor for the month or months for which the operator failed to
malte a return. Upon the basis of this estimate the board
shall compute and determine the tax payable by the ope1ator,
adding to the amount of tax so determined a penalty equal to
10 per cent thereof.

tion, exclusive of inte1est and penalties, shall be ap.ded


thereto.

9902. All determinations so made, exclusive of penalties,


shall bear interest at the rate of one-half of 1 per cent per
month, or fraction thereof, from the twentieth day after the
close of the month or months for which the determinations
are made tmtil the date of payment.
9903. If the neglect or refusal of an operator to file a
return is due to fraud or an intent to evade the tax, a penalty
of 25 per cent of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to
the 10 per cent penalty provided in Section 9901.
9904: Promptly after making its determination the board
shall give to the delinquent written notice of the estimate, tax,
and penalty, the notice to be served personally or by m!il in
the manner prescribed for service of notice of a deficiency
determination.
Article 4.

Redeterminations

9926. Any operator against whom a determination is made


by the board under Articles 2 or 3 of this chapter may petition for a redetermination within 15 days after the date
of mailiug the notice thereof to the operator. If a. petition
for redetermination is not filed within the 15-day period,
the determination becomes final at the expiration of the
period.
If a petition for redetermination is filed within the
15-day period, tl1e board sl1all reconsider the determination
ancl, if tbe operator has so requested in his petition, shall
~nut the operator au oral hearing and shall give him 10
days notice of the time and place of the hearing. The board
may continue the hearing from time to time as may be necessary.
9927.

9928. The order or decision of t.he board upon a petition


for redeterminatiou becomes final 15 days after tbe date oi
mailing t.he notice thereof to the operator.
9929. All determinations made by the board under Articles 2 or 3 of this chapter are due and payable at the time
they become final. If they are not paid when due and payable, a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of the determina-

9930. Any notice required by this article. shall be serv_ed


personally or by mail in the m~~r prescnbed for serv1ce
of notice of a deficiency determmabon.
Article 5.

Interest and Penalties

9951. Any operator who fails to pa.y any tax., ex~ept taxes
determined by the board under Articles 2 or 3 of this chapter,
within the time required shall pa:y a pe~~lty of 10 per cent
of the unpaid amount of the tax, m addttlon to the tax, plus
interest at the rate of one-half of 1 per cent per month, or
fraction thereof, from the date on ''Vhich the tax became dne
and payable until the date of payment.
CHAPTEE

5.

CouL'EOTION OF

Tax

-0

co
N

co

1--1
~

Article 1. Security .for Tax


10051. If any operator is delinquent in the payment of
the license tax, the Controller ma,y gi.ve notice of the amo1:1nt
o the delinquency by registered ma1l to all pers.ons havmg
in their possession or under their control any cxedits ~r other
personal property belonging to the operator, or owmg any
uebts to the operator.
10052. After receiving the notice the p~rson~ .so notified
shall neither transfer nor make other ~pos~t10n of ~he
credits, other personal property, or debts ~n therr p~ssess10~
or under their control at the time they rece1ve the notice unf41
the Controller consents to a transfer or disposition or until
twenty days elapse after the receipt of the notice.

10053. .All persons so notified sl1all within 5 days af:er


receipt of the notice advise the Con:trollet: of all su~h credtts:
other personal proper1;y, or debts lU then possessiOn, undei
their control, or owing by them.
.Article 2.

Suit for Tax

10071. The Controller may request tb~ A;ttorney G~eral


to bring suit for the recove1y of a.uy unpa1d license tax, mterest, penalties, and costs.
10072. The Attorney General shall bring suit for any
amount due and costs on the written request of the Controller

q
tO

N
N

U'1

w
w

m
::J

CJ1
I
C1l

-12-

-13-

and in the name of the people of the State of Caliornia in a


court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento.

following manner : The Controller may seize any property,


real or personal, subject to the lieu of the tax and thereafter
sell the property, or a sufficient part of i t, at public auction
to pay the tax due together with any interest and penalties
imposed for the delinquency and any costs incurred on
account of the seizure and sale.

10073. Payment of au amount to the board for and on


account of .the license tax a.n d the aeceptance thereof does not
bar an act10n by the State to recover any additional amount
which is actually due.
10074. In the action a writ of attachment may issue, and
no bond or affidavit previous to the issuing of the attachment
is required.
10075. In the action a certificate issued by the board show
ing unpaid license taxes determined against any operator shall
be prima facie evidence of all of the following:
(a) The determination of the license tax, the delinquency
thereof, and the amount of the license tax, interest, penalties
and costs due and unpaid to the State.
'
(b) The indebtedness of the operator to the State in the
amount of the license tax, interest, and penalties ~erein
appearing unpaid.
(c) Th~ ;fnll ~ompli~ce by all persons required to perform adn11mstrabve duties Wlder th1s part with all the forms
of law in relation to the determination and levy of the
license tax.

Article S. Lien of Tax


10096. The licen.se tax, penalties, and interest accrning
under this part constitute a lien upon all property of the
operator 11sed in producing gross receipts from opetations.

10097. .The lien attaches at the time of the earning of the


gro~s receipts and has the effect of an execution du1y levied
agaiUSt all property of the operator mentioned in Section
10096. The lien remains until the tax and all penalties and
interest accruing thereon are paid, or the propeJ:ty is sold for
the payment thereof.
The Iien is paramount to all private liens or encumbrance.s of wh.atev~r character, and to the rights of any holder
o the legal title, m or to any motor vehicle the privilege of
operating which is subject to the license tax.
10098.

Article 4.

Seizme and Sale

10121. Whenever an operator is delinquent in the payment o~ any amount dne under this part, the Controller may
forthWlth collect the amount due from the operator in the

10122. Notice of the sale and the time and place thereof
shall be given in writing to the delinquent operator and to all
persons appearing of record to have an interest in the property at least 10 days before the date set for the sale. The
notice shall be enclosed in an enveloJ?e addressed to the operator at his last known residence or place of business in this
State and, in the case of any person appearing o record to
have an interest b the property, addressed to the person at
his last known place of residence. It shall be deposited in the
United States. mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall also
be published for at least 10 days before the date set fo~ the
sale in a newspaper of general eirculation published in the
county in which the property seized is to be sold. If there is
no newspaper of general circulation in the county, notice shall
be posted in 3 public places in the county 10 days prior
to the date set for the sale. The notice shall contain a description of the property to be sold, a statement of the amount
due, interest, penalties, and costs, the name of the operator,
and the further statement that unless the tax due, interest,
penalties, and costs are paid on or before the tim~ fixed in
the notice for the sale, the property, or so much of tt as may
be necessary, will be sold in accordance vvith law and t he
notice.

-0

co
N
co
N

0
p

R
co
N
N

Ul
(1.)
(1.)

10123. The Controller may seize any motor vehicl.e subject


to the lien of the tax and the1eater sell the vehicle at private
sale to pay the license tax due, together with any inte.rest and
penalties imposed for the delinquency and any costs mcurred
on account of the seizure and sale.
10124. Notice of the sale shall be given in writing to the
delinquent operator and to all persons appearing of record
to have an interest in the motor vehicle at least 10 clays
before the date set for the sale of the vehicle. The notice
shall be inclosed in an envelope addtessed to the operator at
his last known residence or place of business in this State and,
in the case of any person appearing of record to have an interest in the motor vehicle, addressed to the person at his last
known place of residence. It shall be deposited in the United
States mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall contain a
description of the motor vehicle to be sold, a statement of the

1J

~
C1)

......

U1

-14-

-15-

amount due, interest, penalties, and costs, the name of ' the
operator, and the fw:ther statement that unless the tax due
interest, penalties, and costs are paid \~ithin 10 davs th~
motor vehicle will be sold at private sale.

10253. The claim shall be in writing and shall state the


specific grounds upon which it is founded.

10125. At .any sale the Contr'o ller shall sell the property :in
accordance mth law and the notice and shall deliver to the
purchaser a bill o.f sale for the personal property and a deed
~or any real property sold. The bill of sale or deed vests title
m the purchaser. The unsold portion of any property seized
may be left at the place of sale at the risk of the operator.
10126. If upon any sale the moneys received exceed the
amount of all license taxes, interest; penalties and costs due
the State from the operator, the Controller shall return any
excess to the operator and obtain his receipt. I for any
reason t~e rece1pt of the operator is not available, the Controller shall deposit the excess moneys with the State Treasurer, as trustee for the operator, subject to the order of the
operator, his heirs, successors, or assigns.

Article 5.

Miscellaneous Provisions

10146. The remedies of the State provided :for in this


chapter are cumulative, and no action taken by the Controller
constitut~ an election by the State to pursue any remedy to
the exclus10n of any other remedy for which provision is made
in this part.
CHAPTER

6.

OVERPAYMENTS AND REFUNDS

Article 1.

Claim for Refund

10251. If the board determines that any amount not


1equired to be paid under this part has been paid by any persou, the board shall set forth in its records and cettify to the
State Board of Control the amount paid in excess of the
amount legally due and the person from whom it was colJected. I tl\e State Board of Control approves, the excess
shall thereupon be credited on any taxes then due from the
operator under this part, and the balance shall be refunded to
the operator, o;r his successors, administrators, executors, or
assigns.
10252. No credit or refund shall be allowed after three
years f.rom the date of overpayment unless a claim therefor is
filed with the board within 3 years from the date of overpayment.

10254. If the total ta~es and licenses paid during a calendar year in which due and payable to this State or its political subdivisions, including municipalities, by an operator
11pon or on account of the operations of his property used
exclusively to produce gross receipts from his operations taxable under this part exceed 2 per cent of such gross receipts
:from his operations during the year, the amount of excess,
not exceeding the amount of license taxes paid under this
part during the year, ' is subject to refund or credit. There
shall not be included in the computation of the total taxes and
licenses paid by the operator any State taxes or licenses w~ah
are imposed on or according to, or measured by, gross rece1pts,
pay rolls, or net income, or imposed with respect to motor
vehicle fuel.
10255. No credit or refund shall be allowed unless the
operator files a verified claim therefor with the board within
90 clays after the close of the year in which an excess was paid.
10256. The board sllall examine tile claim and, if it . is
satisfied that a 1efund is due, shall certify to the State Board
of Control the amount thereof. If approved by the State
Boatcl of Control, the amount shall be credited on any taxes
then due from the operator under this part, and the balance
shall be refunded to the operator, his successors, administrators, executors, or assigns.

Article 2.

-0

(X)

(X)

....0+::.

0
(0

N
N

+::.
U1
w

Suit for Refund

10276. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal


or equitable process sha~ issue. in any suit, ~ction, or proceedina in any court agamst this State or agamst any officer
of the State to prevent or enjoin the collection under this part
of any license tu sought to be collected by the board.
10277. After payment of any license tax unde_r ~rotest
duly verified and setting forth the gr?unds of obJeCtton. to
the legality o the tax, the operator PII:YlDg the t~ may brmg
an action against the State T1easurer m the super1or court of
the County of Sacramento for the recovery of the license tax
so paid.
10278. No action may be instituted more than 60. days
after the last day prescribed for the payment of the license
tax without penalty. Failure to bring suit :within. the 60
days constitutes a waiver of any demand agalllSt tlus State
on account of alleged overpayments.

(J1
I

0)

lJ

Ill

(0
(I)

....
m
0
....,.,

-16-

-17-

10279. The court shall not consider any grounds of ille.


gality of the license tax other than those set forth in the
protest filed at the time of the payment of the tax.

it shall authorize the cancellation of the amount upon the


records of the board.
CHAPTER

10280. If judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, the


amount of the judgment shall first. be credited on any tax,
interest,. or penalties due from the plainti1f under this part,
and the balance of the judgment shall be refunded to the
plaintiff.
10281. In any judgment, interest shall be allowed at the
1ate of 6 per cent per annum upon the amount of license tax
found to have been illegally collected from the date of paymel1t of the license tax to the date of allowance of credit on
account of the judgment ox to a date preceding the date of
the reft.1ncl warrant by not more than 30 days, the date to be
determined by the Controller.
10282. A judgment shall not be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff in any action brought against the State Troosurer to
recover any license tax paid when the action is brought by
or in the name of an assignee of the operator paying the tax
or by any person other than the person who paid the tax.
Article 3.

Recovery of Erroneous Refunds

10301. The Controller may recover any refund or part


thereof which is erroneously made and any credit or part
thereof which is erroneously allowed in an action brought in
a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento in the name of the people of the State of California.
10302. The action shall be tried in the County of Sacramento unless the court with the consent of the Attorney General orders a change of place of trial.

10303. The Attorney General shall prosecute the action,


and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to
service of summons, pleadings, proofs, trials, and appeals are
applicable to the proceedings.
Article 4.

Cancellations

10321. If any amount has been illegally determined, the


board shall set forth, in its records and certify to the State
Boatd of Control the amount determined in excess of the
amount legally due and the person against whom the determination was made. If the State Board of Control approves,

7.

AD'MlNlST&ATION

1040~.

The board s?all enforce the provisions of this part,


except m so far as duties and powers are vested in the department and the Controller! and may prescribe, adopt, and
enforce rules and regulations relating to the administration
and enforcem!illt of this ~art. The board may prescribe the
extent to which any ruling or regulation shall be applied
without retroactive eft'ect.
10402. In enforcing this part the board and its authorized representatives have the powers conferred by law upon
peace officers.
10403. The board may employ accountants auditors
investigators, and other expert and clerical assistants neces~
sary to enforce its powers and perform its duties under this
part.

10404. Every operator shall keep an accurate record in


such form as the board may prescribe of all gross receipts
from his operations. All records required shall be available .
at all times for the inspection of the board or its representatives who may require a statement under oath reflecting the
contents of the records.
10405. The board may prescribe the forms of all reports
of gross receipts from operations and the forms for keeping
records o.f gross receipts from operations and may make any
examinations of the records of operators and other investigations it may deem necessary in. canying out the provisions
of this part.
CHAPTER

8.

D rsTRtnUTJON OF PROCEEDS

10451. All taxes, interest, al1d penalties due under this


part shall be paid in the form ol l.'emittances payable to the
State Controller. The Controller shall transmit the payments
to the State Treasury to be deposited to the credit of the
Motor Vehicle Transportation Tax Fund, which fund is continued in existence.
10452. All money in the Motor Vehicle Transportation Tax
Fund, unless otherwise appropriated, shall, upon order of the
Controller, be drawn therefrom for the purpose o making
2-AB452

()
Ill
(/)

Cl)

i--1.
~
I

(Jl
(Jl

0
-J
-J

-0

co
N
co

q
<!)

N
N

~
(Jl

w
w

! '

I !

i'

08/28/2014
I

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-6

Page: 18 of 19

,,

'

'
j

.r

:]

-18refunds under this part or be transferred to the General Fund


of the State.

1045"3. All money paid to the department under this part


shall be deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of the
Motor Vehicle Fund. The money deposited is hereby appropriated out of the fund for the support of the department.

l
'

I'

10454. All remittances for taxes together with interest


and penalties thereon received by the board under this part
shall be transmitted daily to the Controller with the names of
the operators who sent the remittances. The Controller shall
keep an appropriate record of the payments.
10455. The board shall notify the Controller of all determinations made under Articles 1, 2; and 3 o Chapter 4 of
this part, and the Controller shall keep an appropriate record
of all the determinations.
CHAPTER

~ .i
l :j

9.

VroLATlONS

10501. It is unlawful or any person to do any of the following:


(a) lise any public highway in this State for the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation without first obtaining the license required under this part or
without carrying upon each motor vehicle so used the number
plates or emblems required under this part.
(b) Fail, neglect, or refuse to make any return required
under this part or any report required by the board or make
any false return.
(c) Refuse to permit the board or any of its representatives to make any examination which the board may make.
(d) Fail to keep records of gross receipts from operations
as the board may prescribe.
(e) Violate any other provision of this part.
A:ny person who violates any provision of this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor, unless the act is by any other law of
this State declared to be a felony.

S:n:o. 2. Section 50010 is )lereby added to said code, to read


as follows:
50010. The act entitled ''An act imposing a license fee or
tax for ihe transportation of persons or property for hire or
compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways in
the State of California by motor vehicle and providing that
this act shall take effect immediately," approved May 15,
1933, and all acts amendatory thereof and supplementary
thereto are hereby repealed.
SEc. 3. The provisions of this act shall take effect on July
1, 1943.

,~j?

Case; 14-55

QS/28/2014
I

10: 9~1EE.3E eJ<tEntry: 5-6


In

th~

office e>f the Secrelry c;ol


of the St.te of Clifornia.

Page: 19 of 19

Slit~

-20i

MAR 19 1941

.,

..!:;)-

11i

o'clc;ockM.

Secret'iry of State

J'
!

I
I
I

:i:

I ~~

'

.'

}:

r.

:I
(

-&_8:~

I,

President of the Senate

'
:1
f'

'

11

lt~

' .,

'

'

:hl

'

>.

.Approved-- _ ----- ___ -----'

:1~.: I
'

'

..'

...
\:!~

/_~-- -- -- -, 1941

}
i

I
I

:I
. :::~:

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-7

Page: 1 of 11

Philip Christian Bikle

2
3
FILED- -- - - - _

_..

OOCKE.'TEO,--":":oA'f~E-- IQriiA(

4
Appellant in Pro Per

7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20

Defendants

NOTICE#?

ORIGINAL

21

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-7

Page: 2 of 11

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California legislative act entitled, ''An act to add Sections

69.1

and 69.2to

ce c]:

~de/f-&

to drivers;;;;;;o/

7
8

10
11

12
13

14
15

16

17
18

19

20
21

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 9224533

DktEntry: 5-7

Page: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

11 DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California 1


hereby certify:
That the attached transcript of
3
page(s) is a full, true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of

JUL 1 7 2014

&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN

Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 0112009)

iG OSP 09 113643

Case: 14":55Q77 -o8t28tl014 - ID:922-4533 -DktEntry: 5-7

Assembly Bill No. 3549

Passed the Assembly

Passed the Senate May 8, 1957,

------~-~

--------------------- Seo eta of the Senate


1.. /

Thls bill was received by the Governor thjz_ _ _

/Jl-1!---

day oL ___

Ji2_~----

3_o 'clock.

1957, at _ __

-------.~te
-~~-tflvf~------Secretary of the Governor

Page: 9-of 11

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10:9224533

'

'~

-3-

An Mt to add Sections 69.1 and 69.2 to the Vehicle Code, r-elating to drivers' licenses.
The peopLe of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 69.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
69.1. ''Driver's License." ''Driver's license" includes
both an operator's and a chauffeur's license.
SEc. 2. Section .69.2 is added to said code, to read:
69.2. "Original Driver's License." "Original driver's
license" means the first driver's license issued a person under
this code.

DktEntry: 5-7

Page: 10 of 11

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014
I

~ 1{:.~21!Ji33 _ DktEntry: 5-7

Page: 11 of 11

f h seuel oTY of Stat


In "'e~~~:;,~,:of California

-4-

MP..Y 2 1 '957'

llpp,oved--~----~-----,1957

--

.. -

- -

--

o - ._. o

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 1 of 29

Philip Christian Bikle

3
4

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence. (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #8

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 2 of 29

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California case law entitled, "Bacon Service Corporation v.

Russ" (1926).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

'ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 8 of 29

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, California Supreme Court, Bacon Service Corporation vs. Huss, S.F,
114 19, ca. 1926, (WPA #20603)
21
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
May 23,2014

&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/Stale

F01111

CE-109 (REV 01/ 2009)

{$l OSP U9 1 I 3!!4:l

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-8

10: 9224533

Page: 9 of 29

Bacon

v.

S. F.No . ll,419
/ "'

Fred c. Hues, as Cap~aln of the Fresno


COUllty Traffic Squ~d,
Defendant and Appellant.
Th~ip.J.aintif:f and respondent iS a California corporation

~ \.

having its pribc'i.pal place of business in the county of Fresno .

It~

has been and is engaged in the business of transporting property for


hire as a private ' oarri&~ and persons and property for hire as a

o~mmon

carrier over the'

motor vehicles
routes.

;~\l:~:l._c

..~f;;. ~f.;'rft Jtt

highways of the state by means of


.

operated:''~~~~~;,~:11 fixed termi~i

.'. ~~: ) .!, a).

and over r egular

The defendant and ''$pp_e'i~~~~ is a law enforcement officer


. ttt

1,:. ,~ .i).

of the state whose duties rel~te :chi~fily


.
. ( ' to the': enforo~ment of laws .

governing the u.se of the public highw.@Ytfoqy motor veh'ioles in; Fresno
county .

-'

'

In July, 1924, he was thre'atening criminal proee.outions

'"

against the respondent for alleged violations .of the p.xo11is1ons of


I\

an act entitled

11

An act to impose a license fee for the transporta-

;lj...
'

tion of persons or property for hire or compensation upon publ ic

streets, roads and highway s in the sta1;e of California b;y motor

...

veh icle; t o provide for cert ain exemptions; to provide for the enf orcement of the provisions hereof and for the dispositi on of the
amounts collected on account of such

license ~ ~ ~ .

" approved

Case;

14~ 55077

DktEntry: 5~8

10:9224533

08/28/2014

Page: 10 of 29

-2-

June 13, 1923 (Ste.ta. 1923, p . 706) .

This action was brought to

enjoin him from enforoing or attempting to enforce the provisions


of that sot.

The complaint set forth the foregoing faots and


'

charged that said aot contravened certain provisions of the state


and federal o ons titutions and was therefore void.
The appe llant answered admitting generally the allegations
of the complaint but denying spec ifically the alleged unconstitutionality of the act .

By stipulation the

oe.u~:>e

was submitted to

the trial oourt on the facts alleged in the compl aint and on the
issues of law raised by the answer .

The court found the allegations

of the complaint to be true, concluded that the act

WaJi

void. in its

entirety aa in violation of both state and federal constitutions


and rendered judgment enj oin i ng the defendant from enforcing the
san.e.

The defendant appeels.

The sole question for determinat ion

is the aHeged unconstitutionalitl' of the statute.


As indicated by its title, the sot was designed to impose
a . license tu upon those engaged in the business of operating mo tor
vehicles upon the public

highw~s

or,property for compensation.


phreses employed in the act.

for the

Section 1
The term

11

tran~ portation
define~

of persons

certain words and

ope rator 11 is declared gen-

erally to include all persons, firma, associations and corporations


who ope rate motor vehicles upon any public highway in the state and
thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property for
hire or compensation.

The term "motor vehicles" i s defined to mean

and include all vehicles, automobiles, t r ucks or trailere operated


upon or over the p ublic highways ot this state whether the same be
p rope l led or operated by steam or electricity or propelled or operated by combust'ion of gasoline, distillate or other volatile and inflamable liquid fuels .

The term

11

gross receipts

~rom

operation 11 is

declared to incluae al l receipts from the operation _of any such


motor vehicle beginning and ending entirel1 within this state
excluding r evenues from interstate commerce .

~d

Case;

14~ 55077

10:9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry:

Page: 11 of 29

5~8

- 5-

Section 2 of the act provides: "Eaoh operator of a motor


vehicle within this state who transports or desires to transport
for compensation or hire persona 01 property upon or over any
highw~y

pub~ ic

within this state shall apply to and secure from the board

of equalization of the State of California a license to operu te each


anu all of the motor vehicles which such operator deei:zes to operate
or which

~uch

operator from tin1e to time may operate.''

Under section 4 of the act the renewal of said license i s


made c oDdi tional on the

paym~nt

by the applicant of four per cent

of the "groa s receipts from operation" asoerta.ined as provided in


the sot .

Said section further provides "that there shel l be deduct-

ed from said four per cent of the gross receipts the amount of

a~

county or municipallicenes, s.nd any oity, or cou.nty 1 or city and :

,..-

county taxes paid by such operators to any city , or

count~,

or city

end county in this $t ate upon any of the property actually used and
necessary in the opera:tion of such II!Otor vehicles for the transportation of persons or property and upon such payment said state controller shall issue a rece ipt, in duplicate , to such ap,plicant .n
It i s provided in section 7 that any operator using the
public highways o:f the state for the traneports:tion of persons or
vrcperty for hire either as a public or private carrie r without
fiiat obtaining the license and ma.kling the return of gross receipts
provided f or iB guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine
or imprieoDDJ3nt or both.

Section 8 provides that after the funds

are paid to the state they shall be apportioned one-half to the


state of California and one- hal to its several counties as therein
provided , the

who~e

to be used exclusively for the maintenane e and

repair of the state ami county highw eys.


The r espondent concedes the right of the state to impose
'l license for revenue on ell persons operating motor vehicles for

hire on the
~mount

pub~io

of such

highw~s .

~ioense

It makes no objection to fixing the

tax at a percentage of the gross receipts

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-8

10 :9224533

Page: 12 of 29

-4-

but it has refused to COII1.PlY with the requirements of the law because
of ita 6lleged inval i dity resulting fram oertain exemptions included
in sections l, 9 an d 10 of

t~e

aot.

Section l excludes from the de-

finition of the term "operator" eveey .one ~wh o solely transports by


or to or from

motor vehicle persons to and from"atten<lance upon any public school",


and also every one "who solely transports his or its own property ,
or employees, or both, and who transports no persons or property
for hire or compensation."

Section 9 reacls as follows: "This aot

shall not apply to taxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles and other like
city motor vehicles which do not run .over regular

r~JPutes

nor shall

i t apply to hotel buses meeting trains, oars or boats or to sight


\
/

seeing motor vehicles," and section 10 provides : "Nothing in this


act shall be construed to app:Ly to nor to levy a license upon the
operation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicles of any operator,
or the gross rece ipte therefrom, when as Illtlch ae fifteen per cent
of the gross receipts of such operator in the aggregate from such
motor vehicle or motor vehicles shall httve been earned by the transportation of United States mails, parcels poet or other government
matter under oontraot with the federal government."
The respondent contends that the etatute applies only to
some of those who operate motor vehicles fo r hire over the public
highVIays and in terms exempts others who stand in the same relation
to the burdens imposed as does the respondent; that no reasonable
distinct ion oan be found to justify their preference and that the
sot is therefore in violation of seotion 21 of artiole I of the
state ooXlStitution prohibiting the granting of p rivileges or illliDltnitiea to citizens or any olaaa of citizens whioh upon the s ame terms
a re not granted to all citi zens; also in violation of aeotion 11 of
article I r equiring lavra of a general na tu.re to have a uniform operation; also in violation of seotion 12 of article XI which prohib its
the legislature from imposing taxes upon counties or the inhabitants
there of for oounty purposes, and in violation of section 14 of arti-

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 13 of 29

-6-

XIII providing that all franchises other than those mentioned in


the section shall be assessed

~t

their full oash value

e~olusively

for the benefit of the state.


On the former hearing the subject was treated particularly

with reference to the applicability of section 11 of article I of


the c onstitution.

A rehearing was g ranted in order that more at-

tention might be given in the first instance to the efect of section 21 of article 1 in the light of the provision of section 11 Of
the act in question.
An
oovious

and

e~amination

of the 6-nti:i.':Jr.e &tatute discloses that the

only purpose of the act was to p r ovide a revenue with

which to maintain and repair the public highways of the state outside of incorporated cities and that such revenue was to be obtained
by the imposition of a lioenae or privilege taz on the business of
opera. ting motor vehicles for hire over such public highways.
act is not a police measure in any sense.
taJt for revenue purposes onJ.y.

The

It provides for a license

As stated the respondent concedes

tho.t this is a proper purpose to justify a license tax.

It contends

however that if oper ators of motor vehicles tor hire constitute a


proper classification to satisfy constitutional requirements. there
is no natural . intriDsio or constitutional distinction between the
use to which its motor vehicles are put and the use exercised oy
certain of the exempte d

~ehicles.

Taking up the exemptions in the order in which they appe,ar


in the statute it is first noted that section l exempts operators
of motor vehicles used sole :cy for the t ransportation of persons to
and from the public schools .

In providing for this exemption the

legislature do uotless had in mind the motor vehicles operated by or


under contract with public school authorities for the conveyance of
school children to and from school.
is a

ohQr~

The e:xpense of such operation

on the public treasury and the exaction of the license

tax thereon would naturally increase the general tax burden.

The

Case:

14 ~ 55077

08/28/2014

10 :9224533

Page: 14 of 29

DktEntry: 5-8

- 6-

state has a speclal i n tere st in the development of the

~ ublic

school

system and in as full and regular school attendance as po s sible .


that end such conveyances have been provided at public

e~ense .

To
It

is easily conceivable that the :t.egislature had in mind that ey relie ving such operators from a state license l tax cheaper transportation for a public purpose would thereby be had. .

An instance of a

eixuilar classification is noted in the exemption from the payxoont


of registration :fees under the California Vehicle Act of vehicles
owned by the state or by a:ey pOlitical subdivision thereof (sec.

78, State. 1923, p. 538).

There would ther efore seem to be no ob-

jection t o the classification of motor vehicles so operated at public expense apart from those operated for hire by p r ivate individuals,
associatione and corporationu .
The next exemption applies to those who use said public
highw&ys for the tra.n sportation of their own property or e mployees
or both and t o thos e who
or compensation .

tr ~msport

no persons or propert y :for hire

It is obvious that .thoae who

ope ~ste

motor vehicles

f or t he transportation of persons or property for hire enjoy a diffe re nt and more e:xtensive use of the public highw&l's.

They. are there -

by enabled to engage in bus iness on the public highways and., to pro vide for themselves a li1elihood particularly because of the e:xistence

of the public highways and the facilities thereby afforde d.


e~traord inary

such

use constitutes a natural diStinction and a full justi-

fication for their separate olassi:fioation and for relieving from


the burden of the license tax thoae . who merely empl oy the p ublic highovm
ways for the transportation oi their,.property of e mployee& .
The respondent next contends t hat the exemption of "ta:z i caba.
drays,

~ransfer

vehicles, and other like c i t y vehicles whi ch d o not

run over regular routes" is such an exemption as disturbs the required


unifor mity of the act .

It is appare nt that this e:semption and the

fur ther exemp tion of hotel buses meeting t r ains, cars or boats were
intended to apply to those who are engaged in the busines s of opera-

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 15 of 29

- 7-

ting such motor vehicles for hire within the limits of incorporated cities .

As suoh

the~ ma~

be

prope r l~

for the reason that highways within

so separately

municiP~lities

clase~fie~

are usually not

maintainable directly at the expense of the a tate but from mUilD:cipal revenues derived f rom the eJCer oise of municip!U, powers of
license ann taxation, and it must be assumed thet the legislature
had this distinction in mind in limiting the license to the use of
highways maintainable by the state and for whose maintenance munioi
palities are not responsible .
In providing for the exempti ons heretofore considered we
are of the opinion that the le gisla tu1e has not acted a r bi t r aily
nor wi thout ranson in making such classifications .

We do not in-

tend to hold however that the rotemptiona provided for in s ection


9 of the sot woula apply to operators therein mentioned who are
engaged also in the business of transporting passengers or property for hire outside of incorporated oities as the fact in each case
may appe ar .
A different situation is presented as to the e xemptions
ne11t to Qe considered .

It is insi ste d by respondent and it is n<t

denied by the appellant that sight- seeing motor vehicles carrying


passenge r s :for hire are qui te generally operated in oo11nty territor y ' outside of incorporated cit i es .

That being the faot it is


come
clear that the operators of suoh vehioles,.within the de'inition of
l.hOI:le who aro required to obte.in licenses and to pay fo ur per cent
of their gross receipts to the state under the
of the ac t .

gene ~al

provisions

There appears ~o be no n&tural or intiin&~o and cer-

tainly no const itutional

di~t inotion

between the use of the public

highways by the vehicle a of the respondent and the same uee by


sight- seeing buses regularly using the bigbw83JS of the state out~ide

of

mun icip~litiea

in the business of transporting persons or

prope rty for hire .


Likewise it i s insisted by the responci.ent that the exemp-

Case: 14 ~55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-8

10 : 9224533

-stion of operators who derive as much as fifteen per cent of their


gross receipts

~rom

United States m&il contracts constitutes a

classification having no

b~sis

of distinction except the arbitrary

dec1aration of the statute itself .

It is difficult to perceive

how this ellemption may be JUStified when it relieves from the burden of the license

ta~

those operators who conduct a motor bus

bU.Siness outside of municipalities ana. who perchance may have acquired a government contract for the carriage of mail from which
they uerive at least fifteen per cent of their gross r eceipts .
Under this eJtemption the entire revenues of such operators derived
from business exclusive of mail contracts- ana which may be as much
as eighty-five per cent of their gross receipts-are relieved from
the cieduotion of four per cent license ta:x while a like percentage
of the gross receipts of those operators of the same class having
no mail contracts are subjeqteti to the ta:x
justifiable basis for the distinction.

We see no legally

It will be notad that the


I

statute does not merely exempt. the mail contract revenues from the
license tall of four per cent but e:xempte the entire revenues of
such operat.ors from the requirements of the act.

<l(e think that

the e:xemption of Sight-seeing motor buses operating outside of


municipalities and the eJtemption of the entire revenues of operators a part but not all of whose business en1oraces the carriage
of United States mail and parcels post by contract were not based
on any properly cognizable theory of classification.

In furthe r

consider ing these exemptions it would seem desirable and necessary


to view them first in the light of respondent's contention that
they are in violation of section 21 of article I of the constitution.
It is insisted that they confer special privileges and immunities
upon the ope rat ore there singled out which are not enjoyed by the
same classes covered by the general terms of the act. It requires

?o

argument or citation of authority to demonstrate that the respon-

dent ' s position in this respect is well taken.

We feel no hesitancy

Page: 16 of 29

Case: 14-55077

10:9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 17 of 29

- 9-

in holding that said exemptions attempt to oonfer special privileges


and immunities upon operators of suoh sight-seeing buses and mail
end parcels post contract carriers in violation of said section
21 and are therefore void .
It is then to be determined what effect the presence in
the act of those unlawful

e~emptions

had on the balance of the act .

It is well settled that i f the objectiol]1j ble portions of sn aot ar e


so connecte.d with the rest of the act as to be inseparable there from o.r to rende r the act inoperat i ve as a complete legislative
enactment in the event the objectionable portions be excluded, the
entire act must fall.

It is also the rule that if the act, with

the objectionable portions excluded . be completely operative as a


legislative enactment and it is plain from the terms of the act that
the objectionable portions were not the considerations or condit1ona
which moved the legislature to enact the statute and that it was the
intention of the legislature to pass the sot though the objectionable portions were eliminated, then the balance of the statute may
be

permitte d to stand as a complete

will.
114

e~reaaion

of the legislative

The rule in such oases is expressed in Bale v . McGettigan ,

C~l.

112, where it is said : "Whethet a statute containing an

unconstitutional provision, with others which are constitutional,


will be sustained as to those which are constitutional and held
invalid merely as to those which are not. depends upon the nature
of the different provisions in view of the evident purpose of the
legislature.

If the provis ions are so interdependent that those

whioh are invalid ar e to be r egarded aa the condition or consideration upon which others were enacted , and it is evident that the
legislature would not have enacted the statute exoept in its entirety, and did not intend that

any

part should have effect unless

the whole could be made operati ve. the

invalid .

~ntire

statute must be held

on the other hand, if the different parts of the statute

are severable and independent of each other, and the provisioDS

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 18 of 29

-10whioh are within the constitutional power of the legislature are


oapable of being carried into effect after the v61d part has been
eliminated , and it is clear from the statute itself that it was the
intent of the legislature to enact theae provisions irrespective of
the others, the unconstitutional provisions will be disre garded and
the statute read as if those

provi~ns

were not there .

For the pur-

pose of statutory construction, the intention of the legislature,


as shown by the general scope and p urpose of the law, is to be aaoertained .

It is never to be assumed that the legislature intended

to enact an unconstitutional statute , or that it supposed that . any


part of ita act was beyond its constitutional power; and, if the
general scope of an act is within ita power , the act is not to be
rendered null by reason of a subsidiary provision which was beyond
its power to

enact ~

If the manifest purpose of the legislature oan

be carr ied into effect by upholding the act and disregarding such
subsidiary provisions, that purpose will not be defeated by an unconstitutional provision contained in a subordinate
act ."

~ection

(See, als o , People v . Capelli , 56 Cal. App . 461 . )

in the

It cannot

be questioned that the said unlawful exemptions are separable from


the bal ance of the act and when they are eliminated it is applilrent
that the etatc.te is a legislative enaatroont comple te in all respects
and sufficient to accomplish t he purposes for whioh it was adopted.
It remains only to consider whether it was the intention of the
legislatu~e ,

gathered from the act itself, that the statute should

operate notwithstanding the unlawful e :zemption.& in the event such


e:xempt~one

be stricken as constitutionally unauthorized.

The pro-

visions of eeotion 11 of the aot rlford unmists lliable. evidence that


such was the legis lative intent .

That sections reads as followa:

"I f any section, subsection, clause , sentence or phrase of this aot


ia for any r eason held to be uno onstitutional euoh decis ion shall
not affect the validity of the r emaining port ions of this act .
legislature hereby d eclares that it would have passed this act ,

The

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 19 of 29

ann each se.otion, subsection, eentenoe, clause or phrase there of


irrespe.ctive of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
clauses or phrases be declared unconati tutional . "
The

p~pose

of that section was undoubtedly to meet such

a .situation as is here presented .

rt was inSerted in the act for

the purpose of indi Cl;lting to the court, when required to pass upon
the constitutionality of the act or of any portion thereof, and to
apply the rules of

~aw

applicable thereto. that the statute would

have been enacted with the objectionable .portions omitted in the


event the court should conclude that said portions were separable
anti beyond the power of the legislature lawfully to inoorporate
the statute.
~

i:il

It is conceded by the ..respondent that "without such

declaration in the statute it would be the duty of this court,

if the act were in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional,


to sustain the constitutional part if the good and the bad were not
:... ....,
so blended that they could be separated and the constitutional part
~

..

could stand alone as a complete


legisl.a ture".

But

e~p~ession

of the intention of the

it i.a insisted that section 11 is ine f fectual

to accomplish the purpose contended for by the appellant .

It is

first pointed out that it is beyond the power of the legislature


to bind the court by the assertion that if any portion of the act
''is to be held unoonstit.utionel, such decision shall not affect
the remaining portions" of the act .

To this contention we ecoeae.

But we cannot view the language of the statute as an inexorable


command for it is a judicial question in each oase whether the good
may stand notwithstanding the bad .

But the use of such language

may rightly be conaidered by the court as a declaration of intention on the part of the legislature that i:n so

1'a~

aEl lay within its

power a separable invalid portion of the act should not detroy the
whole.
It is next contended that the second sentence of section
11 to the effect that the legislature would have passed the act end

08/28/2014

Case: 14-55077

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 20 of 29

- 12-

each portion thereo.f

11

1rreapective'~

of the fact t hat any portion

be declared unconstitutional is a challenge to the courts that the

legislature would have persisted in adopting an unconstitutional act,


includ 1D8 the invalid portions, notw1 the tanding certain parte of
the act be held unconstitutional .

To this we cannot agree.

second sentence is inaptly worded just

~s

the f irst sentence is too

broad in 1 ts a~pa :re :mtly mend a:tory phraseology .


~urpose

o.f the language is plain.

The

B11t here aga in the

It is an asa11rance to the court

that the legiSlature would have adopted the sot with the invalid
portions excluded if it had known that the inclusion thereof was constitutionally unauthorized, thus evidencing an intention which ot he r. wise might not have bean apparent on the faoe of the ao t , and indicating a purpos e to avoid if possible a determina tion by the court
that it could not be said from the language of the act whether the
legislature would have enacted the statute with the i nval id portions excluded.

The section also makes it plain that if any exemp-

tions should be held invalid it was the intention o.f the legislature
that the operators whose exemption was attempted should be subjected
to the gemral requirements o f the ac t.

A sec tion similar to sec -

tion 11 was involved in the Motor Vehicle Aot of 1913 and was given
its

props~

effect in the Matter of the Application of Schule r, 167

Cal . 282, where it was said: " Similar sections have be en subjects
of interpretation in other states anq it seems to be the consensus
of belief that they impose upon the courts the duty of support i ng
the legiSlative will as far as possibl ?' (Citing ctlses) . ~'.

When the

invalid portions of the act here in question are exclude(\ it is clear


that the bal ance of the act contains all of the elements of a completely

operat i~

ture so to be .

statute and that it was intended by the legiSla-

The

en~c t mant

then is in the same status it would

have a s sumed had the unlawful exemptions originol!y not have been
included therein.

In other words , their inclusion was a nullity and

the operators thus

st~empted

to be exempted are included within the

.,

ase: 14-55077

10: 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 21 of 29

- 13-

general terms of the sot and oan clai m no rights or

privile~s b~

r eason of the atte mpted exempt i on because, under the prohibitory


provisions of the constit ution,
same .

the~

were never entitled to the

As so construed the statute is not then objectionable to

the provisions
quiring

o~

section 11 of article I of the constitution re -

uniformit~ .

Nor doe s this conclusion r esult in j udicial

legislation as ur ged by r esp ondent .

It is no more than the appli-

cat i on of approved r ules of constr uct ion. having in mind that the
power of the oourt t o d eolar e a s t atute uncons t itut i onal i s one of
the utmost de l icacy i n its e xe r ci se and shoul d not be asser te d t o
str ike down the statute unless there is no proper basis fo:r its
reoohoil iation with the organic law ( S. & v. ~. ~ co . v. City of
Stockt on. 41 Cal. 147 , 159 ; tdatter of Application of L.iill e r, 162
Cal . 687) .

Section 1 1 is not an attempted delegation of legislative

authority to the courts , nor is it an incons iste nt alternative.

It

is a positive declaration of the purpose of the le gis lature to


put the law in foroe l to the full extent of the legislative constitutional power (Snetze r v . Gre gg, 129 Ark . 542 , 196 S. W. 925; state
v . Clausen, 66 Wash. 156, 117 .?ac . 701 ; Standard Lumber co . v .
Pierce , 112 Ore . 314 . 226 Pao . 812; 6 R. C. L. 123) .
ed that if the problem here presented

I t llllilY be grant-

w~e approaohed so~ely

standpoint of the applicabi lity of section 1 1 of

~ tiole

from the

I and that

if there1were no place in its proper solution for a consideration of


section 21 of the same arti cle in connection with section 11 of the
sot, then the conclusion might seem irresistible that the entir e
statute would fall for lack of uniformity .

But the latter conclu-

sion is properly made unnecessary by measuring the statute by other


constitut i onal test s which when properly StJI>lied permit the aot in
genernl to stand .
The case of Mordecai v . Board of Superv isors , 183 Cal .
434 , is strongly relied upon by the respondent.

A careful consid-

eration of the deo iS ion in that oa.ae in the light of the terms of
the statute then before the court discloses that the conclusions
.:. " " l!!C..:

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry. 5-8

Page: 22 of 29

-14-

there reached are not c ontrolling in the present case nor are they
inconsistent with the rules applied in this controversy.

The

statute involvc. d in 1.ha t cuee provided genf':rs.lly for the creation


l;he.

of

i~rigation

districts in countie s

throughOut ~

s t ate and con-

ferred special powers upon the board of directors of such d_istricts


over irrigation and other dis t r icts theretofore organized and existing in all counties pursuant. to general state laws.

The

~ct

then

provided that nothi11g therein conttl.ined shoultl affeot or appl,y to


arcy inigation, J?rotection, flood control , col:J.Servation or other
iiDpi'Qvement district situated wholly or i n part w1 thin any county
which had adopted a county

~barter

prior to June

any city and county, and that the board of

4~

~ireot ors

1916, or within
provided for

in the act should have no p ower or jurisdiction within the excepted


counties

~r

city and county

It was held that there was no

natural,

intr-insic or constitutional distinction between districts i n chartered or unoharter- d counties

~d

that the act was therefore void

for lack of uniformity in its operation throughout the state . The


reae oning and conclusions of the court i n that case wlle.n applied to
the particular act .under consideration cannot be questioned but they
do not here apply for several reas one

In the first place, if the

act there involved were considered a burden imposed on the districts


included within its general t erms and that special privileges and
immu,nitie.s were grante d to the districts in the excepted count ies
the e:x ceptions would be objectionable to se ction 21 of article I of
the constitution.

But there was no language in the act such es was

incorporated in section 11 of the present act ev idencing the intent


of the legislature that if the e xceptions be held to be unconstitutional the remainder of the act if possible should stand .

Further -

more , there were in that case valid r e asons for concluding that the
exceptions in the act were

materi~l

considerations or conditions

attending the favorable vote on the entire measure in the legislature ana tha t without the e:xeeptions tbe statute would not have

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 23 of 29

-15been adopted .

Again, if the general terms of that aet be deeme d

the conferring of a p~ ivilege and the e~ceptiona be deemed a denial


of

the ~ame

saril~

priVilege;, the general terms of the act would neces-

fall as in contravention with section 21 of article I and

uothing would rcma in to operate as a legis lative .enac.tment .


Other oases cited b;y i'espondent do not war:rant a differeil.t
conclusion.

In Paee.dema v . Stimson, 91 Cal . :238, the privileges

were conferred b;y the general terms of the sat and the disabilities
or burdensome conditions were imposed upon the municipalities included in the
declared void.

e~e aption

and the entire act was therefore

properl~

In the case of In re Ealeigh, 177 Cal . 746, this

court h&d under cons ide ration the real estate brokers' lieense law
of 1917.

The sat eontain.e d an e:xemption of those who had received

from the insurance commissioner or the bureau of build ing aDd loan
supervfsion a eertif'i cate o authority or license to do business
within this state .

The exemption was held to be unlawful and the


~e~

entire act was dec lared to be invalid.


statute

was nothing in the

that oase which indicated that if the attempted

e~emp

tiQn were invalid and sepa.rable the balance of the act should, stend
or that the legislature would have edopted the statute with the
inve.lid exemption omitted.
It is contended by responde-nt that Hill v. Wallace , 259

u. s.

44, is de,oiJ:Jive of the present otlee.

rte effect in that res -

pect might be conceded if it were here determined that the valid and
invalid port.ions of the act in question were inseparable .
federal trade sot of Congress
sideration in that
unenforceable .

cas~ ,

ap~roved

The

August 24 , 1921, under con-

was found to oonta.in regulations which wer e

The act e.lso contained: a. section whieh was the same

in effec t as section 11 of the present aet.

The c ou.rt determined

that the inva lid portions were so interwoven with the other regulations conta.ined in the act

as

to be impossible of separation and

to renuer the saving cls.use ineffectual.

A similar

s~ving

cl ause

was considered in an Alabama ease concerning which .it was he.ld that

10 :9224533

08/28/2014

Case: 14-55077

DktEntry: 5-8

Page 24 of 29

- 16-

"such an expression in an enactment serves only to render certain


the legislative intent with respect

J2

passage of the valid parts,


the valid
notwithstanding the invalid, and does not avail to olothe ... with imr>t
munity from the invalidating effect 'the law becouse of the insepr

arable blending of the bad and good."


Ala . 212, 59 So . 294, 302 . )

u. s.

In Dorohy v . State of Kansas , 264

286 , it was said that such a saving clause was "not an in-

e:xorable oomms.nd" to the court.


a

(State v . Montgomery , 177

ol~use

So here it is recognized that such

cannot always save a statute .

Pipe co., 184

u.s .

oonsia er et i on .

In Connolly v. Union sewe r

540, the anti- trust lew of Illinois wqs under

It provided that its terms should "not apply to

agricultural prQducts or l ivestock while in the hands of the producer or raiser".

It was determined that those affeoted by the gener-

al terms of the act were denied the equal protection of the law and
the whol e statute must fall for the r eason "that the legislature
would not have entered upon or continued the policy indicated by the
statute unless agriculturists and livestock dealers were e:xcluded
from its operation."
involved.

The effect of a saving clause was not there

In Spraigue v. Thompson, 118

u.s.

90, the court having

found certain provisio~ o:f a Georgia statute invalid, refused to


declare that the balance o:f the act should r emain una:f:fected for
the reason "that by rejecting the exceptions intended by the legislature of Georgia the statute is made to enact what confesedly the
legislature never meant . " It was held that such a construction
wou'ld confer ''upon the statute a positive operation beyond the
le g islative intent , and beyond what

~Y

one can say it would have

enacted in view o:f the illegality of the exceptions . "

Likewi!ie

in that case the effect of a saving clause was not be:fore the court .
Lewis '
Respondent relies on a statement in ..Sutherland on Statutory OonstrtLction (vol . 1 , 2d ed . , sec. 306) where it is said ; "I:f ,,
by striking out a void e:xception, provi.s o or other :restrictive
olause ,,tbe remailllder, by reason of its generality, will have a
broader scope as to subject or territory, its oper ation is not in

Case: 14-55077

10:9224533

08/28/2014

Page: 25 of 29

DktEntry: 5-8

- 17-

ecco:bcf with the legislative intent,1and the whole would be affected


and made v oid by the invalidity of such part" .

The -foregoing is

uncaues:tionably the rule 6J!Cept when a contrary legislative intent


or the general purposes .o:r terms of the act
is ascertainable from the language of the statute?\ But when it
appears in the statute that it was the intent that the separable
void portion should not destroy t he whole , the invalidity of the
entire statute will not neces10arily result, especially when
d.tc :t.s determinea. ,

~;~.s

here , that such was the intent , end that the

remAinder ie a full and complete legislative enactment of the subjeot to which it

rel~tes.

Numerous other oases cited and relie d upon by resp ondent


have been e:xamined .

In .I!Elny of them we find a general re cognit ion

of the rules applied in the present oase and we find none of them
when properly considered oompelling a conclusion contrary to that
at which we have arrived .
Cases froro other jurisdictions, cited by the appellant,
declare the e ffectiveness o:t such a saving clause in proper cQses .
In N.

~.

Bagley Co . v. Oameron, 282 Pa . 84, 127 Atl. 311, it was

held that a saving clause declaring statutory provisions separable


is effective t o ra i.Se a presumption of the intent to severally enact
the remaining provisions of the act if any severable parts
be declared unconstitut i onal.

tht! r~ of

In Sl;lari v. Gleason, 126 Minn.

:we,

148 N. w. 293 , it wss held that under such tl saving clause the rule
is that i f a part of a statute be unconstitutional the remaining
portions .must nevertheless be sustained if enough i.S left to constitute an enforceable law .

In Ohio Tax . 01;1se s, 232 U. S . 576 , such

a saving clause was given recognition .

Further reference to this

line of oases is deemed unneoessacy, but for a general statement of


the rule

f.AS

applied in this state see 5 Oal. Jur . 643 , 648, and sup-

porting cases cite d.


I n section 8 of the act it is provided that all moneys colleoted under and by virtue of t he act , e xcept such sums as are re -

Case. 14-55077

10 : 9224533

08/28/2014

Page: 26 of 29

DktEntry: 5-8

-18-

oeived for emblems, shall be paid into the state


ited to the motor vehicle fuel fund .

trea~ u~

and cred-

This s ection then appropr iates

one- half of said o ol lections to tlle state to be devoted to the maintenance and repair of public highways .

The other one ... h~1f

1.s

ap-

portioned to the seve ral counties of the state in accordance with


the plan therein provided emd to be . devoted eJSclus ivel:~ to the m.a intenance and repair of public highways within the counties.

It is

contended by the respondent that section 12 of article XI is thereby


violated which provides among other things that the legislature
shall have no power to impose taxes upon counties or upon the inhabita.nts of any county fo1' county purposes , but may by general law
vest in the a uthorities of the county the power to assess and collect taxes for such puxposes.

VIe find no merit in this contention.

Tlle license t8.XeS here imposed by the legislature are in furtherance


of a state purpose fo r the

~intenanoe

of state highways and to ex-

tend aid in the maintenance of county highwa.y s.

'ill.d.a action of the

legisl ature would seem to be fully authorized by section 26 of article IV of thH constitution which provides that "the legislature
shall have the pov1er to e eta blish a system of state highways, or to
deolare any road a state highway , and to pass all l aws

neoca~ary

or

proper to oonetruot and maintain the sa!IS , and to exte:nd aid for t he
construction and maintenance in whole or

i~

part of any county h i gh-

way."

(See, .Buokiiigbam v . Comn'-ary-Peterson Co ., 39 Cal . App. 164,

167.)

The cas e of People v . Martin, 60 Cal . 153, and San Francisco

v . Insurance Co, 74 Cal. 116, relied upon by the

respondent~

are

not in point for the r eason that the license taxes there involved
were requi red to be paid into the county treasuries and were imposed
end made available for expenditure for county purposes in the absence
of oonetitutional a.uthority or a general: law authorizing the county
autporities to impose the same .

But in aey event the assignmmt of

a portion of the fund accumulated under the so t here in question to


the several counties of the state would not destroy the effectiveness

Case: 14-55077

10:9224533

08/28/2014

Page: 27 of 29

DktEntry: 5-8

- 19of that portion of the act which requires the license tax to . be I pa
id
,
into the state

tre ~sury

(Matter of the Application of Schuler,

lo7 _eat.

'l?here i.s no merit in the contention of the resp ondent that


the l icens e tax here i nvolved is a tax on its so-called franchise
or right to ope rate its motor vehicles under a certi fioate of publie convenience and nece ssity issued by the railroad commi.s aion~ and
therefore v oid under section 14 of artiole XIII of the oons:titution.
That section provi.des that all franchises (such as the respondent
oleh:.s to own) shall be

~saeesed

at the i r aotual cash value and be

ta:xed at the rate of one per cent eaoh year exclu.a ively for the purposes of the state .

It is argued that inasmuch as section 8 of the

act in question provides that one-half of the lioenae

ta~

collected

,shall be paid to the several counties the section of the constitu-

..i

tion ref.erred to has been violated.

The answer is that the tax on

the alleged franchis e of the respondent as contemplated by the section of the constitution referred to is a property tax on an ad
valor em bas is and is n ot in any sense a l i oense t ax for the pri vilege;; of oarrying on a business s uch as the. act he:re involved intended to impos e.
We therefore conclude that when

the separable and unlaWful

exemptions are excluded from the act as being obnoxi ous t o s e.ction
21 of article I of our state constitution the remainder of the act
is a completely enforceable statut e as to all operators engaged in
the business of using the :PUblic highways of the state outsi de of
municipalities for the transportation of persons or property for
hire inclu.di ng those unlawfully exempted and that the remainder of
said act violates no provision of the state or federal coiJStitutiona
invoked by the respondent .
The act 1lere under consideration waa repeale d by se ction
ll of a simila r act apprtlved May 23, 1925 ( Stats . 1925, p . 833) .
as

Inasmuoh"~t..alinrights ,

duties and obligations of those oper~tors

who we re subject to the r equiremenua of the 1923 statute and who

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-8

Page: 28 of 29

- 20were doing business

be~Neen

the effective date of that act aid the

effective date of the 1926 statute as well as the rights of the


state to revenues during that period still survive said repeal
the questions involved herein are not considered moot.
The judgment is reve ISed.
WE CONCUR:

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

Page: 1 of 15

Philip Christian Bikle

3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

FILED----- - - -

OOCKETED'---;:::-:DA~:TE:-- -"!I'!'!!!:NIT!!"l":IAL~

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #9

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

@(ft)W

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

Page: 2 of 15

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California case law entitled,

(1926).

II

Ex parte SCHMOLKE

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Date

II

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

"""

Page: 8 of 15

West law
248 P. 244
199 Cal. 42, 248 P . 244

(Cite as: 199 Cal. 42,248 P. 244)


Supreme Court of California.
Ex parte SCHMOLKE.
Cr. 2840.
June 30, 1926.
Rehearing Denied July 30, 1926.
In Bank.
Application for writ of habeas corpus by Paul Schmolke to be directed to Chief of Police, City and
County of San Francisco, to secure his release from custody upon charge of violating Motor Transportation
License Act of 1925 .
Writ discharged, and petitioner remanded.
West Head notes
[1] Automobiles 48A

~73

48A Automobiles
48Alll Public Service Vehicles
48AID(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases

Constitutional Law 92 ~2893


92 Constitutional Law
92XXIV Privileges or Immunities; Emoluments
92XXIV(A) In General; State Constitutional Provisions
92XXIV(A)2 Particular Issues and Applications
92k2891 Taxation
92k2893 k. Exemptions. Most Cited Cases
(Fonnerly 92k205(3))

Statutes 361 ~1654

'

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

.:.J

.. &
:

Page: 9 of 15

361 Statutes
361 XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
36lk1636 Particular Laws as General or Special~ Validity
361kl654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36 lk72)
Exemptions of operators transporting persons to and from public schools, and those not transporting for
hire, from motor vehicle tax, are valid. Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, 1, St 1925, p . 833,
1; ConsL art. 1, 11.

[2] Automobiles 48A ~73


48A Automobiles
48Aill Public Service Vehicles
48Alli(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases

Constitutional Law 92 ~2885


92 Constitutional Law
92XXJV Privileges or Immunities; Emoluments
92XXIV(A) In General; State Constitutional Provisions
92XXIV(A)2 Particular Issues and Applications
92k2885 k. Licenses in general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k205(3))

Statutes 361

~1654

361 Statutes
361 XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361k1636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361k1654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Fonnerly 36lk74(l))
Exemptions of vehicles operated within city limits from motor vehicle license tax held valid. Motor
Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, St.l925, p. 833, 4, 9, Consl. art. 1, 11.

[3] Automobiles 48A ~73


48A Automobiles
48AITI Public Service Vehicles

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

.:.J ._

....

Page: 10 of 15

48AIII(B) License and Registration


48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases
Classification of operators of motor vehicles for licensing is justified by nature of business transacted.
Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act (See West's Ann.Rev. & Tax.Code, 9601 et seq.); St.l925,
p. 833.

[4] Automobiles 48A

~73

48A Automobiles
48Aill Public Service Vehicles
48Alli(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases
That concerns transporting own matelials added cartage of price held not to require inclusion in
classification of those engaged in transporting for hire. Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act (See
West's Ann.Rev. & Tax.Code, 9601 et seq.); St.l925, p. 833.

[5] Licenses 238 ~7(2)


238 Licenses
238J For Occupations and Privileges
238k7 Constitutionality and Validity of Acts and Ordinances
238k7(2) k. Equality and uniformity in general. Most Cited Cases
Classification for licensing purposes is within Legislature's discretion, and its determination will not be
overthrown unless palpably arbitrary.

[6] Automobiles 48A ~73


48A Automobiles
48AIII Public Service Vehicles
48Alll(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lk46, 36lk47)

Constitutional Law 92 ~1133


92 Constitutional Law
92Vill Vagueness in General
92kll32 Particular Issues and Applications
92kll33 k. In general. Most Cited Cases

. .;:., . . Page: 11 of 15

... .

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-9

-.

~.._

(Fonnerly 361k46, 361k47)


Exemption of vehicles operating within "usual transfer delivery zone" from Motor Vehicle
Transportation Tax Act, SL1925, p. 833, 9held void for vagueness.
[7] Statutes 361 :;::::>1535(25)

361 Statutes
361 VIII Validity
36lk1532 Effect of Partial Invalidity; Severability
361kl535 Particular Statutes
361k1535(25) k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k64(8))
Void portion of act, separable from remainder, will be ignored in considering validity of remainder of act.
Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act, St.1925, p. 833, 12.

[81 Automobiles 48A ~73


48A Automobiles
48AJII Public Service Vehicles
48AIII(B) License and Registration
48Ak73 k. Constitutionality and validity of acts and ordinances. Most Cjted Cases
Exemption of revenue derived from carrying mail under contract entered into before named date after act
was adopted from motor vehicle license tax held valid. Motor Vehicle Transportation License Tax Act (See
West's Ann.Rev. & Tax.Code, 9601 et seq.); St.l925, p. 833, 9 1/2 ~ Rev.St. U.S. 3966, 39 U.S.C.A.
484.

**245 *44 Sullvan & Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche, of San Francisco, and Theodore M. Stuart, of Fresno, for
petitioner.
U.S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and FrankL. Guerena, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respendenL

SHENK, J.
The petitioner seeks a release on habeas corpus from his detention by the chief of police of the city and
county of San Francisco. He was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued upon the filing of a complaint in the
police court of said city and county charging hlm with a misdemeanor in that he did, on the 21st day of
September, 1925, engage in the business of transporting property for hire upon and over the public highways
of the state of Califotnia without having obtained a license so to do as required by the Motor Vehicle
Transportation License Tax Act, approved May 23, 1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833). In and by said act it is made a
misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both for any person, firm, association, or *45

..

~- -

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

. .... ... - --

ID: 9224533

..

-- --..~

--

- -- -------v --"---- -- --- -- . --...---.J:.-

DktEntry: 5-9

Page: 12 of 15

corporation to operate motor vehicles for hire upon and over the public highways of the state without
procuring a license and thereafter paying the license fees as prescribed in said act. The petitioner is now and
for several years last past has been engaged in the business of operating for hire motor vehicles upon and
over the public highways of the state. He has refused to apply for a license, claiming that the said act is
unconstitutionaL The objections which he urges in that respect are substantially the same as those made by
the plaintiff and respondent in Bacon Service Corporation v. Fred C. Huss, etc. (S. F. No. 11419) 248 P. 235,
this day decided. The 1925 statute covers the same subject-matter as the former statute (Stats. 1923, p. 706),
which it repeals. The provisions of the present statute are the same as the 1923 statutes with certain
exceptions which will be noted.
In section 1 of the present statute the definition of an ' operator' is the same as declared in the former
statute, but following the definition a new provision is inserted requiring that all exempted freight-carrying
vehicles shall obtain exempt emblems from the state board of equalization and display the same in the
manner provided. No objection is raised to this additional regulation. Section 4 provides for the payment of
the license fee after deduction therefrom of all county and municipal licenses and taxes and is substantially
the same as the former statute. Section 7 provides the penalties for violations of the act and section 8 for the
allotment of the revenues derived under the act. These sections are likewise substantially the same as the
former statute. Section 9 is as follows:
'This act shall not apply to hotel busses meeting trains or boats, nor to taxicabs, drays, transfer vehicles
and other like city motor vehicles operating within incorporated cities or towns or the usual transfer delivery
zone adjacent thereto, nor shall it apply to such vehicles operating between incorporated cities or towns
where no portion of any state or county highway is traversed in said operation.'

**246 Section 9 112 provides:


'Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to nor to levy a license upon that part of the gross income
from the operation of any motor vehicle earned on account of carrying United States mail or parcels post
under any contract with the United States government entered into prior to the first day of May nineteen
hundred twenty-*46 five.'
Section 12, referred to in the former decision as the saving clause, is the same as section 11 of the former
statute.
It is insisted by the petitioner that the exclusion from the definition of the term 'operator' in section 1 of

those who solely transport persons by motor vehicle to and from or to or from public schools and of those
who solely transport their own property or employees or both and of those who transport no persons or
property for hire or compensation constitute unlawful exemptions; that the exemptions provided for in section
9 of hotel busses, etc., and other like city motor vehicles operating within incorporated cities or towns, are
unlawful, and that the designation of 'the usual transfer delivery zone adjacent to' incorporated cities or
towns is void for vagueness; and that the exemption in section 9 1/2 of that part of the gross income of
operators derived from United States mail and parcel post contracts entered into prior to the first day of May,
1925, is unlawful. It is urged that the said exemptions are in violation of sections 11 and 21 of article l of the
state Constitution; that the allotment of one-half of said revenues to the counties in the state is in violation of
section 12 of article ll , which prohibits the Legislature from imposing taxes on counties or the inhabitants
thereof for county purposes~ that the alleged unlawful provisions of the act are inseparable from the

--- - ,-

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

--- -- - ~ ~- - --J-

ID: 9224533

--- -

DktEntry: 5-9

---- - - ;:.~ ---~---

-----,------.....

Page: 13 of 15

remainder and invalidate the entire statute; that the act as a whole is obnoxious to section 25 of article 4 of
the Constitution, which, among other things, prohibits the Legislature from passing local or special laws for
the assessment or collection of taxes; or granting to any corporation. association, or individual any special or
exclusive right, privilege, or immunity, and exempting property from taxation. It also is contended that the
said act violates the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the federal Constitution.
[1][2] Considering frrst the objections to the several provisions of the act and then to the act as a whole, it
will be noted that the exemptions provided for in section 1 have been determined in the Bacon Service
Corporation Case to be lawful exemptions. It will also be noted that in section 9 of the act sightseeing busses
are not exempted and that said section as re-enacted makes more certain the intention of the Legislature to
exempt from the provisions of the act only those motor vehicles for hire which are operated within *47 the
limits of incorporated cities. It was doubtless contemplated by the Legislature that many operators might
operate both within and without incorporated cities and towns. This might be true as to many motor vehicles
mentioned in section 9. If any of those motor vehicles should be operated for hire as a business and not
incidentally on the public highways outside of incorporated cities, it would seem to be clear that they would
be subject to the license tax. This conclusion is fortified by a consideration of the tenns of section 4 of the
act, which provides for a deduction from the license tax of all sums paid by any operator on account of
county or municipal taxes or licenses. It is thus made plain that it was the intention to exact the license fee
from those only who use the public highways outside of incorporated cities in the conduct of their business,
and that as to those whose business is operating exclusively within such cities the license is not required, this
on the theory that the latter are or may be called upon to respond to a license tax or other exaction imposed
for like purposes by the municipality itself, and that as to those operating both within and without
incorporated cities they should receive a credit in their state license tax for whatever amount they are required
to pay as county and municipal licenses and taxes. There would seem to be nothing unfair or unjust in the
license plan thus laid out by the statute. We are of the opinion that the exemptions and classifications
provided for in section 9, when read in conjunction with the rest of the act, do not amount to arbitrary action
or unlawful discrimination on the part of the Legislature.
[3]1n connection with the return to the writ herein, a stipulation of facts was filed from which it appears
that at the time of and for more than six months prior to the filing of the stipulation on December 24, 1925,
there were and are numerous persons, firms, associations, and corporations operating motor vehicles on the
public highways for hire who are exempted from the license tax imposed by the act in question. But it does
not appear that those who were and are so operating and are so exempted do not fall within the classification
of those who are lawfully exempted. It also appears in the stipulation that the type of motor vehicles used by
the exempted classes is similar to the type used by licensed operators. This fact we deem immaterial. It is not
the type of vehicle, but the peculiar nature *48 of the business conducted upon and over the public highways,
that justifies the classification of the statute for licensing purposes.
[4][5] Again, it appears in the stipulation that numerous business concerns, such as lumber and building
material dealers, use the public highways for the tranportation of their merchandise and add the cost of
cartage to the price of the material delivered. These facts might be sufficient upon which to **247 separately
classify such use for the purpose of regulation or license or both, but they would not necessarily compel their
inclusion in the classification singled out by the statute of those engaged in the business of using the public
highways for the transportation of persons or property for hire. In exercising its power to classify the
Legislature has a wide discretion. The presumptions are in favor of the validity of the legislative
determination, and it will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. County of San Luis Obispo v.
Murphy, 162 Cal. 588, 123 P. 808, Ann. Cas. 19130, 712; 5 Cal. Jur. pp. 832, 833, and cases cited.

. - -.. -.. -4-- - ---J - - ' --


... - - . . .... - ----s:ID: 9224533
DktEntry: 5-9
Page: 14 of 15
~

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

..----- - -~ --- "---

[6][7] It also appears from said stipulation that ' the usual transfer delivery zone' outside of incorporated
cities referred to in section 9 of the act is traversed by public highways upon and over which certain
exempted operators operate their motor vehicles for hire. If such operators be lawfully exempted, no
complaint may, of course, be made. But if they belong to the class of operators who conduct their business
within the limits of incorporated cities and who desire to engage in such business also in county territory
adjacent to said cities, it would seem to be impossible for them to determine to what extent the public
highways in the adjacent outside territory would be in the 'usual transfer delivery zone.' We fail to be
cognizant of any standard of measurement by which an operator could foretell the extent of any such 'zone'
and be certain that he was not transgressing the law when he proceeded to conduct his business on the public
highways therein. No reason has been suggested by the respondent for the inclusion of said clause in the
statute. It is unquestionably void for vagueness. In re Peppers, 189 Cal. 682, 209 P. 896. But its invalidity
cannot affect the remainder of the act when considered in its entirety. The clause is merely incidental to the
main purposes of the act and is separable therefrom. *49 In view of section 12 of the act it should be wholly
disregarded in the enforcement of the statute. Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, 148 CaL 590, 84 P.
39, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896, 113 Am. St. Rep. 315, 7 Ann. Cas. 750.
[8] It also appears from the stipulation that there are numerous persons, etc., operating upon and over said
public highways and carrying United States mail and parcels post for hire under contracts with the United
States government entered into prior to the first day of May, 1925. As we understand the petitioner's
contention on this branch of the case, it is that if it be within the power of the Legislature to classify for
purposes of legislation the revenues derived from United States mail and parcels post contracts, still the
exemption provided for in section 9 1/2 is invalid for the reason that it purports to exempt only the revenues
from such contracts as were entered into prior to May 1, 1925, thus unlawfully discriminating, so it is
claimed, against operators whose contracts were entered into after that date. It is assumed that the revenues
from such contracts may be subjected to the license tax as an exaction by the state for the maintenance of the
public highways. See Dickey v. Turnpike Co., 37 Ky. (7 Dana) 113; 31 Cyc. 975. If so, we think there is a
reasonable basis for their separate classification for the purposes of legislation. It has been held that a mail
contractor is not a common carrier but is rather a public agent of the United States employed in performing a
governmental function. A. T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 225 U.S. 640, 32 S. Ct. 702, 56 L. Ed. 1236;
31 Cyc. 999. When he acts in the dual capacity of a governmental agent and an ordinary operator for hire,
that portion of his revenues which is derived from his mail contracts would seem also to be the proper subject
of legislative classification. It was undoubtedly the intention to make the statute apply prospectively and thus
to avoid interference with a public service under existing contracts. The Legislature may have considered that
in any event the powers of the Postmaster General extend only to the authorization of mail carrying contracts
for limited periods. R. S. 3966 [U. S. Comp. St. 7459]. It may also have considered that in fixing May 1st,
which was several days after the measure was finally adopted by both houses of the Legislature, as the *50
dividing point of time, sufficient notice was thereby afforded to contractors carrying United States mail and
parcels post and to prospective contractors to take into account the proposed license tax in entering into new
contracts. Whether or not it would be legal notice we deem unimportant. It might have been more in
accordance with precision in legislation to have fixed the dividing point at the effective date of the statute,
but it may not be said that in designating May 1st any unlawful discrimination was thereby effected.
No additional facts set forth in said stipulation call for further remark. What was said in the Bacon
Service Corporation Case, supra, as to the effect of section 12 of article ll and other provisions of our
Constitution in relation to the statute in question, sufficiently disposes of petitioner's contentions. When the
statute is construed in the light of that case and of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that no unlawful
exemptions are incorporated in the act, and when the fatally vague and indefinite clause in section 9 is

- - .. .

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

. . . . . - ...

ID: 9224533

.. - -.J -

--- - -- ---- - v -- -'t - --

DktEntry: 5-9

- - - - - - - - - - - -.1-

Page: 15 of 15

stricken the statute is a complete expression of the legislative will as ascertained from the language thereof.
As such it contravenes no provision of the state or federal Constitutions.
The many authorities cited by the petitioner have been noted. The Attorney General does not dispute the
rules therein laid down, but only their applicability to the case **248 in hand. We find in none of them, when
carefully examined and well considered, anything inconsistent with the conclusions herein expressed.
The writ is discharged, and the petitioner remanded.
We concur: WASTE, C. J.; SEAWELL, J.; CURTIS, J.; RICHARDS, J.; LAWLOR, J.

CA. 1926
In re Schmolke
199 Cal. 42, 248 P. 244
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

Philip Christian Bikle

'

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 1 of 23

II E C.EI VED
-JIOLLY C.. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

At:.:J .t 8 !: A

FILED,-- - ----- ~ - -

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #10

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

@~W

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 2 of 23

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California case law entitled, ''Beamon V. Department 0

Motor Vehicles" (1960).

ape~

Philip Christian Bikle

8
9

10
11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18

19
20

21

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 8 of 23

Westlaw
180 CaLApp.2d 200,4 Cal.Rptr. 396
(Cite as: 180 Cal.App.2d 200, 4 Cal.Rptr. 396)
District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Robert BEAMON, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Paul Mason, Director, Defendant and Respondent.
Civ. 23968.
April21, 1960.
Proceeding on petition for writ of mandamus to compel department of motor vehicles to set aside and
expunge from its records an order revoking petitioner's motor vehicle operator's license. The Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, E llsworth Meyer, J., entered judgment denying petition, and petitioner appealed. The
District Court of Appeal, Vallee, Jr., held, inter alia, that legislature, by empowering officers of department to
determine whether a driver's license shall be revoked, did not thereby unconstitutionally delegate judicial and
legislative power to department.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Automobiles 48A

~144.1(1.5)

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak132)

Constitutional Law 92 ~2425(2)


92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(B) Legislative Powers and Functions
92XX(B)4 Delegation of Powers
92k2410 To Executive, Particular Issues and Applications
92k2425 Licenses
92k2425(2) k. Motor vehicles and operators. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k62(7), 92k62)

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 9 of 23

Constitutional Law 92 ~2625(1)


92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(D) Executive Powers and Functions
92k2622 Encroachment on Judiciary
92k2625 Executive Exercise of Statutory Authority as Encroaching on Judiciary
92k2625(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k80(2))
Legislature, by empowering officers of department of motor vehicles to determine whether a driver's
license shall be revoked, did not thereby unconstitutionally delegate judicial and legislative power to the
department. West's Ann.Vehide Code, 12500 et seq., 12809 and subd. (e), 12810, 13359, 13800-13802,
13800(c), 13801.

[2] Constitutional Law 92 ~2625(1)


92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(D) Executive Powers and Functions
92k2622 Encroachment on Judiciary
92k2625 Executive Exercise of Statutory Authority as Encroaching on Judiciary
92k2625( 1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k80(2))

Licenses 238 ;:::;::>7(1)


238 Licenses
2381 For Occupations and Privileges
238k7 Constitutionality and Validity of Acts and Ordinances
238k7(l) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
State-wide agencies empowered to revoke licenses for cause defined by law are not exercising judicial
power as that phrase is used in the Constitution confening judicial power on courts, and statutes creating such
agencies and conferring upon them such powers are constitutional.

[3] Constitutional Law 92 ~2406


92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(B) Legislative Powers and Functions
92XX(B)4 Delegation of Powers
92k2405 To Executive, in General

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 10 of 23

92k2406 k. In general. Most Cited Cases


(Formerly 92k62(1), 15Ak209, 15Ak203)
Constitutional Law 92 i='2407
92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(B) Legislative Powers and Functions
92XX(B)4 Delegation of Powers
92k2405 To Executive, in General
92k2407 k. Standards for guidance. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k62(2), 15Ak203, 15Ak209)
Delegation of absolute legislative discretion to an administrative body is not proper, but if delegating
statute establishes an ascertainable standard to guide administrative agents, no objection can properly be
made to it.
[4] Automobiles 48A

~144.1(1.5)

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Akl32)
Constitutional Law 92 i='2425(2)
92 Constitutional Law
92XX Separation of Powers
92XX(B) Legislative Powers and Functions
92XX(B)4 Delegation of Powers
92k241 0 To Executive, Particular Issues and Applications
92k2425 Licenses
92k2425(2) k. Motor vehicles and operators. Most Cited Cases
(Fonnerly 92k62(7), 92k62)
Vehicle Code provision authorizing department of motor vehicles, upon receipt of certain information or
showing of its records, to conduct an investigation to determine whether there were grounds for suspension,
revocation, or the imposition of conditions or restrictions on licensee, and permitting department to
re-examine licensee in any such event, the grounds for suspension and revocation being contained in other
sections of Code, did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation to department of power to designate what
acts constitute violations for which penalties might be imposed, power to set penalties, and power to impose
them. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, 13800-13802.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 11 of 23

[5] Automobiles 48A ~144.1(1.5)


48A Automobiles
48AN License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Akl32)
Vehicle Code provision to effect that department of motor vehicles may investigate to determine whether
driver's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether restrictions or other conditions should be
imposed upon receiving information, or upon a showing by its records, that the licensee has been involved as
driver in any accident causing death, injury, or serious property damage, or that licensee has been involved in
three or more accidents within period of 12 consecutive months, was not objectionable as authorizing
department to take action to suspend, revoke or impose conditions on license of operator where he was free
from fault. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, 13800(a, b).

[6] Statutes 361 ;::::>1635


361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361kl633 Laws of Special; Local, or Private Nature
36lk1635 k. General laws compared and distinguished. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lk71)

Statutes 361 ~1701


361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361Xl(C) Unnormity of Operation
361k1701 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k"71)
A law is "general" when it applies equally to all persons embraced in a class founded on some natural,
intrinsic, or constitutional distinction, but it is "special'' if it confers particular privileges or imposes peculiar
disabilities or burdensome conditions in the exercise of a common right on a class of persons arbitrarily
selected from the general body of those who stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of the law.

[7] Statutes 361 ;::;::>1634


361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 12 of 23

361XI(A) In General
361kl633 Laws of Special, Local, or Private Nature
361kl634 k. Io general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k"77(1))
Prohibition against special legislation does not preclude classification, but only requires that classification
be reasonable.
[8] Statutes 361 =:>1634

361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361kl633 Laws of Special, Local, or Private Nature
361k1634 k In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k77(1))

In determining whether a statute violates prohibition against special legislation, legislative determination
as to what is a sufficient distinction to warrant a classification will not be overthrown unless it is palpably
arbitrary, and unless it clearly appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no sound reason for the classification
exists.

[9] Automobiles 48A ~144.1(1.5)


48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Ak144.1 In General; Grounds
48Ak144.1(1.5) k. Conslitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak132)

Constitutional Law 92 e=:>3731


92 Constitutional Law
92XXVI Equal Protection
92XXVI(E) Particular Issues and Applications
92XXVI(E) 15 Motor Vehicles
92k3729 Drivers' Licenses
92k3731 k. Revocation, suspension, or reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k230.5, 92k230(1))

Statutes 361 =>1654

-- -

"l

- ~

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 13 of 23

361 Statutes
361XI General and Special Laws
361XI(A) In General
361k1636 Particular Laws as General or Special; Validity
361k1654 k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
{Fonnerly 361k77(1), 361k68)
Vehicle Code provision to effect that, in applying Code section governing suspension, revocation, or
restriction of driver's license, department of motor vehicles must give due consideration to more frequent use
of motor vehicles by chauffeurs, was a general, not a special law, with a rational foundation, and did not
contravene constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of laws. West's Ann.Vehicle Code,
13802.

(10] Constitutional Law 92 =>4356


92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVU(G) Particular Issues and Applications
92XXVII(G)16 Motor Vehicles
92k4354 Drivers' Licenses
92k4356 k. Revocation, suspension, or reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k287.3, 92k287)
Where depamnent of motor vehicles, at conclusion of its investigation, notified licensee that it was
considering suspending or revoking his operator's license, and that he had a right to a hearing, and, when
licensee failed to request a fonnal hearing, department held an informal hearing presided over by referee, at
which the licensee appeared and testified, and which resulted in revocation, licensee was not denied due
process of law. West's Ann. Vehicle Code, 1801, 1806, 1807, 14104-14106, 14108.

[11] Constitutional Law 92 ~001


92 Constitutional Law
92XXVTI Due Process
92XXVll(E) Civil Actions and Proceedings
92k3999 Evidence and Witnesses
92k4001 k. Presumptions, inferences, and burden of proof. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k311)
With respect to presumptions due process requires only that there be a rational connection between facts
proved and fact presumed.

[12] Automobiles 48A ~144.1(1.5)


48A Automobiles

J.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 14 of 23

48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators


48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(1.5) k.. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak132)

Constitutional Law 92 ~356


92 Constitutional Law
92XXVIT Due Process
92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applications
92XXVII(G)l6 Motor Vehicles
92k4354 Drivers' Licenses
92k4356 k. Revocation, suspension, or reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k287.3, 92k318)
Driver's record, which reflects repeated violations of traffic laws, as well as accidents, attributable to fault
of driver, leads to rational conclusion that he is a negligent operator, and, on hearing terminating in
revocation of license of driver, fact that statute directed that a driver with such a record be prima facie
presumed to be negligent operator, and thus shifted burden of proof by creation of presumption, did not
constitute denial of due process of law. West's Ann. Vehicle Code, 12810.

[13] Automobiles 48A ~144.1(1)


48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Ak144.1 In General; Grounds
48Ak144.1(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144)
Suspension or revocation of driver's license is not penal, but its purpose is to make streets and highways
safe by protecting public from incompetence, lack of care, and wilful disregard of rights of others by drivers.
West's Ann. Vehicle Code, 13800-13802.

[14] Automobiles 48A ~144.1(1)


48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Ak144.1(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144)

-- .- -

......,...

-.-

... .....

. -- ......

_...

Case: 14-55077

Automobiles 48A

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 15 of 23

~144.5

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.5 k. Extent of discipline in general; hardship and mitigating circumstances. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144.2(14), 48Ak144.2(8))
Fact that motor vehicle operator, whose license was revoked on ground that he was negligent operator,
might suffer inconvenience and even economic loss because of revocation, did not make remedial action of
department of motor vehicles in revoking license the imposition of punishment for past offenses. West's
Ann.Vehicle Code, 1801, 1806, 1807, 14104-14106, 14108.
[15] Automobiles 48A

~138

48A Automobiles
48AN License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak135 License and Registration
48Ak138 k. Eligibility for license. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144)

Automobiles 48A ;:::>144.1(3)


48A Automobiles
48AN License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.1 In General; Grounds
48Akl44.1(3) k. Repeated or out-of-state misconduct; point system. Most Cited Cases
In detennination of qualifications as driver, prior traffic record of driver, including prior suspension,

revocation, and restriction of his license, as well as convictions of traffic violations, is relevant and material
evidence of his knowledge of and compliance with vehicle laws, and his ability to exercise ordinary and
reasonable care in operating motor vehicle. West's Ann.Vehicle Code, 1801, 1806, 1807, 14104--14106.
14108.

[16] Automobiles48A ~144.2(1)


48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.2 Procedure
48Akl44.2(1) k. Administrative procedure in general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144)

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 16 of 23

Automobiles 48A ::=>144.2(3)

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Akl44 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.2 Procedure
48Ak144.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Akl44.2(3) k. Scope of review; discretion and fact questions. Most Cited Cases
Where referee, in informal hearing which culminated in revocation of driver's license, reported that driver
drove total of 30,000 to 40,000 miles a year, 75% of which was for business purposes, driver could not
thereafter contend successfully that motor vehicle department did not consider his economic need to drive in
conduct of his occupation, or the probable amount of driving he would be required to do for that purpose.
[17] Automobiles 48A =>144.2(3)

48A Automobiles
48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators
48Ak144 Suspension or Revocation of License
48Akl44.2 Procedure
48Akl44.2(2) Judicial Remedies and Review in General
48Ak144.2(3) k. Scope of review; discretion and fact questions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 48Ak144.2(9.1))
On judgment roll appeal from action of motor vehicle department in revoking driver's license, where
neither evidence heard by referee nor that heard by trial court was before reviewing court, claims that there
was insufficient proof that driver had committed certain offenses, and that the hearing officer acted arbitrarily
in failing to give any weight to evidence which driver submitted, could not be considered.
[18] Appeal and Error 30 =>901

30 Appeal and Error


30XVI Review
30XVI(G) Presumptions
30k901 k. Burden of showing error. Most Cited Cases
Error is never presumed, but must be affinnatively shown, and burden is on appellant to present record
showing it.
**398 *203 Arthur Sbivell, Saugus, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and Warren H. Deering, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 17 of 23

VALLEE, Justice.
Appeal by petitioner from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus **399 to compel the
Department of Motor Vehicles to set aside and expunge from its records its order revoking his motor vehicle
operator's license. The appeal is on the clerk's transcript consisting of the judgment roll.
On May 21, 1957 the department mailed to petitioner a notice of a hearing to be held before it for the
suspension or revocation of his operator's license. Petitioner did not request a formal bearing, and on June 25,
1957 an informal hearing was held before a referee. Petitioner appeared at the hearing. Evidence was
introduced; and petitioner's driving record, shown by the department's records, was considered. On June 27,
1957 the referee rendered his report.
The report showed: at the time of the hearing petitioner was 23 years of age, married, the father of one
child, and had been a carpenter for 3 1/2 years; be had been driving 6 112 years, all of it in California; he
drove a total of 30,000 to 40,000 miles (a year, apparently), 75 per cent of which was for business purposes.
The report stated his driving record as follows: past 12 months, 9 convictions and one accident; past 24
months, 9 convictions and one accident; past 36 months, 13 convictions and one accident.

The report concluded with the comments and findings set *204 out in the margin.FN1 The referee
recommended revocation of petitioner's operator's license.
FNI. 'In reviewing the file of Mr. Beamon, accumulated since age eighteen, a period of five years. it
is noted that the record show(s]:
'Citations: 22
Violations: 30
Fines: $250
Bail Forfeitures: $44
Days in jail: 5
Accidents: 5
Traffic School
Written contracts: 6

.,.

Case; 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 18 of 23

Personal contracts: 4
Did not appear 4
Placed on probation:

1(~20-53

Revoked:7-26-54
Reinstated: 7-26-55
'Department requested by Judge, in 1954, to 'please get this roan off road' .
'Subject stated that tickets have decreased, that his citations were due to negligence. Of the 332.2
(4-17-56) and other similar violations be stated that on some ofthese occasions it was necessary that
he drive. The out of state violations of 10-4-56 he claimed he knew nothing about since he had never
been to North Carolina and that he had not been out of this state during 1956.
'It is evident from the records that this department bas spent much time and effort; has been patient
and considerate in trying to cause Mr. Beamon to drive in a violation-free manner. His defense of the
record offers nothing to indicate further delay of strong action at this time. This has been pointed out
to him.
'Findings ~

That subject is a Negligent Operator. Support for incompetence not apparent.

'Recommend: Revocation.'
On July 29, 1957 the department entered its order revoking petitioner's operator's license, effective
August 2, 1957. On October 7, 1958 mandamus was sought in the superior court. On March 9, 1959 the cause
was heard on the pleadings which included the referee's report plus the testimony of plaintiff. Plaintiffs
testimony is not in the record. The court found the facts as stated, and concluded: the department did not act
arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably or without just cause, and did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its
discretion; it afforded petitioner a fair hearing; it proceeded at all times in compliance with the provisions of
the Vehicle Code; its decision revoking petitioner's operator's license was supported by the weight of the
evidence; the provisions of the Vehicle Code relating to the suspension, and revocation of motor vehicle
operators' licenses under which the department acted are constitutional, both on the face thereof and as
applied to petitioner. The judgment denied the writ.
Our decision is governed by the provisions of the Vehicle Code with respect to the power of the
department to suspend *205 or **400 revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the
highway after notice and hearing, as they read in 1957.FN2 We are not concerned with the provisions which
made it mandatory on the department to suspend or revoke the privilege of any person to operate a motor
vehicle upon the highway on receipt of a record showing he had been convicted of certain public offenses.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 19 of 23

304, 305, 307.FN* In such cases the facts have already been determined in the criminal proceeding. Nor are
we concerned with the question whether the department had the power to suspend or revoke the privilege in a
case in which a court had acted on the question.
FN2. The section references to the Vehicle Code are to the sections as they were numbered prior to
September 18, 1959. Stat.1959, c. 3, p. 1523.
FN* New Vehicle Code 1959, 13350-13353, 13550, 13555-13557.
[ 1] it is petitioner's contention that the provisions of the Vehicle Code under which the department
revoked his operator's license delegated judicial and legislative power to the department in violation of the
state Constitution. There is no merit in this contention.
[2] It is well established that state-wide agencies empowered to revoke licenses, for cause defined by law,
are not exercising judicial power as that phrase is used in the Constitution conferring judicial power on the
courts; and statutes creating such agencies and conferring upon them such powers are constitutional. Suckow
v. Alderson, 182 Cal. 247, 250, 187 P. 965; Dominguez Land Corp. v. Daugherty, 196 Cal. 453, 466,238 P.
697, 44 A.L.R. 1. It was expressly held in Keck v. Superior Court, 109 Cal.App. 251, 293 P. 128, that the
Legislature, by empowering officers of the department of motor vehicles to determine whether a driver's
license shall be revoked, does not confer judicial power upon executive officers.
[3] 'The delegation of an absolute legislative discretion to an administrative body is not proper, but if the
delegating statute establishes an ascertainable standard to guide the administrative agents no objection can
properly be made to it.' Wotton v. Bush, 41 Cal.2d 460, 468, 261 P.2d 256, 260. The carefully detailed
provisions of the Vehicle Code under which the department acted refute any implication of unlawful
delegation of legislative power to the department. Legislation on the subject of operators' and chauffeurs'
licenses at the time of the investigation and revocation of petitioner's operator's license constituted a complete
division of the Vehicle Code. Division IV, chapters 1--6, 250-339.FN** The *206 applicable sections
provided a complete and comprehensive guide for departmental action.
FN** Now Vehicle Code 1959, 12500 et seq.
Section 306 provided that the department might revoke a license upon any of the grounds which
authorized the refusal to issue a license. Section 271 stated the grounds on which the department might refuse
to issue a license. One of these grounds permitted the department to refuse to issue a license if it determined
that the applicant was a negligent or incompetent operator of a motor vehicle. 271(e). As a guide in the
determination of whether a person was a 'negligent operator,' section 271.2FN3 established a point-count
system to **401 be used in evaluating the traffic record of the person. If his record totaled a specified
minimum number of points for a specified period of time, the statute directed that he be prima facie presumed
to be a negligent operator.
FN3, Section 271.2 read: "Negligent Operator' Defined. Any person who has been convicted on four
or more occasions in a consecutive period of 12 months, of six or more occasions within a

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 20 of 23

consecutive period of 24 months, or eight or more occasions within a consecutive period of 36


months, of violations of the provisions of the Vehicle Code involving the safe operation of vehicles
on the highway and which are by law required to be reported to the department, shall be prima facie
presumed to be 'a negligent operator of a motor vehicle.' In determining the above number of
convictions any conviction of Sections 332, 481 , 483, 502 or 505 of this code shall be counted as two
convictions. Any accident in which the operator is deemed by the department to be responsible shall
be counted the same as one conviction.'
On receipt of information or on a showing by its records of certain enumerated conditions, the department
was authorized by section 314(a) to conduct an investigation to determine whether the license of any person
should be suspended, revoked, or restricted. Subsection (3) of section 314(a) authorized such action when the
information received or departmental records showed 'that the licensee is a reckless, negligent or
incompetent driver of a motor vehicle.' Section 314(b) authorized the department to require the
reexamination of the licensee in the event that its information or records indicated any of the enumerated
conditions.
[4] Petitioner specifically attacks section 314FN4 as an unconstitutional delegation to the department of
the power to designate what acts constituted violation of that section for which penalties might be imposed,
power to set the penalties, and the power to impose them. The attack is untenable. The *207 statute merely
authorized the department upon receipt of certain information or showing of its records to conduct an
investigation to determine whether there were grounds for suspension. revocation, or the imposition of
conditions or restrictions on the licensee, and permitted the department to reexamine the licensee in any such
event. The grounds for suspension and revocation were contained in other sections of the code. See 269,
271 , 271.2, 303.1, 304, 305, 305.1 306, 307, 308, 308.1. The authority to initiate an investigation or require
reexamination of the licensee is not the authority to state what acts violate the law; the initiation of an
investigation or the requirement of reexamination is not the imposition of a penalty. It clearly appears that
section 314 was intended to detail the internal procedure to be followed by the department and must be read
with other sections which state grounds for suspension or revocation.
FN4. Section 314 read: '(a) The department may conduct an investigation to determine whether the
license of any person should be suspended or revoked or whether restrictions or other conditions
should be imposed and may make such investigation upon receiving information or upon a showing
by its records:
'(1) That the licensee has been involved as a driver in any accident causing death of personal injury
or serious damage to property.

'(2) That the licensee has been involved in three or more accidents within a period of twelve
consecutive months.
'(3) That the licensee is a reckless, negligent or incompetent driver of a motor vehicle.
'(4) That the licensee has permitted an unlawful or fraudulent use of such license.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

Page: 21 of 23

'(5) That any ground exists for which a license might be refused.
'(b) In any such event the department may require the reexamination of the licensee, and shall give 10
days' written notice of the time and place thereof. In the event the licensee refuses or fails to submit to
such reexamination, the department may peremptorily suspend the license of such person until such
time as the licensee shall have submitted to such reexamination. Such suspension shall be effective
upon notice.
'(c) In applying the provisions of this section the department shall give due consideration to the more
frequent use of motor vehicles by chauffeurs.'
[5] Petitioner complains that under the authority of section 314 subdivisions (a)(l) and (a)(2) the
department could and did take action to suspend, revoke, or impose conditions on the license of an operator
where he was free from fault. There is nothing in the record to support this claim.
Section 314(c) directed: 'In applying the provisions of this section the department shall give due
consideration to the more frequent use of motor vehicles by chauffeurs.' Petitioner contends this subsection
denied him equal protection of the law. He argues that there is no reasonable distinction between a licensee in
his position who was necessarily required in his occupation to drive many times the *208 number of **402
miles which the Legislature contemplated as the average amount of miles driven by individuals for pleasure,
and one who was employed by others for the principal purpose of driving a motor vehicle. Veh.Code, 7L
[6][7][8] 'A law is general when it applies equally to all persons embraced in a class founded on some
natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction. It is special if it confers particular privileges or imposes
peculiar disabilities or burdensome conditions in the exercise of a common right on a class of persons
arbitrarily selected from the general body of those who stand in precisely the same relation to the subject of
the law. [Citation.] The prohibition against special legislation does not preclude classification, but only
requires that the classification be reasonable. [Citation.] A legislative determination as to what is a sufficient
distinction to warrant a classification will not be overthrown unless it is palpably arbitrary. [Citation.] It must
be clear beyond reasonable doubt that no sound reason for the classification exists. [Citation.]' Sawyer v.
Barbour, 142 Cal.App.2d 827, 838, 300 P.2d 187, 193.
Classifications of persons authorized to operate motor vehicles have been upheld with respect to minors
(Buelke v. Levenstadt, 190 Cal. 684, 688, 214 P. 42); financial responsibility of operators (Watson v.
Division of Motor Vehicles, 2 12 Cal. 279, 282, 298 P. 481)~ chauffeurs and operators (In Matter of
Application of Stork, 167 Cal. 294, 295, 139 P. 684). The latter case, upholding the validity of a statute
requiring chauffeurs to pay a license fee but exempting all other drivers from payment, states in respect to the
differences between the two classes of drivers (167 Cal. at page 296, 139 P. at page 685):
'Of first importance in this is the fact that the chauffeur offers his services to the public, and is frequently
a carrier of the general public. These circumstances put professional chauffeurs in a class by themselves, and
entitle the public to receive the protection which the Legjslature may accord in making provision for the
competency and carefulness of such drivers. The chauffeur, generally speaking, is not driving his own car. He
is intrusted with the property of others. In the nature of things a different amount of care will ordinarily be
exercised by such a driver than will be exercised by the man driving his own car and risking his own

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

o.J

Page: 22 of 23

property. Many other considerations of like nature will readily present themselves, but enough has been said
to show that there are sound, just, and valid reasons for the classification adopted.'
[9] *209 Section 314(c) was a general, not a special law. It had a rational foundation, and did not
contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution assigned by petitioner.
[10] Petitioner was not denied due process. Acting in accord with the provisions of section 315, the
department at the conclusion of its investigation gave notice to petitioner it was considering suspending or
revoking his operator's license, and of his right to a hearing. Section 316(c) provided that failure of the
licensee to respond to the notice should be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing, but the department
might grant either an informal or formal hearing. Petitioner failed to request a formal hearing and the
department held an informal hearing presided over by a referee. He appeared and testified. Due process of
law was satisfied.
[11][12] Petitioner also urges that the shifting of the burden of proof by creation of the presumption is a
denial of due process. Due process requires only that there be a rational connection between the facts proved
and the fact presumed. People v. Wells, 33 Cal.2d 330, 346, 202 P.2d 53. There is no doubt that a record
reflecting repeated violations of traffic laws or accidents or both, attributable to the fault **403 of a driver,
leads to a rational conclusion that he is a negligent operator.
Petitioner urges that the department should not have received and considered evidence of prior traffic
violations which terminated in disciplinary action against him.
Section 317(b) stated: 'In connection with any informal hearing, the department may consider any of the
records or reports referred to in Section 318(c).' Section 318(c) provided that the department shall consider
its official records and may receive sworn testimony. Section 320 listed the records to be kept by the
department: every applications denied; all applications granted; the name of every licensee whose license has
been suspended or revoked by the department or by a court, the reasons therefor, and the period of suspension
or revocation; all accident reports and abstracts of court records of convictions received under the act. Under
section 317 petitioner at the hearing had the right to present evidence to controvert the information obtained
from the fl.les of the department, and to submit the questions of fact for determination by the department.
[13][14][15] *210 Petitioner says this procedure inflicted double penalties for the same acts and offenses.
The suspension or revocation of a license is not penal; its purpose is to make the streets and highways safe by
protecting the public from incompetence, lack of care, and wilful disregard of the rights of others by drivers.
Cf. Murrill v. State Board of Accountancy, 97 Cal.App.2d 709, 711, 218 P.2d 569; Brodsky v. California
State Board of Pharmacy, 173 Cal.App.2d 680, 344 P.2d 68. The fact that petitioner may suffer
inconvenience and even economic loss because he has been denied a license does not make the remedial
action of the department the imposition of punishment for past offenses. In a determination of his
qualifications as a driver, the prior traffic record of a driver, including prior suspension, revocation, and
restriction of his license as well as convictions of traffic violations, is relevant and material evidence of his
knowledge of and compliance with the vehicle laws and his ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care
in operating a motor vehicle.
[16][17][18] Petitioner contends the Vehicle Code did not permit consideration by the department of

J.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-10

. ""'.

Page: 23 of 23

offenses committed in a foreign state; and that there was no clear proof he had been convicted of an offense
in a foreign state. Since the referee reported that all of petitioner's driving was in California, it is obvious he
did not find petitioner had committed any offense in a foreign state. Petitioner also contends the department
did not consider his economic need to drive in the conduct of his occupation, or the probable amount of
driving he would be required to do for that purpose. Since the referee reported that petitioner drove a total of
30,000 to 40,000 miles a year, 75 per cent of which was for business purposes, it is obvious the point is not
well taken. He also contends there was insufficient proof he had committed certain offenses in this state, and
that the hearing officer acted arbitrarily in failing to give any weight to evidence which he submitted. Since
this is a judgment roll appeal and neither the evidence beard by the referee nor that heard by the trial court is
before us, these points may not be considered. Error is never presumed but must be affmnatively shown, and
the burden is on the appellant to present a record showing it. (3 Cal.Jur.2d 781, 260.) No such record is
here.
Affumed.
SHINN, P.J., concurs.
FORD, J., did not participate.
Cal.App. 1960
Beamon v. Department of Motor Vehicles
180 Cal.App.2d 200,4 Cal.Rptr. 396
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 1 of 30

Philip Christian Bikle

2
RECEIVED
MOI..I.Y C. DWYER CLERK

U;l. COURtOF APPEALS

AUG

4
5

2 8 201't

fii.EO _ _ _ _ _ _ -

...,..

POCKETEo~.......,~-DATE
INiliAr

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #11

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 2 of 30

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California case law entitled, "Holmes v. Railroad

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 8 of 30

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN , Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, California Supreme Court, Holmes vs. Railroad Commission, S.F.
11467, ca. 1925, (WPA #2240 1)
22
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full, true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
May 23, 2014

&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/Slate Form C-109 (RV 0112009)

~ OSP 09 11-3643

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Pag~: 9 of 30

I
I

II

Henry E. Holmes et al.,


Petitioners ,

v.
Railroad Commission of the
State of California et aJ. . ,
Respondents .

l
l

Review to annul a decision and order of the respondent


Railroad Commission.

The decision sought to be reviewed was the

outcome of a :proceeding b efore the Commission wherein the res:ponden~s

Highway Transport

Co~any

s.

and

B. MoLenegan & Son, both

"certificated" common carriers of freight by motor

truok between

San Francisco and San Jose and intermediate :points, filed complaint
alleging that the :petitioners

her~in

were operating motor trucks

Without having obtained a certificate of :publio convenience and


neqessity to do so for the t ransportat ion of freight fo r hire over
and San Jose
the public hi ghways between San Franaiso~/\and: intermediate :pointe
along and over the same r outes and r oaqs over which the complainants were operating; that such operations were in viQl ation of
law , were in direct competition with the complainants , and resulted in in'nry and damage to them.

The defendants therein,

:petitioners here , filed an answer denying the allegations of the


complaint and setting up as a separ ate defense that defendants
were the owners of certain automobil e truoka which they leased to

.,

- a numb er of "selected" shippers of freight for use by said allippers


in the distribution of merchandise between San Francisco and such
points in San Mateo and Santa Clar a counties as from time to time

--- -. ------ --

- -.

- --- ..

---: -

_)

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 10 of 30

served the convenience and neo essity of said shippers .

The ans-

wer further denied that the defendants were common carriers, that
they operated between fiXed termini or over a regular route, that
they were. operating in Violation of l aw and that they were subjeot
to the juris diction of the Railroad Commission.
thus 3oined the Railroad Commission after

d~e

Upon the issues

notioe and after a

full and extended hearing rendered its decis ion and order now

..

before this oourt for reView, wherein it was found that the defendants, petitioners herein, were operating as a transportation
Company as that term is defined in section l(o) of Chapter 213,
Statutes of 1917 as amended, and that they were engaged in the
operation of motor trucks over the public hi ghways for compensation over a regular route and between fixed termini, namely,
"San Franoieoo t o San Jose and intermediat e points . "

The Com-

miss ion thereupon m.a de its order directing the defendants to oease
and thereafter to desist from any and all such

transpo~t1oaunlesa

and until 'they should secure a certificate of public convenience


and necessity therefor .

The defendants after the denial of their

petition for a rehearing of said order and decision instituted


the present proceeding in this oourt for a writ of review to annul
the same .
Petitioners were engaged in operating three motor trucks
in the transportation of merchandise consisting principally of
drugs, drug sundries and groceries from wholesale houses in San
Francisco to retail dealers in San Jose and at other poi nts in
Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, which points, for the most
part, are intermediate points between San Francis co and San Jose.
Petitioners operated under separate contracts with the several
shippers,
I

~venty-three

in number , eaoh contract being entered

into severally by petitioner s as one party and by one of the shippers aa the other party theretp .

These oontraots were substantial-

ly alike in their terms (except as to minor variations not deemed

l_ _

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

Dkt~ntry:

5-11

Page: 11 of 30

pertinent to the present inquiry . )

By each of these contracts

.the petitioners purported to lease their trucks to the shipper


for

use

by

the

latter

in

transporting

its

merchandise

from San Francisco to points in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties
at an agreed rental of ).19 .50 per truck per day .

It is further

provided that i f on any day only a portion of the cupaoity of any


truck iS used for such transportation the rental shall be such
~19.50

proportion of said rental of


which the capacity of the

as is represented by the ratio

actually utilized in the trans-

trucl~

portation of the lessee's merchandise bears to the total agreed


oa:pacity of the truck , and, further , that the minimum rental in
connection with any transportation shall be based on one-thirtieth
of the capacity of the truck .

It is apparent from the other pro-

visions of these ''leases'' and from the


performed by

the

parties

that

mann~r

in which they were

they are nothing more

than

contracts for tne transportation of merchandise for compensation


at the rate of thirty- two and one- half cents per hundred pounds ,
subject to a minimum charge of

sixt~- five

cents per shipment .

The

Commission so found and its finding is abundantly supported, if


not compelled, by the

evi~ence .

?he Commission did not expressly

find upon the issue as to whether or not the petitioners were operating as common carriers , which was alleged in the complaint and
denied in the ansv1er .
operating a

'l'he finding is that the. petitioners ''are

transportatio~

company as that term is defined in

section l(o) of chapter 213 of the statutes of 1917 and amendments thereto ; that they are engaged in the operation of auto trucks
over the public high11ays for compensation , over a regular route and
between fixed termini , namely , San Francisco to San Jose and intermediate points , "

Petitioners contend that this finding

must be taken by us as a negative finding UJ)On the allegation


that they vtere operating as common carriers and we are inclined to
agree with this contention.

7he carrier respondents strongly in-

Case:

14 ~55077

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 12 of 30

sist that under t he rule which requires t he construction of findings so as to support the judgment we should construe this as a
finding that petitioners were in fact operating as common carriers
and that suoh finding is amply supported b y the evidence herein.
It may be that the evidenoe herein would sustain such a finding if
it had been made by the Commission.
ion.

As

to that we express no opin-

We are of the opinion that the present is not a proper case

for the application of the r ul e i nvoked by the oarrier respondents .


A careful reading of the entire decision of the Commis sion, of

whioh the quoted finding forms but a part , makes it cl ear that the
Commission did not intend t o -find as a fact that pet i tioners we1s
operating as common

ca~riers .

On

tlle contrary, the Cotnmission toolc

tht:l view that petitioners were subject to its jurisO.iction under


the other faots and circumstances found herei tl , regardless of tbe
question whether they we:.:-e operat i ng us coromon carriers or as private carriers , and

ir;

accorll.ance with that view i t deliberately

and i utentiont\lly omitted to find upon this question . If, there .:ore, v;e should conclude that the operation ot

p~.::titioners

as common

carriers is a fact essential to the jurisll.iction of the Commission


over them it would 1)e our

du'~y

to a rmul this decision and order .

This precise question was i nvolved i i the recen'.; case of Frost v.


Hailrot~d

Com!nission ( 70 Ca l. Dec. 457,

Pac.

) , v1b ic!J was

decided by us adversely to pet itioners ' cm1tentions here i n .

That

case must be regarded as controlling with respect to this phase of


t11e present inquiry , and the respective counsel for tbe IE titiouers
aud for the Railroad Commi ssion so concede .

Counsel for petitioners

argue most eam1estly that our decision in the Frost case


eous and should be promptl y overruled .

is

erron-

//e have given care:fu.l con -

sideration to these argttrnents and :ne not disposed to depart f rom


our views as expressed i n that case. The gist of our conclusion in
that case

m~:~y

be briefly stated as follows :

The legislature by

tlle 1919 amendment to the Auto Stage :;1nd 'fruck Trl:lnsportation Act
plai nly intended and a t tempted to extend the jurisdiction of the
i...

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 13 of 30

- 5-

Railroad Commission to private carrie:rs when engaged in the business


to
o:f transporation cor.1panies as the_re de:t'i.ned ~~subject such private
carriers to the burdens, obligations and
act .

lim~t~tions

imposed by that

The question then is whether the state has the ]?OWer to impose

sucll burdens and l imitatiol:ls upon p:rivate carriers when usi!lt.) tl":e
public highways for the transaction of their bus iness or wheth er its
power iu this behalf is limited in Hs application to public carriers .
It is now UJ.liversally reco{\'Il ized that the state does possess such
powet Y/i th respect to conunon carriers us111g thepuulic hie:hways f'or
the transact ion o1' theil bus i ness i n the trans port at ion of persons
o:r property for hire. Thut rule is statea. &a follows by the Supreme
.;otut of the United State s: "A citizen may tr.:.ve, under the fourteenth
wnendment, the r igllt to travel and. transpol.t his property upon them
(the yublie highways) by auto veh icle, but he has no right to taake
the highTjays his pluce of bus i ness by using tbeLD
for hire .

~-~ammon

caTrier

Such use is a privilege which ru::ty be granted or :tithheld

by the state in its discretion , without

viol~ting

either tho

cess cluuse or tbe equal protection clause , 11 ( Buclc v .


Sup . Ct. Hep . 3i:!4. Italics ad.ded) .

~etiHoners

~ue

pro-

ICuylcend~ll ,

emphasize

-~he

45

words

which we have italicized and insist that tbis rule is 'limitect in its
upplioation to common caniers . We thil1k

is ec1ually ap1Jlicable

. t o ull persons who seek to make a specia l and private use of the
public bi~~hways by transacting their private bus:ll ness thereon ana.
'tbu.-t it applies with equal force to private carriers who

engat~e

in

the business of tra11sportation for hire upotl tbe public highways .


'l'be reason for the rtlle vth ich

aut~orizes

the state to prohibit the

private 11.se o-r tiJe lll..e!hways by such carriers is not that they are
common carriers . It is tbat they are me.king a private use of the
:public highwciys which are mmed c;nd
are open alike to all persons .

~id

for b y the public und

~;hicb

It is true that cor.unon car1iers are

subject to retulation by the state becliuae tbe fact tbc.t they are
eugaged in public service causee their business to be af:rected with
:PUblic i 11terest cmd. thus justifies the regulation thereof by pub lic

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 14 of 30

- (j-

authority.

But this is not, _as it seelllS to us, the

e;(istence of the rule above quoted.

r or the

re~son

Tbe ci:..cumsvance thut they !a'e

public carriers would. subjec_t them to regulation but it would not


subject their busi.ness to comulete .;p_rohibi tim1, it be i ng u business
vthicll is not inl1erently 1.mlavrful m vtroue-;ful, but it is universally
ooxtceded that tbe state ,J.oes have the pouer and the right to completely prohibit the use of Hs public hie;llwayo by a oonllllon carrier .
This must rest not upon the fact that he is a common ca.r:cier , but
upon "the fact that be is making a private use of the public hit;.llways .
'.!:his conclusion is not based, c:ts petitioners assert, upon the power
of the state to re10-:ula.te

the~ o:f

the power of t11e state to prohibit

its hiE;;hVIB.ys .

-~-~~~~ivate

It is based upon

use of its hig hways

or i11 its discretion to grant the privileGe of such


such conditions ::w it may see fit to ir.lpose.

priv<.~te

use upon

By tlle statute bere

in question the stc.te says i n effect; to tbe citizen: "I will


you the special

p~ivile 5e

or using my

hi~_.;;hwaya

gT~nt

for your private busi -

ness upon <;:on<lition t!Hi.t you in turn submit y01.uself and yom property to such re&,ulations as I iHpose .

I will not cornpel you to sul11uit

to tllese regulati0ns out i:f you are not willi ng to do so, I shl;lll
not grant you tl1is special p1i vileL:;e . 11

A conclusion some,1hat analr)-

gous to t :11s is presented i n the case of Producers Transportation

{;~mpa.ny v. RC:tilroad Commission ( 1 '/0 Cul. 4SS) relied upon by petitioners herein . I t was ~;her e held. tlH:\t c. sbate hE~s no power by t<:ere
legislative f:l.a.t, nor even by such fiat embodied in its constitution, to

transmut e ~

privat e carrier int o

common carrier .

V/ith

tllat conclusion we are in entire 20cord, bnt it was !ilso there held
that if a private carrier exercises the right of emineut domain ir.
aiel of his transpol:tatioo business, lle will ue lieetned thereby to
buve de<iicated his transportation system to a public use un<i to have
thereby become public carr i er . The circumstance thut the ric;ht of
er,linent domalin is a

rit~ht

sta i;e does not se(;,,l to

u.::;

of sovereignty w!1 ioh is

in:\eret~t

in the

of partiouJ.a:c importa nee . The import lint

fact , ::.s it seems to us, is thu t the right of emine11t doma.iu is

Case: 14:55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533 DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 15 of 30

-7 not possessed by iud.iv iduuls c.s a matter of 1it9lt. \/ben tile state
offers to grant t t,is right to an i nd ividual, it is as to him
ial ptivilee;e .

If the state o:t:"fers this

privile~e

l.\

spec~

to hihl upon ex -

.:pressed conditions, he will be deemed, if h e e:xercises the

ri~ht,

to

have accepte(i. the offer lind to have agreed to t be conditions .-,. He is


under no compulsion to

subm~it

to the conditions .

If be does not sub -

mit to the conditions he cannot exercise the privileg e . If he does


exercise the privilege he vtill be d.eemed to have voll.tntarily agreed.
to the conditioos .

Rere i n lies the

distinc~iO'll

betV(een the present

case and the case of t:ichigan Public Utilities Comrn . v . Duke!45 ~up .
Ct . Rep . 191) .

Counsel :for :petitioners direct our attention to the

fact that the reasoning adopted. by us in the Frost case and adhered
to here in was urged

u~on

the Supreme Court of the United States in

the Duke case and was by that court te jected. Y/e agree that it was
properly rejected. in that case because it was not tenable under the
facts of that case .

It could not be said tbat b y contim.ting in the

tro.ns.:portation of property f or h ire after the enactment of the Uichi gen Public Utilities act DuJce had voluntarily elected to ded icate his
property to a public use because DWce had no opportunity for an elec tion .

He hod no choice but to continue in the transportation of'

property after the enactment of the statute . He

Wt!S

under compulsion

so to do because of h i s cont ract s ';'Ihich were i n existence and s ub sisting at the tirne of its ena ctment .

Therefore, to hold tbe statute

applicable to him would be to say in effect that the state had the
power t o transmute him from a priva te carrier int o n public carrier
nolens volens and this we agree it could not do.

Th is i s what we had

i n mind when we said in this connection i n the Frost case , "to g ive
it effect in i ts

ap~lication

to his situation would have been to im-

pair the obligation of those contracts . "

Vie i ntended tbereby to

point out that the only liberty of choice offered by the l.;ich i gan
statute in its application to Duke was a Robson ' s choice between de G.icati11g his pr opert y to the public on t he one hand and breaching
his co11tracts on tbe

o-~.b er .

We did uot in tend

thereb:~

to intimate

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 16 of 30

-8-

that tbe decis ion of the United States Sutr eme Court i n the Dulce
case w&s rested i n part upon the impairment of the contracts provision
of the Federal constitution.

It clearly was not . I n the present case

the petitioners did not enter i nto the transportation busi n ess until
long after tbe enactment of the s t atute here in question .

~le

find

here no such o bstacle as . there was i n the Duke case il.1 the way of
the conclusion that by so doing petitioners must be deemed to have
v oltmt arily elected to submit themselves t o the conditions imposed by

the statute .

We do not agree with pstitioners that the V/ashington

decisions c tt_ed by us in th e Frost case have all

bee~'l

overruled by

t he later decision of that court i n Davis v . Lietcalf ( 229 Pac . 2) .


'l'hey were .not eX);lressly overr uled therein . On the contrary , they are
cite.j. witb apparent approval. It must be conceded, however , that the
iuplications of some cf tht: language used in the op i nion i.n that
cas_e appear to be i n conflict with our conclusions in the Frost c11se
und herein .

That case , bow ever , did not involve the question or the

power of the ltu ilroud. Com1.1is sion to

ru<..~e :i.t!

order i n resvect of c.

!Jrivate carrier such as is her e ru1Cler review .


suit i .n

e~ui t

?l.~t

case l:t2'ose as

y by a certif'ica:ted carrier to procure

lUl

~;<

injunction

res'trui ni ng an tUloert ific a~ed carr ier from tlanspo!'tit~ goods for
compensa'tlor1 over a l'ee)ttlar route i n competitio n with tbe plai nt i f f'.
'l'l1e .tr iul comt c1eni e<l th;::

i:njU11c ~ ion

a.ilcl the Supreme CoUlt uffirmecl

the judt,l;ment . lt does n ot nccessaril;y follow from ~nyt il ine su.ill or


Clecided i n that case th!it i f the Rsilroau Commission of th&t state had
~fter

~o.~

heari n& made an orO.er

requirin~

tha defendant to d.esist from

further tra1sportation over tbe h i g hways until he

obt~ i.ned

a cert i-

i'icate of public convenience and necessity, t:-Jet such order v.rol.lct. !"'l:l. ve
been

~nulled

by

i u t .h e State of
o~se

tbe court . That question bets no.t yet been li titt;~ted

~/::ashin;:-: ton

of State v . Nels on (

so i'ar as we are advised. . Tlle recent Utah


238

~ao.

237 .

is,

~~e

t!'iink , dis -

tine;u.islled fro ~1 t!1e prese11t c~se b~, t.lJe dit'l'erehces i n the Utab stat ute .

The grant of jurisdiction to the ConllJissiou in t l1at statute is

"to eu:pervise

~::rid

re2,'ttlate every public utility i n this state as

Ca se: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 17 of 30

-9-

* * *."

def'ined in this ti,tle

The term ''pul>lic utility" is Ci.efilled

to irtclu9,e "every '1

* * a utotno'bile corporation *

.!_s_ _l'er:f_ormed.

the

for~--.

tion thereof."
>~

**

_9.2,l~?di t_):_O.elivel'ed

where the service

pui~

to the

or <:J.ny por-

'rhe ter:n "c oJiu,,on carrier" i s (Lefined to iualud.e rrevery

automobile co:q,10ration. tr

* ope:cating for ;public service

this st;ate; aud every J,>erson or corpor~tion


1_)ortaJ~io~1

>t-

>t

**

ellg2.ged

of fe :;:sons or property for nublic . service over

between points within this state."

(Ita~ics

added) .

~he

i .ti

vritllin

ti1e trans-

re~;ul"'r

routes

section of the

Utah statute providini;' for the iasu<luce ol' cel.ti:ficat;es of public con-

vell ience and. necessity, v1hile it doe:o bot expressly so provide, nevertheless indicates by clear implication 'Ghe lee:;islative in tent

it

th~t

sh&.ll be applicable onl;1 to public utilities as above ,:_efined. The


Ut:::h court belcl co:creotly, as we th ink, tllat tbe illten t of' t.be Utah
statute w.::s 'Go lirni t the regulatory powers of the
to common carriers and. othel' J2ttblic utilities.

t{uilr ~n~d

Commission

Raving reachatl this

conclusion; the lcne;unge i n its opinion which is relied upon by petitioners herein rnu.s'G, as it seems to us, be regarded as obiter. We agree
with petitioners thut tbe case of

Hies~ mv .

co.t1flict wHb our conclusion in the Frost

G-uran, 146 lF . E . 808, is in


c<.~se

herein. It may be noted,

. however, that the reas onint which has impelled. us to OU:l' conclusion
ci.oes not appear to have been
c ourt . We are disposed
the

Mailx:B141

~o

sug~;estecl

adhere

~o

to or s.t all considerec1 by that

that conclusion,

absence of any direct authority to

If the foregoin,:s; conclusion is sound.,


<~

sufficient

~:~nswer

guarantees of the
of' t:1e

co>~tention

notwi ~hst:;.nding

su:p~lort

it.

it is, as it seems to us ,

to all of petitioners ' contentio.ns based upon

Fed~r!:ll

~he

conahitution, with the possible e:t.ception

tbat the Auto

Sta~e

Qnd.

True].~

Transportation Act

as amended. and ;as construed by us denies to peti'GionerB the equal pro t e ction of the l aw .

Petitioners' first :QOi.nt UJ."lder tbis contention

is disposed of by 011r decision in the case of Franahise


Assn . v. Seavey, 69 Cal. Dec . 473 ,

Eac .

l,~otor

Petitioners

Freight
see~ing -

l y tal<e tbe position that there is no legitimate basis 'for a classification and

distil:~,ction

between private ca:rriers engaged in the busi-

ness of trans:r;>orti.lle :freight over the. public highways on 'tbe one

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533 . DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 18 of 30

-10h~nd

and private ind.ividuals . engaged in other lines o:r business trans-

porting their own freight over the public llighways as an incident to


such business on the other hand .

Petitioners propouud the following

question: "t;that reasonable ground o:t' distinction is there between a


pl:ivate carrier engaged in tile busi11ess of transporting his own freight
over the public highvray between tv1o points a.nd another private carrier
who is engaged in the truns.:por'.;atiolJ of t he same class of freight be tween the Slcl.rne points at the same time over the sarne hi(::';bVJay, the .only
distinction be'llng that the freigh t transported by the la.t1;er belonl:;-s
to !lis neighbor or some otber thi1d :Party instead of to hii:Jself?l'r Tbe
f~cts

assumed in this ques'Gioh are

s~lf

contradtiotory .

Ohe wbo trans -

ports merely his own :fl'eit;:ht over the highway is not a ca:J,rier, private
or otherwise . He mey be a

f~u.cter

or a 1:1anufacturer or a merchant or what


is ~

not , but the business in which be is engaged .


nes.s or transporh.tion .

Re is not

~ o~rier

no"t

tne

unless he

buSi:-

en g~~es

i n tbe

business of transportation of the persons or property of others for


compensation.
engai~ ed

One who transports

mere~y

his own goods is of necess i ty

in some business other than transportation and the trtmsporta:.

tion of such goods is no more than an incident to such business . So,


~1ho

also, o.ue

transpo1ts the e:oods of

such other is not


doillt-~

:ls

enga~ed

eue;at~etl

<~nother

i n the business of transportation, bt'l:h in so

i u the busi.ness of his

that business may be .

us u se:Lvaut or agent of'

m~ster

or principal, vl!\ahever

:tut one who engages as an indepdnclent calline;

in the trllnsportatiou of

~ood.s

for another

Ol'

for otbers under

0011-

tract and. for compensation is engaged in tlle business oi' transportation


cmrl is

ll

car1ier.

'l'he true question i n t!lis behalf is, therefore,

b~is for a olas::Jificottion and disti nc b1,1ainesa of


tio.n between those v!ho e11gage i n the transport~:~ tion of the -pro1le1.'ty of'

is tlere

natural or inherent

-\

others for compensation over

t~e

public h i t;hwaya, thus r.1likirl a private

use of those bigbways , and those on the other hand vtho are

eng~ed

in

other lines of bus i ness and Wlio use tbe hi[;lmaya i n the transportQtion
oi' their g oods 1.;.erely

<:J.S

au incident to sucl! 1msiness,

pose tbe highways arc open aliJce to .all?

fo1

wh 1ch pur-

This question seems to us

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 :9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 19 of 30

- 11~t

to .:nsvter itself .

is too well settled to require citv.tion of

uutbority that a statute is not


&li;~e

hcki n<_~

in uniformity if it operates

upon all those compris ed >iithin a class llefined there i n which

is basecl upou some ne1tural, i nherent or constitutional ground of


classification .
We f'inu no r,}erit i n t he sugt:<;estiou

tious.l i n

'bilc.~t

mission.

'he discretion

co.ntrolled

~;tnd

th~t

-tiJe

~ot

is l.U1constitu-

it vests 1:1n a rl:>i tra.ry discret ion i n tile i{a1lro:.d Corn-

o-:. the Comr.,ission is not nrbHra:ty bv.t ie

.g;u.ided by !;he rela tion oi' the facts t'o,.>.n'l

'b~

it to

~he

public conven ie nce and. necessity ( Tarpey v . !.icClure, 190 Cal. 593,
600 , and cases c it ed) .

The final oontentiou necessary


the

fiud i l]i~

be cotlsidered herei11 is

h\)

~ll~t

of the Commi ssion to the effect tht:.t petitianers were

operating between fixed termini and over a


ed by the evidence .
mini or over

rec;ul~r

The statute defi nes the words

~ re~l.L.r

route is un:::oustai n 11

betwee11 fixed ter -

route" to mean "the termini or route between

or ove1 which any cor:por!!tion o:;. person

* * "'

usually or ordinarily

operata any autot!lob ile, bus , auto truclc , stac;e or auto s t ae:;e, even
t.houth there may be depa:ttures frotl saitl ter111itli or route, whether
such depa.rttUes ue. 11'erioG.ic o:;: irregulfllr ."

I t $lls o provides tho:< t

this sball be s. question of :fact and. that the f i nO.int; o.f tlle Cmamis sion thereort shall l)e i'iual :.:m t1 shall not be sv.b ject to revievJ . We
ag-ree wHil pet i tioners that the f i nd i nc; is , however ,

subjeo~

tore -

view, no'twiths"~anclin.~; the la.s t mentioned prvvi~ion of ttie sta t u t e ,


fo1

~h e

reason th& t t he fact i n guesti011 is o.ne whicll is es s ential

to the jurisdiction of t:1e Commission .

::>\lC.h

revieH , however, cannot

extend beyo11d the inquiJ.y a s to wbetl.Je1 or not there is


tial evidence to eu:lr>ort the :findi ll;!:, .

so~o1e

Bl!.bstau-

If there is , the filtcl i ng must

be sustttilled, no mato!;er how much evidence there rnay be in conflict


there\'fith.

In t.bis connect i on it ie to 1)e noted, bowever, th::d; it

is not neoessul.'Y th;;, t the evidence shall susts in both

o~

the

findin~s

of ti1e Commission , ncr:Jel:J , tbat petitioners were operati ng between


fixeu tel'H1il1i qncl

th~:tt

they V/er-e OlJeruting over a reguli::.r route .

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10:9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 20 of 30

- 12'J:'h e

stn~ute.

~n<l

is i.-t1 the (i.isjunc t ive

nect loll to susta i u

'~he

it is su:tf"icient i n t:1is uou -

jw. istJ.ict ion oi' tile Con;~..iss ion 1..:.. there vt&s

subst:...utial evidence to support either of these f i n<l i nc;;s . The uecision


of the Co1:uniss ion contctins a fair reswne of the evidence

UllOn

this

qtte s tion and v1 e quote tberefror.t <.s follo1rs : "Defendanlis contend i;hat
the y 1:1re not operut i n.: bet-..vee11 fixed tar11li ni nor over Quy
rou-te, because
StJnta

Ql~l'ti

the~}

hm-e h<id no depot ut any oint in Sun

ret,"lll~:~r
r.~ateo

or

counties, nor huve th13y u telr:phone l:l't such ].)oiuts ; th<'.d;

deliveries are mu,de either t;o sto1e

si<lawalk; tha t there is no

01:

point in t:ny ci i;y or town in San t:ateo or Sunta Clara couuties v1hich

constittttes a ternibms, since the dest1ua tioo of


tntil'ely lJy the l03.d Wh i ch tbe

T lesse e S T Of

is determi ned

truol~s

t}le pSltiCUl::ir truC!< ba,p-

p el'l t o offer foi: transportc.tio11 on tbat l'articulur tri1> ; ttnd tb<tt

there are no cities o1 towns i u San hlateo ol: Sant& Clara county to
\'lisich

~ny

trucks

~ e gularly

"It is true

tb~t

e;o on all trips .

euch <1llCl every tru.ck overated down the

sul;;. lJ:f <lefew:l<mts rloe}; not stop f or piclc-up or


dise <>.t ec.tcb un<l

eve~'J'

d~liver:'J

Pt~rliCJ

o'f merchan-

poilt alone the highway, Sun Francisco to San

Jose, i nclusive , <u:td th<J.t on occusions the truclcs huve

~one

oi'f the

hie;hway for several miles to- ma1ce deliveries to points such as the
C~mp

Count;1 Poor Farm bac}c of Belmont ,


vud,

Chadwio}~

JJo . 4 on the Skyline B'oule -

and Sylcas Cump th:r;'ee Jjtiles

The evidence , however, <.l.oes show

tlu~t

e<~st

oi' Redwood City, etc ;

there is only one mair1

bi~llway

lcnown a s the J?enil'lS"J.ll:l. Highway over wh icll the trucks of t he defend-

ants usu.ully or ordinarily operate; that defendants ' dr iv ers are instructed dur1u 0 fair weather to use r1hat is 1r..norm as the Ba y Shore
:H i ,:rbwtty out of San Franclsco to i t s co.:1nection wtth the muin J?enin eule Rit;hway at San Bruno and in rainy weather to use the Llission Road
thro ueh Colma to Sun Bruno .

From

S~m

Bruno there is but u SinGle

route tlnoug.b Burling a1ne , San Kat eo, Belmont,

~edVIood

City , Lenlo

.Par;c , .Palo AJ.to and oth er intermediate pointe, to San Jose . Tbis mc. in
State

H ic!.~bway

is

of tbe lnfrec1uent

usu~lly

.:,nQ. ordinarily used with the exce:ptiol'J.

occ~:wions UIJDi1

which, as mentioned above a truck

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 21 of 30

-13-

catries merchandise dcstine:tl to poi;J i;a somewhat oi'f the hi5hway .


"In col'lnection with defend:mts' Exhibit 1\o . 12, entitled some
Routes used by H . E . unu P . W. Rolmes,
no two of suoll routes were

~like .

P . fl . ITolmes testified that

Route l:o . 3 . nam.es Redwood City

only; I; o . 5 Burlingame -Redwood CHy; l<o . 12 Hedwood City - Burlingome .


'l'bese t!1ree routes, however, when trucen in connection with Sau Francisco as a northern ter minus , are i dentical i n f:Jvery respect . Trans posin ,~;

the names of

co~ununit i es

does not differentiate as to route

over which the trucks travel, but me;tely sl1ows a difference in the
routing of pniticular del iveri es . In fact, this entire exhibit in the
main substantiates tbe contention of complainants

t h~t

defendants '

trucks do U:sually and ordinaril y operate over a r.egular route or between fixed termi ni as represented by manifests therein named .
"Defendants further contend that they have n.o :fixed termini due
to the fact that the manifests submitted in the evidence coveri ng the
month of January, 1924, show a different southerly terminus on different trips . Analysis of th is evidence shows that during the thirty day
period above

ro~ntioned ,

San Jose or a point immediately adjacent to

the city lim1 te of San Jose, such as Alum Rock, Lteridian rtoad, etc .,
appea~s

t:ts the most southerl y terminus upon twenty occasions , the

most southerly desti nation on other occasions bemng sorne point along
what is known as t he main Peninsula Hi ghway, San Francisco to San
Jose, such as Redwood City, which appears some seven times, or Palo
Alto, which appears some five times .
"C ertainly if a truck carries no merchandise for delivery upon
a spec i fi ed trip which would necessitate it going the entire length
of its route and bas no call :for a p ick - up on the northbound trip,
it would in any case turn back after making its most southerly delivery, and if this Commission should hold that the law contemplated
this class of operation as not being over a regular route no truck
operator i n the state could be held to fall within the provisions o:f
the state

reb~lation ,

due to the fact that one or more of his trucks

on infrequent occasions might not cover the entire route usually or


ordinarily served by him ."

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 22' of 30

14

In addition to the :foregoing it may be noted that a t the


hearing be:fore the Commission petitioners introduced an exhibit
consistin g o:f a schedule showing the points of all deliveries made
by t hem during the second week of each o:f the months o:f December ,
1923, and January, February and March, 1924, in connection with

which they produced testimony that the deliveries during those weeks
were :fairly typical of all o:f their operations.

~he

schedule shows

all o:f the deliveries made by petitioners on twenty- three working


days comprising those weeks and it appears therefrom that upon every
one of those days

petitioner~

made deliveries from San Francisco to

San Jose and to intermediate points .

Under the statute 1t is .imma-

terial that there were departures :from the termini and f rom the
route "whether such departures be periodic or irregular. ''

We are

satisfied thet the finding of the Commission is sustained by the


eVidence , and if it were conceded that the evidence would equally

..I

sustain a contrary finding that circumstance would be immaterial.


The decision and order of the Commission are affirmed and

- - --

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page:. 2'3 of 30

(SF 11467)

I dissent.

I cannot agree with the reasoning lilnd c onclu-

sions of the prevailing opinion.

It appea.r s thlilt the petitioners

had applied to the commission for a


ience

~md

necessity.

certific~te

of public conven-

By that application they impliedly consented

to subject them.selves to the jurisdiction of the commission and tp


comply with the conditions which the law and the commission might
impose.

IncludeO. in those condi tiona under section 4 of the Auto

Stage and Truck Transportation Act would be that the commission


should have the power to
and

fi~

their rates, regulate their service


oper~te

as a common car-

rier in the event that the certificate be issued.

The application

~n

general provide that the applicant

however was denied.

Such action was within the power

o~

the com-

mission under section 7 of the act which provides that the comtnission m.ey grant or deny such a certificate "with or without

he~ring."

The petitioners established themselve.s as a private carrier.

The

respondent certificated carriers filed a complaint against them


before the commission

~lleging

that the petitioners were a transpor-

tation company e.s defined by the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation
Act and as such were operating in direct competition with the compl~inants

and were injuring and damaging their business.

The peti-

tionera were summoned before the commission and in an answer filed


by them they denied that they v;ere e. transportation company e.s defined. by the act.

.After notice and en extended hearing the com:-

mission found that the petitioners were a transportation company


operating as a private oarrier and issued an injunction directing
them"to cease and hereafter to desist fran any and all such tra.n sportation unless and until they have secured from this commission a
certificate declaring that public convenience and necessity require
the resumption or continuance thereof."

The effect of the decision

and order of the coqmission is to put the petitioners out of business ,


for it enj-oins them from operating "unless and until" they obtain a
certifioate and on application the commission denies the certificate .
UDder sections 82 and 23 of article XII of the constitution
and the decisions of this court the commission has jurisdiction only

Case:

14~55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry:

5~11

Page: 24 of 30

of the regn.l atiop and control of public utili ties and matters whioh
are germane to such regulation and control.

ThiS is

co~oeded

in

the preva iling opinion but it is held, foll owing the Frost case,
that the regulation of such a private carrier i s so germane because
forsooth the private carrier is in competition with the public carrier.

This conclusion in my opinion is not supported either by

reaeon or authority.

If that conclusion be sound the result would

be that the commission may now require a truck owner. engaged exclusively in the business of operating his truck for transportation
of freight on the public highways under contract with the sole owner
of a chain of stores. to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity or go out of business
cation put him out of business.

by denying his appli-

To pursue the subject still fur-

ther it would logically follow that the


by

~d

co~ssion

could be endowed

the legielattre under the present constitutional

g~snt

with the

power to say that no one may use the publi o highways for the transportation of his own goods because by so doing he would take from
the certificated operator a revenue which the latter might otherwis e receive.

By

the

Sl\nle

reasoning the legislature could vest

the commission with power to prohibi t the u.se of private passenger


automobiles operating on the public highway be'oause suoh use would
be in competition with regulated common carriers of

p~asengers

possible destruct ion of the business of the latter.

with

Suoh a result

may not be contemplated as within the power of the state EJ.nd more
particularly within the constitutional powers of the railroad commission as defined and limited by this court.

Nor is the action of the commission authorized by the


public utilities act or the Auto Stage and Truok Transportation Aot.
The power of the commiss ion to entertain complaints under the public
utilties act, under seotions 60 and 6la, is with reference to "any
act or thing done or omitted to be done by any publio utility . "
Section 7 of the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation Aot provides
that in all respects in which the railroad commission "has power
and authority under the constitution of this state or this actr com-

10: 9224533

08/28/2014

Case: 14-55077

DktEntry: 5-11

- /7plaints

be filed with the commission and disposed of "in the

manner , under the limitations and with the effect s pecified in the
public utiltiea act."

In Motor Transit Co. v. Railroad Commission,

189 Cal. 573, this court said at page 578: ":By specific reference
to the public utilities act the commission is given power to hear
and determine complaints against transportation companies in exactly
the same manner and to the same extent as it has of complaints
~gainst

other public utilities .

7 of the 'Auto Stage and Truck

This power is confer red by section


Tr~nsportation

Act,

It ob-

viously follows that sections 60 and 61 (e) of the public utilities


act , as originally enacted and still in force , which prescribe the
power of the commission to hear and determine complaints against
public utilities make [mark] and measure the power of the commission
to proceed in the inStant oase."

Said section is not merely proced-

ural. It vests power in the commission to entertein complaints and


to take action thereon.
in

The r estrictions and limitations specified

the section are that, for the purpose of procedure , the terms of

the public utilities act shall apply .


I~

the Auto Stage and Truck Transportation Aot purports

to vest in the oocmission jurisdiction over 11rivate

in ll\V

o~ rriers

opinion it is to that extent contrary to the constitution.

Such a

conclusion would not deprive the commission of the power to entertain complaints against transportation companies which ere common
carriers in faot .but are seeking to avoid the requirements of the
act by

mae~uerading

as private carriers .

If the petitioners had

been found to be a common carrier in .feot the commis sion would have
bad jurisdiction over
au:thority
commission
rier,

and

t~em

in prohibiting
found
it

the
did

and could have properly exercised its


their

petitioners
so

find,

operations .
to
the

be

juris-

But
private

when
car-

the

Page: 25 of 30

08/28/2014

Case: 14-55077

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 26 of 30

/Idiction of\ the! eummission over them was at an end .

It seems to me

that the prevailing opinion has misconceived the real purpose and
ob ject of the Aut o Stage and Truck Transportation Aot .

The opinion

fails to diatinguish between regulation looking to safety and the


conservation of the highways and the regulation of persona by whom
the highways ma.y be used .

As to regul(ltions concerning safety aDd

the conservation of the highways t hey must be uniform and apply


equally as between those similarly situated and
uses both public ana private .
example of such regulation .
~

m~

comprehend all

The Motor Vehicle Act is a familiar


But such an act necessarily prescribed

uniform course of conauct to which all must conform and when i t s

requirerents &.x:e met must be available to

an.

Use of the highways

under suoh an act may be regulated but not prohibited, with certain
exceptions not material here .

Concerning the regulation of the

persons who may use the public highways it is unqijeStioneb ly true


that the state

not only regulate but may prohibit the use there-

m~

of by persons, firms or corporations engaged 1n the business of a


common carrier .
it to another.

It may grant the privilege to . one carrier and deny


It may

~egulEte

the charges and service of a common

carrier and it may prevent other common carriers from competing with
a privil eged carrier .
Truo~

Such is the purpose of the Auto Stage and

Transportation Aot .

In other words , the purpose of the regu-

latory provision here in question is to prevent , in the public int eres t, r uinous competition as between o oncerns engaged in a like
publ i c bus iness .

With reference to a similar aot in the state of

washi ngton the supreme court of the United States in Buck v. KUykendall , 267

u.s

said: "Its primary purpose is not regulation with

a view to safety or to conservation of the


bition of competition .
persons by whom the
eons by whom the

highwa~s ,

but the prohi-

It determines not the manner of use but the

high\va~s

highw ~ s

may be used."

In

determining the per-

may be used the state has no power in my

judgment under the guise of prohibiting competition to deny to its


citizens the right to use the public highways for their own private
purposes whether for business or for pleasure .

But assuming that

it has that right and parti cularly the right to prohibit a priVijte

14~55077

Case:

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry:

5~11

Page: 27 of 30

-//business use of the

highw~ys

as

~ounced

by the opinion it would

necessarily be true that such regulatory prohibitions must be

unifo~m

and apply to all similarly situated and be enforced through the medium of a state agency duly constituted for that purpose.
case a

st~te

But in this

agency whose judicial powers extend only to the regula-

tion and control of publio utilities and matters properly germene


thereto proceeds to hale before it a concern using the highways f or
its own

priv~te

purposes, its private rights are adjudicated, it is

found to be engaged in a private business and it is put out of business because forsooth its private business diminishes the revenues
of a certificated common carrier .

That the commission

~cted

judi-

cially in determining after notice end hearing and on evidence the


s tatus of the uefendants before it and in issuing the injunction
cannot be denied.

That the commission mey act judicially when legal-

ly authorized so to do is likewise beyond question.

Its authority

to ao t 1n that oepe.city however cannot be determined alone from a


consideration of the amendment to the

sta~ute

in 1919.

Such a grant

of power must come from the constitution or from some act of the
l6gislature which is constitutionally authorized.

It is not con-

tended as indeed it may not be that the commission has direc t grant
from the constitution to regulate private business .

True, this court

co~elled

the commission to assume jurisdiction of transportation

oomp~niea

prior to any legislative enactment on the subject (western

Association etc. R. R. v. Railroad Oommiesion, 173 Cal. 802) but the


transportation companies before the commission in the proceeding involved in that case end over which the oQmmiseion was required to
take jurisdiction were admittedly common ca1riers am as such public
utilities within the definition of section 23, article MII, of the
constitution.

The whole purpose of that section and of the preceding

section 22 in' re-esteblishing the

railro~d

commicaion and endowing

it with extensive powers was to regulate and control public utilities


privately owned {City of Pasadena v . Railroad Commi esion, 1 83 Cal.
526, 534) end it is set tled by the decisions

o~

thia court beyond

question that such additional powers as the legislature may confer

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 28 of 30

upon the commission must be "germane to the sub ject of regulation


and control of publi:o utilities" (Pacific T. & T. Co . v . "Jilshelman,
I

166 Cal. 640; City of Pasadena v. Railroad Corum., supra; uotor Tranett
Co . v. Railroad Comm., 189 Cal. 573).

c,,,.,f"l

such is the rule but

The commission recognizes that

NIIJ"

"that the regulation of the type of car-

riage here in question is, because of its power to destroy reguleted


carriage, most cognate and

germ~ne

to the subjeot of the regulation

end oontrol of public utilities (cQrrlers] ."

I deny that the com-

mission has power to suppress and destroy a private business because


such private business may be in competition with the business of the
common carrier.

This is , : indeed; a curious but nevertheless an ef-

fective method of taking private property for publio use without compensation.

Furthermore, if the quest ion of competition be the test

and the elimination of competition be germane to the subject of reguletion and control of the public utility it is difficult to conoeive
Why it is necessary to consider the use o:f the public highwl_vs in
connection With such competition for if the power to suppress competition be possessed by the commission it may be exercised against
the outlawed competitor whether he operate on the public highways
or elsewhere.

I:f the suppression of competition alone does not make

such regulation germane to the subjeot of

regnl~tion

and control of

public utilities then it cannot be made so germane under the guise


of regulating the use of" the public highways .

we are here deQ.ling

with public and pri vate concerns which use the public highways in
their

~~~

business but the fact that they are so using them in

so fa r as competition is concerned is a mere ciroumstanoe .


The pr evailing opinion concedes that the conclusions renohed
are without direct precedent .
of other states it
h~ve

is

reference to the laws and decisions

found that Michigan, Ohio , Utah and Washington

statutes similar to our auto stage and truok transportation act .

The courts of last resort of those states in constrt.ing the ir

ste.tu~

tory provisions have uniformly reached a conclusion opposed to the


pr evailing opinion (Hissem v. Guran and Meyers (Ohio}, 146 N.E . 808;
& Banker,

Davis~v . Metcalf, 131 Wash. 141, 229 Pao . 2; State v. Nelson (Utah ) ,

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 ~ 9224533

DktEntry: 5 -11

).I-

238 Pac. 237.)

The declaration of the supreme court of the United

States in Vdchigan Public Utilities Commission v . Duke, 266


is directly in point.

u.s.

570,

In that esse Duke had employed 75 men and 47

motortrucks as a private carrier under three private contracts for


the transportation of automobile bodies from Detroit to Toledo . under the public u.tilitiea act of .Michigan which concededly is essentially similar to our own auto stage and truck transportation aot
it was sought to subject Duke to regulation as a common carrier.
The court said:

~oreover,

it is beyond the power of the state by

legislative fiat to convert property used exclusively in the business


of a private carriel' into a public u.tility, _ or to make the owner a
pu.blic carrier, for that would be

t~ing

private property for pu.blic

use without just compensation, which no state can do consistently


with the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment . (Producers
Tr~nsportation

Co . v .5'a ilroad Oor:unission. 251 U. S. 228, 230; Wolff

Co. v . Industrial Court, 262 U.

s.

522,

536~

On the facts

~bove

re-

ferred to, it is clear that, if enforc.e d against him, the act would
deprive plaintiff of his
constitution. "

prope~ty

in violation of that

ol-E~use

of the

The prevailing opinion attempts to distinguish that

case from the one at bar on the growld that :puke's contracts were outstanding at the time the Michigan statute took effect and for that
reason the statute was not applicable to him.

The supreme court of

the United States did not base its decision on the


tract olauae but on the fourteenth amendment.

imp~irment

of con-

Such in my opinion

should be . the conclusion reaohe_d in this case, that is to

say~

it

should be decided that the petitioners by reason of the act of the


coUilllission have been deprived of their property frthout due process
of law, have been denied the equal protection of the law and their
private property has been taken for pu.blio
compensation.
nulled .

use ~ without

just or any

The order of the railr oad commission should be an-

Page: 29 of 30

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-11

Page: 30 of 30

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 1 of 14

Philip Christian Bikle

2
3

,~

.. ii~&lVE D
'\.au.v
c. oWYEfl Ct.EAK
U s-COURT OF A~PSAL.S

..

AUG 2 8 201~

4
5

FILED'- - - - - -

Appellant in Pro Per

b()CKETED

DATE

--t-.imf""'i'Xl..--

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #12

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 2 of 14

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, in Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the following California case law entitled, "Buelke v. Levenstadt" (1923).

4
5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13
14

15

16
17

18
19

20
21

1!9( It#
Philip Christian Bikle

0~5(/!1
Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 8 of 14

Westlaw
214 P. 42
190 CaL 684, 214 P. 42
(Cite as: 190 Cal. 684, 214 P. 42)
Supreme Court of California.
BUELKE
v.
LEVENSTADT et al.
L.A. 7309.
March 23, 1923.

ln Bank.
Action by Augusta E. Buelke, special administratrix of August E. Buelke, deceased, against Nat
Levenstadt and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Automobile~ 48A ~193(13)
48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability
48Ak183 Persons Liable
48Akl93 Owner's Liability for Acts of Servant or Agent
48Akl93(13) k. Incompetency of servant. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 200kl83)
Under Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p. 223, 14, declaring it unlawful for one to
permit his child, ward, or employee to drive his auto on the highway without first obtaining a license for him,
that application of a minor shall not be granted unless his parent or guardian sign it, and that negligent driving
of a minor so licensed shall be imputed to the person signing his application, the minor's negligence is so
imputed, though the one signing as "parent" merely stood in the relation of in loco parentis to the minor, and
employed him to drive his machine.
[2] Automobiles 48A
48A Automobiles

~132

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 9 of 14

48AIV License and Regulation of Chauffeurs or Operators


48Ak132 k. Constitutional and statutory provisions. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k121(1))
Statutes 361 => 1624(25)

361 Statutes
361X Subjects and Titles
36lk1618 Relation of Title to Contents of Statute; Title-Subject or Clear-Expression Rule
36lkl624 Statutes Relating to Particular Subjects
36lk1624(25) k. Motor vehicles. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lkl21(1 ))
Provision of Motor Vehicle Act. St.l915, p. 411, 24, as amended by St.1919, p. 223, 14, declaring the
terms and conditions on which minors may be licensed to drive, held germane to the subject, within ConsL
art. 4, 24; as to subject and title of acts.
[3] Automobiles 48A ~191

48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability
48Akl83 Persons Liable
48Akl91 k. Parent and child. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 36lk72)
Statutes 361

~1723

361 Statutes
361Xl General and Special Laws
361XI(C) Uniformity of Operation
36lkl702 Particular Laws
361k1723 k. Tort or fmancialliabilities. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 361k72)
Provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p. 223, 14, that negligence of a minor in
driving shall be imputed to the parent or guardian signing his application for license, does not violate Const.
art. 1, 11 , requiring general laws to have uniform application.
[4] Automobiles 48A <:=;>191

48A Automobiles
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 10 of 14

48A V(A) Nature and Grounds of Li~bility


48Akl83 Persons Liable
48Ak191 k. Parent and child. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k205(2))

Constitutional Law 92 ~2894


92 Constitutional Law
92XXIV Privileges or Immunities; Emoluments
92XXIV(A) In General; State Constitutional Provisions
92XXIV(A)2 Particular Issues and Applications
92k2894 k. Torts. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k205(2))
(West's Ann.) Const. art. 1, 21, forbidding a grant of special privilege to one citizen or class of citizens
not given on the same terms to all, is not violated by Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p.
223, 14, providing .that negligence of a minor in driving shall be imputed to the parent or guardian signing
his application for license.

**42 *684 Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Paul J. McCormick, judge. Jennings &
Belcher, of Los Angeles, for appellants.
Duke Stone and Perry F. Backus, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.

*685WASTE, J .
The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, brought this action to recover for
injwies resulting in the death of the decedent and caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by
defendant Nat Levenstadt, a minor. The automobile was owned by defendant Manis Levenstadt, uncle of
Nat, whose relation to the boy was that of in loco parentis, and who, in order that Nat might procure a license
to operate a motor vehicle, had signed the required application therefor. At the time of the accident the uncle
was not present, and the boy was engaged upon an independent mission of his own. Special issues were
submitted to the jury upon the answers to which the court entered judgment in plaintiffs favor, and against
both defendants, who have appealed.
It is admitted at the outset of the presentation of the appeal that, as to the defendant Nat Levenstadt, the
evidence of negligence was conflicting and that as to him there is no just ground for reversal. We shall
therefore disregard him in the discussion of the case, and shall refer to the defendant Morris Levenstadt as the
appellant. He was held liable solely by reason of the provisions of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act of
1915 (St. 1915, p. 411), as amended by St. 1919, p. 223, 14, which provides for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles, and imputes the negligence of a minor in the operation of an automobile upon the
public highway to the person who shall have signed the application of such minor for such license. The
section provides in brief that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or drive such vehicle upon the
public highways unless licensed by the motor vehicle department of the state. The concluding portion, the
part germane to this discussion, is as follows:

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 11 of 14

48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability


48Akl83 Persons Liable
48Akl91 k. Parent and child. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k205(2))

Constitutional Law 92 ~2894


92 Constitutional Law
92XXIV Privileges or lnununities; Emoluments
92XXIV(A) In General; State Constitutional Provisions
92XXJV(A)2 Particular lssues and Applications
92k2894 k. Torts. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k205(2))
(West's Ann.) Const. art. l, 21, forbidding a grant of special privilege to one citizen or class of citizens
not given on the same terms to all, is not violated by Motor Vehicle Act, 24, as amended by St.l919, p.
223, 14, providing that negligence of a minor in driving shall be imputed to the parent or guardian signing
his application for license.

**42 *684 Appeal from Superior Court, Los Angeles County; Paul J. McConnick, judge. Jennings &
Belcher, of Los Angeles, for appellants.
Duke Stone and Perry F. Backus, both of Los Angeles, for respondent.

*685 WASTE, J.
The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. brought this action to recover for
injuries resulting in the death of the decedent and caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by
defendant Nat Levenstadt, a minor. The automobile was owned by defendant Monis Levenstadt, uncle of
Nat, whose relation to the boy was that of in loco parentis, and who, in order that Nat might procure a license
to operate a motor vehicle, had signed the required application therefor. At the time of the accident the uncle
was not present, and the boy was engaged upon an independent mission of his own. Special issues were
submitted to the jury upon the answers to which the court entered judgment in plaintiffs favor, and against
both defendants, who have appealed.
It is admitted at the outset of the presentation of the appeal that, as to the defendant Nat Levenstadt, the
evidence of negligence was conflicting and that as to him there is no just ground for reversal. We shall
therefore disregard him in the discussion of the case, and shall refer to the defendant Monis Levenstadt as the
appellant. He was held liable solely by reason of the provisions of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act of
1915 (St. 1915, p. 411), as amended by St. 1919, p. 223, 14, which provides for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles, and imputes the negligence of a minor ju the operation of an automobile upon the
public highway to the person who shall have signed the application of such minor for such license. The
section provides in btief that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or drive such vehicle upon the
public highways unless licensed by the motor vehicle department of the state. The concluding portion, the
part germane to this discussion, is as follows:

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 12 of 14

'Provided, that it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or knowingly to permit his or her child, ward
or employee to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public highway, whether as a chauffeur or operator,
without having first obtained such license as is hereinbefore specified; provided, that the application to the
department of a minor to operate or drive a motor vehicle, whether as chauffeur or operator, shall not be
granted by the department unless the parent or parents having the custody of such applicant or the guardian of
such applicant shall have joined in said application by signing the same; *686 and provided, further, that any
negligence of a minor, so licensed, in operating or driving a motor vehicle upon the public highway, whether
as chauffeur or operator, shall be imputed to the person or persons who shall have signed the application of
such minor for said license, which person or persons shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for
any damages caused by such negligence.'
**43 [1] Appellant's first contention is that, as he is neither the parent nor guardian of Nat Levenstadt, he
is not one of the persons required by the statute to sign a minor's application, and is therefore a mere
volunteer, who cannot be held liable under the provisons of the act. To sustain such contention would be to
countenance a fraud upon the people of the state. In order to procure a license for his minor nephew.
appellant joined in the application of the boy to the motor vehicle department of California, in which he gave
his relationship to the minor as 'father.' Upon the faith of this guaranty the license to the minor was issued.
The evidence shows that Nat's parents died when he was 12 years of age. His sister and he then went to live
with their uncle, this appellant, who had no children of his own, and the record conclusively establishes that
from that time on appellant stood in the relation of in loco parentis to both children. He conducted a grocery
store and owned a delivery truck for use in his business. Nat drove this truck for him. He testified that 'no
one else had anything to do with the driving of the truck except Nat.' For these services appellant paid the
boy1 who was about 19 years of age, $8 a week and his board. Had appellant permitted Nat, regarded either as
a son or as an employee1 to operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public highway without first having
obtained a license as required by the act, he would have been guilty of a misdemeanor. In order to avail
himself of Nat's services, he was compelled by law to join with the minor in the application to the department
for the proper license. He did so, misrepresenting his relationship to the applicant. It is quite apparent why he
did so, and we are not constrained to assist him in evading the liability he assumed over his own signature by
any nicety of construction or regard for technical use of words.
*687 But, aside from this attitude, it is the well-settled law that one standing in loco parentis to those held
out as members of his family is entitled to all the rights of a parent. Whitaker v. Warren, 60 N.H. 201 49 Am.
Rep. 302. He also incurs the same liability with respect to them that he is under to his own children. Starkie
v. Perry, 71 Cal. 495, 497, 12 Pac. 508; Larsen v. Hansen, 74 Cal. 320, 322, 16 Pac. 5. The relation being
established the reciprocal rights, duties and obligations pettaining to it arise between them the same as if he
was their natural father. Eickhoff v. Sedalia, etc., Ry. Co., 106 Mo. App. 541, 544, 80S. W. 966; 1 Schouler's
Domestic Relations (6th Ed.) 686, 687. We see no reason, therefore, why one standing in such relation
may not voluntarily assume the liability imposed by the statute in the same manner and with like effect as
though he were a natural father.

[2] It is next contended that the portion of section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act under consideration is
violative of section 24 of article 4 of the state Constitution, which provides that 'every act, shall embrace but
one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title.' All that is required in that connection is that the
subject must be in some way indicated by the title of the act, or be logically germane to it, and included
within its scope. Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. 649, 653, 67 Pac. 1082. As said in another case, there must be a
reasonably intelligent reference to the subject to which the legislation of the act is addressed. Estate of

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 13 of 14

McPhee, 154 Cal. 385, 389, 97 Pac. 878. Numerous provisions having one general object, fairly indicated by
the title of the act, may be united. The general purpose of the statute being declared the details provided for
its accomplishment will be regarded as necessary incidents. Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 637, 29 Pac. 251.
The title of the Motor Vehicle Act declares that it is one enacted (among other things) 'to regulate the use and
operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; * * * to provide for the licensing of persons
operating motor vehicles; to prohibit certain persons from operating vehicles upon the public highways.' The
mere statement of appellant's objection is sufficient to refute it. While the provision declaring upon what
terms and conditions minors *688 may be licensed to operate motor vehicles is not carried in the title, the
subject is germane to the general subject there expressed, and forms a part of the comprehensive scheme
provided. It is an appropriate method of effecting one of the main objects of the law. Robinson v. Kerrigan,
151 Cal. 40, 50, 90 Pac. 129, 121 Am. St. Rep. 90, 12 Ann. Cas. 829; Pritchard v. Whitney Estate Co., 164
Cal. 564, 567, 129 Pac. 989.
[3][4] Appellant's final contention is that the provision of the act is unconstitutional, because it is
unreasonable and discriminatory, and is not uniform and general in its application. The application of the law
to minors in a class by themselves is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The argument that the law attempts to put
into a class by themselves all minors, irrespective of their age, experience, ability to drive, or their financial
responsibility, is one that should be presented to the legislative department and not to the courts. In reStock,
167 Cal. 294, 296, 139 Pac. 684. While some minors are more apt at learning to run motor vehicles than
others-possibly more apt than many adults-the fact remains that they are minors. They are in position to
be, and in a vast number of cases are. intrusted with the control and operation of motor vehicles upon the
public highways. While an automobile is not, in and of itself, a dangerous machine, it may become such in
the hands of a careless and indiscreet person. The statute prohibiting the operation of motor vehicles upon the
public highways by minors, without their first having obtained **44 licenses which can only be procured
upon an assumption of liability for their negligence by parent or guardian, is in effect a determination by the
Legislature that minors have not that discretion and judgment which entitles them to unrestrained permission
to operate such vehicles upon the public thoroughfares, freed from all parental liability for their negligence
except in those cases where it can be established that they are acting as the agent or servant of the owner of
the car causing an injury. Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo. App. 415, 425, 133 S. W. 351. The Legislature no
doubt had in mind the fact that the authorities are in accord in holding that, as a general rule, in an action
based on the negligent running of an automobile, the owner of the car who was not present at the infliction of
the injury cannot be *689 held liable, except it be shown that the person in charge not only was the agent or
servant of the owner, but also was engaged at the time in the business of his service. Daily v. Maxwell, supra;
Bryant v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 174 Cal. 737, 742, 164 Pac. 385. In this state it is now firmly established,
also, that in the absence of a statute creating a liability, the rule applies when the driver is a minor child, and
the father is the owner of the car, and all courts recognize the general rule that a parent is not liable for the
torts of his child. Spence v. Fisher, 184 Cal. 209,211, 212, 193 Pac. 255, 14 A. L. R. 1083.
We may assume, also, that the law-making body was fully cognizant of another rule oflaw relating to the
torts of minors which is somewhat in the nature of an exception, and that is that a parent may become liable
for an injury caused by the child, where the parent's negligence made it possible for the child to cause the
injury complained of, and probable that it would do so. Schultz v. Morrison, 91 Misc. Rep. 248, 154 N. Y.
Supp. 257, 258; Hoverson v. Noker, 60 Wis. 511, 514, 19 N. W. 382, 50 Am. Rep. 381; Chaddock v.
Plummer, 88 Mich. 225, SON. W. 135, 14 L. R. A. 675, 26 Am. St. Rep. 283. This liability is based upon the
rules of negligence rather than on the relation of parent and child (Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N.J. Law. 754, 760,
71 Atl. 296, 19 L. R. A. [N. S.] 335, 131 Am. St. Rep. 677) and finds support in the direct relation of cause
and effect. Elmendorf v. Clark, 143 La. 971 , 79 South. 557, L. R. A. 1918F. 802. In the case of an injury by
an automobile, the liability rests, not alone upon the fact of ownership, but upon the combined negligence of

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-12

Page: 14 of 14

the driver in the operation of the automobile, and of the owner in intrusting the machine to an incompetent
driver. Berry on Automobiles (2d Ed.) 603; Parker v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 361, 371, 60 South. 1501 43 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 87.
The Legislature has now declared that under a given state of facts a liability exists where none existed
before. The right of action here provided for is, in effect, a modification of the common-law rule exempting a
parent from liability for the torts of his minor child, joined with the other rule that a parent may become liable
for an injury cansed by the child, and made possible, and probable, through the parent's negligence. Its
creation does no violence to the *690 provision of the Constitution (article 1, 11 ) requiring general laws to
have uniform operation, nor that (article 1, 21) forbidding a grant of special provileges to one citizen, or
class of citizens, which are not given on the same terms to all. Pritchard v. Whitney, supra, 164 Cal. 568, 129
Pac. 989.
The objection that the law attempts to create a liability on the part of a parent or guardian signing a
minor's application, without regard to any inherent liability of such parent or guardian, and without regard to
their negligence or fault. is answered by what we have already said. The statute involved in Daugherty v.
Thomas, 174 Mich. 371, 140 N. W. 615, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 1163, so strongly relied
upon by the appellant, is not the same as the one here. The court there had under review an act of the
Legislature which made the owner of a n automobile liable for any injury caused by the negligent operation of
his car by any person who might obtain possession of it, even though it be without his consent or knowledge.
ln declaring such provision repugnant to the Constitution, the court said it was not then dealing with 'the
question of the responsibility, be it moral or otherwise, of the owner of an automobile who has placed it in the
hands of an inesponsible person to use.' 174 Mich. 379, 140 N. W. 61 8, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, Ann. Cas.
1915A, 1163.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILBUR, C. 1.; LENNON, J.; KERRIGAN, J.; LAWLOR, J. ; SEA WELL, J.; MYERS , J.

CA. 1923
Buelke v. Levenstadt
190 Cal. 684, 214 P. 42
END OF DOCUMENT
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig . US Gov. Works.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

tO: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle

3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 20l{c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

~OTICE#13

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20

Defendants

ORIGINAL

21

I'

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-13

Page; 2 of 13

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the fo1lowing selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle Code and to ad

Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part 4, Division 3 of the

Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,

relating to vehicles."

s
9
10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

.,

el:j r flf/;
Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

tO: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: 8 of 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 3, 1959
5
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&~-- ~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 0112009)

~ OSP 09 11.:3643

Case: 14~55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

.
'

Assembly Bill No.5

..

'

the Senate February 12, 1959

-------L_--c:-~

. bill was rece1ved


.
.
by the Governor this-

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: 9 Of 13

Case: 14-55077

08/28/20l 4

-3CH.A.PTER__

d __

An act to repeal and re-enact the Vehicle Code and to add


Chapter 6.5 (commencing at Section 3067) to Title 14, Part
4,Division 3 of the Civil Code and to amend Section 11004.5
of tl1e Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to vehicles.

The pccpl3 of the Sta.te of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1. The Vebicle Code is repealed.
SEC. 2. 'r he Vehicle Code is enacted to read:
G ENERAL PROVISIONS

_1. This act shall be known as the V ehiele Code.


2. The provisions of this code, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subj~ct matter, shall be construed as restatements a.ad continuations thereof and not as new enactments.
a. .A.ll persons who, at the time this code goes into effect,
ltold office under the code repealed by this code, which offices
are continued by this code, continue to hold them according
.tq. their former tenure.
r 4. No action or proceeding commenced before this code
.~es.ef!ect, and 110 right accrued, is affected by the provisions
of ~1s code, but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall
C,.Onform to the provisions of this code so far as. possible.
5: . If any portion of this code is held unconstitutional, such
dbe~tsJon shall not affect the validity of any other portion of
t IS code.

6. Unless the provision or the context otherwise requires,


:tse general provisions and rules of construction shall govern

construction of this code.


. 7. Division, chapter, article, and section headings do not
lJI a.~~ manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the
PrOVlStons of this code.
8- Whenever, by the provisions of this code, a power is
~nted to a public officer or a duty imposed upon such an
afliccr, the power may be exercised or the duty p erformed by
- Ia dehuty of the officer or by a person authorized pursuant to
IV Y the officer.
re 9 . Whenever any notice, r eport, statement, or record is
1: qu ~red by this code, it shall be made in writing in t he
n.g tsh language.

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: 10 of 13

Case: 14-55077

14

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: 11 of 13

-12under this code, or who are employed by manufacturers 0 d'


tributors to promote tbe sale of vehicles dealt in by such ~ tsfacturers or distributors; provided, however, that if any an~
persons also sell vehicles at retail, they shall be deemed tsu~
0
vehicle dealers and are subject to this code.
(3) P~rsons regularly. employe~ as ~alesmen by ve .
dealers hcensed under thlS code wh1le actmg within the s~cle
of such employment.
Pe
( 4) Persons exclusively engaged in the bona fide busines
exporting vehicles or of soliciting orders for the sale ~of
delivery o vehicles outside the territorial limits of the Unitn~
States; provided, no federal excise tax is legally payable ~
any of such transactions, or such tax is legally refuudabt
on such transactions.
e
(5) Persons not engaged in the purchase or sale of vehicles
as a business, disposin,g o vehicles acquired for their own
use, or for use in their business when the same shall have been
so acquired and used in good faith, and not for the purpose of
avoiding the provisions of this code.
290. The "department" is the Department of Motor Ve.
hicles except when used in Chapter 2 o Division 2 ( commencing at Section 2100) and in Divisions 11 and 12 ( commencina
at Sections 21000 and 24000) of this code it shall mean th~
D epartment of the California Highway Patrol.

295. The "director 11 is the Director of Motor Vehicles.


300. A "drawbar" is a rigid structure forming a connection between a trailer and a towing vehicle, securely attached
to both vehicles by nonrigid means and carrying no part of
the load of either vehicle.
305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual
physical control of a vehicle.
310. "Driver's license" includes both an operator's and a
chauffeur's license.
315. "Essential parts" are all integral and body parts of
a vehide o a type required to be registered under this code,
the removal, alteration, or substitution o which would tend to
conceal the identity of the vehicle or substantially alter its
appearance.
320. 1 'Established place o business" is a place actually
occupied either continuously or at regular periods by a dealer,
manufacturer, automobile wrecker or automobile driving
school where the books and records pertinent to the type o.f
business being conducted are kept. The place of business shall
have an office and in the case of a dealer, manufacturer or
automobile wrecker shall h ave a display, manufacturing or
wrecking area, situated on the same property where bus~ess
peculiar to the type o license issued by the department lS or

Case.: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

r
-

DIVISION 6.
CH.A..PTER

1.

101 -

OPERA'l'ORS' AND CHAUFFEURS'


LICENSES
IssuANCE oF LicENsEs , EXPIRATION, AND
RENEWAL

Article 1. Persons Required to Be Licensed, Exemptions,


and Age Limits
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
highway unless he then holds a driver's license issued under
this code, except such persons as are expressly exemp ted under
this code.
(b) An operator's license issued hereunder shall entitle
the licensee to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles
except as provided in subdivi~on (c).
(c) No person shall operate upon a highway a motor vehicle
having an unladen weight in excess of 12,000 pounds, nor
operate any motor vehicle towing a vehicle having a gross
weight in excess o.f 6,000 pounds, except special mobile equipment or an implement o husbandry, unless he then holds a
valid chauffeur's license permitting such operation or a valid
operator's license which has been endorsed by the department permitting such operation, except such J?ersons as are
expressly exempted under this code.
This subdivision shall not apply to any person who held a
v~id. operator's license on September 11, 1957, until the expiratiOn of such license.
(d) It is a misdemeanor for any person to ddve a motor
vehicle upon a highway as a chauffeur unless he then holds
a chauffeur's license duly issued under this code, except such
persons as are expressly exempted under this code.
12501. The following persons are not r equired to obtain
a driver's license:
(~) An officer or employee of the United States, while ope8rating a motor vehicle owned or controlled by the United
tates on the business of the United States.
(b) kAy person while driving or operating implements of
hUsbandry incidentally operated or moved over a higbway.
(c) kAy person while operating a self-propelled wheelchair
or mvalid tricycle.
. 1~502. (a) A nonresident over the age of 21 years having
~!1~ immediate possession a valid operator's license issued to
~ ln his home state or country may oper ate a motor vehicle
1
11_ this State as an operator only for not to exceed one year
'Without obtaining a license under this code.
. (b) A nonresident over the age of 21 years having in his
~~diate possession a valid chauffeur's license issued to him
Ut his home state or country may operate a motor vehicle in

DktEntry: 5-13

Page: -12of 13

Case: 14-5507

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-13

FILED
In th~t office of the Secretory of State
of the State of California

FEB 2 5 1959.

AL_J__o'cloci<.__

M,

FRANK, . JORDAN, Secretary of State

296 -

Page: 13 of 13

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-14

JD: 9224533

Page: 1 of 11

Philip Christian Bikle


AE~i;\VIal3
MO~Y9.PwYEA. C~ERK

U.$: COURT

AUG 2 8 20\4

FlLED-------OOCKETED'--~DAo;o;:JE-- -IN"""'IT,.,.IAL.,...

OrAliPEALS

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCillT

10

11

Philip C. BikJe

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE # 14

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-14

Page: 2 of 11

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian


2

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 310, 12500, 12502, 12503,

12506, 12510, 12511, 12512, 12514, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519, 12800, 12804,

12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551 , 13802, 14605, 14606, 14607, 14900,

16081 , 22514, 42230, and the heading of Division 6 (commencing with Section

12500) of, and to repeal Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and 14604 of the

Vehicle Code, relating to drivers' licenses."

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

etr(~
Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

tO: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-14

Page: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 1615, 1961
3
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full, true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

b~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 0112009)

OSP091i3643

t5&: 4-EE&;; BMl&asa - \& IJQQJ BMMAHY: _f Dade:Qof 1

Assembly Bill No. 2229

--

:_ "I

Pa.sScd the Senate June 8 1961

'

This bill was received by the Governor

i"'

day oL ___ - {
: 1.-"'

-~---
J

&

th~L--=---

//
' 1
2
1961, aLJ.-<?o c ockf_M.

C4~~4C/ -~
Private Seof"etary of the Governor

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ICE 9224533''

-3CH.A.PTER_/6_j. j
An act to amend Sections 310, 12500, 12502, 12503, 12506,
12510, 12511, 12512, 12614, 12515, 12517, 12518, 12519,
12800, 12804, 12811, 12813, 12814, 13100, 13550, 13551,
13(J02, 14605, 14606, 14607, 14900, 16081, 22514, 42230,
a11d the heading of Divisi(Yn 6 (commencing with Secti(Yll,
12500) of, (J!Itd to repeaL Sections 250, 450, 12801, 12812, and
14501. of the Veh4c1.e Code, relating to df"ivers' licenses.
The people oj' the Stale of California do enact as follows:
1. Section 250 o the Vehicle Code is r epealed.
SBC. 2. Sect ion 310 of said code is amended to read :
310. "Driver's license'' is a license to drive the type of
motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person is
licensed under this code.
SEo. 3. Section 450 of said code is repealed.
. SEc. 4. The heading of Division 6 (commencing with Sec~on 12500) o.f said code is amended to read :
SEcTION

DIVISION 6. DRIVERS' L I CENSES


SEc. 5. Section 12500 of said code is amended to read :
.12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
hlghway uuless he then holds a driver 's license issued under
th!s code, except such pe1sons as are expressly exempted under
thlS code.
(b) A driver's license o any c1ass descr ibed in Seation
~?804; sllall entitle the licensee to operate any vehicle or commation of vehicles included within the class for which such
license was issued.
~~ 6. Section 12502 o said code is amended to read :
.
0~. A nonresident over the age of 21 years having in his
~edtate possession a valid driver 1s license issued to him in
S~~o~e state or count-ry may operate a motor vehicle in this
nhde t~~ not to exceed one year without obtaining a license
..... er .uls code.
~~~- 7. Section 12503 of said code is amended to read :
state 03. A nonresident over the age of 21 years whose home
operaor country does ~ot require the ~icensing of drivers may
da:vs te_ t~ fore1gn vehic1e owned by him for not to exceed 30
WI out obtaining a license under this code.

DktEntry: 5-14

Page: 10 of 11

Case: 14-55077

Of/ 28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-14

-12-

l
~
:~

.t

q
' '!f

,i
I

'

'

Approved __

j_l)__~_j__'k::-__ ________,

F I ~ .E D
:.~ ..
' .

In the office of the Secretry of St~t~


of the State of California

JULl 3 1961

~~

1961

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-15

Page: 1 of 11

Philip Christian Bikle

RM~~- ~W~A~CJR~
U.$: COVAT OF AtlP.EAL$

AUG 28 ZOl~

FILEDI- - - - -- - -

DOCKETEOI-----::o::::=ATE~- ~IN=tr=tAL:-

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,

12

) Case No. 14-55077

) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR


)

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #15

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

OR\G\NAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-15

Page: 2 of 11

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend sections 310 and 12500 of the vehicle

5
6
7

8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16

17
18
19
20

21

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-15

Page: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California ,


hereby certify:
3
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 0112009)

~ OSf\09113643

Case: 14-5507'7 ..... 08/28/201-4

ID:-92-24533 .. DktEntry: 5-15

7
Assembly Bill No. 461

Passed the Assembly March 14, 1963

Passed the Senate March 29 1963

'

_ ~,,;A..(
ill was rece1ved by the Governor this-~Y---=------

'l'his b'
da
y

c "-'

j~
)
7
M.
---L.&J~~.:
--<-~ r.,O 'CIOCkL___
/
- - - -- - -- - 1 1963, at --~r

..

.
(__./:!Uu_~l/IVZ ~~I

' 1

;:

Private Secret'ivry of tke Governor

Page: 9 of 11 .

Case: 14-55077 ""'08/28/2014

lo :-9224533'

3-

CRAPTER__

Z:f

A.n aot to amend Sections 310 and 12500 of the Vehicle Oode,
relating to driver's license.
'!he people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 310 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
"3:J.O. "Driver's license" is a valid license to drive the type
of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles for which a person
is licensed under this code.
SEc. 2. Section 12500 of said code is amended to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a
highway unless he then holds a driver's license issued under
this code, except such persons as are expressly exempted under

this code.
(b) No such person shall drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which he is licensed.

DktE.ntry: 5-15

Page: 10 of 11

Case: 14-55077

0~/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-15

Page: 11 of 11

-4-

.,~A.
'".

. ..

m~
Speaker of the Assembly

.,.

0.

:,..;

EIL.:ED
Governor

,, ?

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-16

JD: 9224533

Page: 1 of 11

Philip Christian Bikle


CElY.~Q

't C. DWVEf\ ~~~


COURT OF A\~1:%

AUG 28 20\4

3
4

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C . Bikle
Plaintiff- Appellant,

12

) Case No. 14-55077


) D .C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

14

Officer A . Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE # 16

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-16

Page; 2 of 11

To all parties., please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Californi

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend section 305 and 310 of the vehicle code,

relating to drivers' licenses''

7
8

9
10
11

12
13
14
15

16

17
18

19

20
21

et; ( /(~
Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-16

Page: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN , Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify:
3
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 01/2009)

OSP 09 113643

Case:14-5507T 08/28/2014

10 : 9224533 . .DktEntry: 5-16

':

Assembly Bill No. 862

Passed the Assembly ay 4, 1971.

Passed the Senate June.ll, 1971"

Thi8 b'U
1

I L'

r r:;

was received by the Governol'> this_._L.Q._=----

1..

day oL:..[../L
A
'2____ o ,clock....t:::..-M.
. L'Y
-Llf--=--- - ------, 1971, at__ ..,:;t

Page.: 9 of 11

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

1D: 9224533- DktEntry: 5-16

P.age:. 10 of 11

'

-3-

_&'._

CHAP'l'ER _
A1~

act to amend Sections 305 and 310 of the Vehicle Code,


?'elating to drivms' licenses.

The t>copl e of the Btatc of Call:[Onlia do enact as follows:


SECTION

1.

Section 305 of the Vehicle Uode is amended to

read:
305.
ph~sical

A "driver" ic; a. person who drives or is in actual


control of a vehicle. Tht> term "driver" does not

include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary


cnpacity, assists the driver in the stef'ring or operation of any
articulated firefighting appnratus.
SEc. 2. Section 310 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
310. " Driver's license" is a valid lieense to drive the type
of motor vehicle or combiuatiou of vehicles for whidt n petson
is licensed under this code or by a foreign jurisdiction.

I
i

I
.. !.

Case: 14-55077

8/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-16

Page: 11 of 11

-4 -

~pprmd- --------~Q_i_________,
..

1971

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-17

Philip Christian Bikle

Page: 1 of 11

R E C E i. i/ . ! 0
. MOLLY c. oWVER;.fi1F~
u .S. COURT OF APP~

AUG 1 8 10\~

3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIR.CillT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D .C . No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE # 17

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

OR\G\N~\.
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-17

Page: 2 of 11

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Califomi

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 4000, 12500, 12501, and 14605

of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles."

{2!J.-r L&

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-17

P age: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, C hapter 62 I, 1984
That the attached transcript of
3
page(s) is a full, true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August15,2014

b~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form C-109 (REV 0112009)

~ OSP 09 113043

Case: 14-55077

08/2"8/2014

-- ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-17

..

Assembly Bill No. 2283

I :-

Passed the Assembly August 7, 1984

i
I

Passed the Senate July 6, 1984

Private Secretar; of the Governor

1 0

Page: 9 of 1 1'

Case: 14-55077

14

ID: 9224533
AB 2283

DktEntry: 5-17

Page: 10 of 11

-4-

upon a highway any motor vehicle, as defined in Chapte

2 (commencing with Section 39010) of Part 1 of Divisio~


26 ?f the ~eal~h a_nd Safety Code, which ~as been

registered m v10lahon of Part 5 ( commencmg With


Section 43000) of that Division 26.
(c) This section does not apply, following payment of
fees due for registration, during the time that registration
and transfer is being withheld by the department
pending the investigation of any use tax due under the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
(d) When a vehicle is' towed by a tow car on order of
a sheriff, marshal, or other official acting pursuant to a
court order or on order of a peace officer acting pursuant
to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of
Division 11, subdivision (a) of this section does not apply.
SEC. 2. Section 12500 of the Vehicle Code is amended
to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle
upon a highway, unless the person then holds a driver's
license issued under this code, except those persons who
are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles that is not of a type f0r which the
person is licensed.
(c) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in or upon
any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds
a driver's license of the appropriate class or certification
to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision,
"offstreet parking facility" means any offstreet facility
held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and
includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet
parking., and privately owned facilities for offstreet
parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park
and which are held open for the common public use of
retail customers.
SEC. 3. Section 12501 of the Vehicle Code is amended
to read:
12501. The following persons are not required to
obtain a driver's license:
(a) An officer or employee of the United States, while
operating a motor vehicle owned or controlled by the
95 90

Case: 14-55077

8/2014

ID: 9224533

FIL:ED .

In the office of tfle Stcretury of Slat.


of the Stat. Gf CoUforn1a

DktEntry: 5-17

Page: 11 of 11

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-18

Page: 1 of 11

Philip Christian Bilde

v
2
3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR TilE NINTH CIRCtnT

10
II

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: I3-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County~

) NOTICE #18

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
2I

Defendants

ORIGINAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-18

Page: 2 of 11

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Californi

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 405, 2936, 12500, and 12804.9

of, and to add Section 14602.5 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles."

6
7

8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21

().L.If / /) ' /)

'(

( ' k~
Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-18

Page: 8 of 11

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 1359, 1990
3
That the attached transcript of
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15,2014

b~~~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

See/State Form CE-109 (REV 01/ 2009)

~ OS P 091 13643

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-18

Page: 9 of 11

Assembly Bill No. 55

Passed the Assembly Au

Passed the Senate August 29, 1990

c;:J

This bill was received by the Governor this


day of

b ,

1990, at

/.62-

___;_/t_~--

o'clock

jJM.

1 0

AB 55

rl
rl

.......
0
0

rl
Q)

g>
Q.
00

rl
I

L!)

~
.......
c

w
~

.:;t
rl

-ro0

00
N

-4 -

SEC. 2. Section 2936 of the Vehicle Code is amended


to read:
2936. (a) The commissioner shall report to the
Legislature by January 15 of each year on all of the
following:
(1) The condition of the fund.
(2) Identification of any contracts or grants made
during the year.
(3) The amount of the grants or contracts.
(4) The services to be provided pursuant to the grants
or contracts.
(5) The group or agency contracted with to provide
the services .
(b) The commissioner shall conduct a study of the
effectiveness of the program as a whole, and the
contributions of each component activity, including the
effectiveness of instruction, as measured by comparative
accident rates of persons completing classes in contrast to
persons not having completed classes, together with
recommendations as to future courses of action to
enhance motorcycle safety. A preliminary report on the
study shall be submitted on or before July 1, 1991.
Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a final report on the
study shall be submitted as part of the regular annual
report due to the Legislature pursuant to subdivision (a)
which shall be submitted by January 15, 1992.
SEC. 3. Section 12500 of the Vehicle Code is amended
to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle
upon a highway, unless the person then holds a driver's
license issued under this code, except those persons who
are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) No person shall drive any motorcycle,
motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a
highway, unless the person then holds a driver's license
or endorsement issued under this code for that class,
except those persons who are expressly exempted under
this code, or those persons specifically authorized to
operate motorized bicycles with class 3 or class C licenses
as specified in subdivision (g) of Section 12804.9.
(c) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or

-5-

AH 55

combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the


person is licensed.
(d) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in or upon
any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds
a driver's license of the appropriate class or certification
to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision,
"offstreet parking facility" means any offstreet facility
held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and
includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet
parking, and privately owned facilities for offstreet
parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park
and which are held open for the common public use of
retail customers.
SEC. 4. Section 12804.9 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
12804.9. (a) (1) The examination shall include all of
the following:
(A) A test of the applicant's knowledge and
understanding of the provisions of this code governing
the operation of vehicles upon the highways.
(B) A test of the applicant's ability to read and
understand simple English used in highway traffic and
directional signs. .
(C) A test of the applicant's understanding of traffic
signs and signals, including the bikeway signs, markers,
and traffic control devices established by the
Department of Transportation.
(D) An actual demonstration of the applicant's ability
to exercise ordinary and reasonable control in operating
a motor vehicle by driving it under the supervision of an
examining officer. The applicant shall submit to an
examination appropriate to the type of motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles he or she desires a license to
drive, except that the department may waive the driving
test part of the examination of any applicant who holds
a valid license issued by another state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia,
or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The examining
officer may request to see evidence of financial
responsibility for the vehicle prior to supervising the
demonstration of the applicant's ability to operate the

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-18

Page: 11 of 11

02;.1990

StP 2 7 \990
1 0

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Page: 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle

----

FILEO-------=-- -!lll11l~

oOCKEiEO-

o~:TE

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

V.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe1-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

)NOTICE #19

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

OR\GlNAl

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Page: 2 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: Philip Bikle v. A. Santos, et al

9th Cir. Case No.: 14-55077

5
I certify that 2 copies of the document: An act to amend Sections 39005 and

6
7

81033 of. and to repeal Section 81034 of. the Education Code, to amend Section
14007 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 21602. 99234, and 102051 of
the Public Utilities Code, to amend Section 101.8 of, and to add Section 2121 to,
the Streets and Highways Code. and to amend Sections 410, 635, 4453, 4461.

9
10

4604, 11713.3, 12500, 12502. 12505, 12517.2, 12524, 12802, 12804.2, 12804.7,
12810.5. 12812, 13352, 14606, 15250.5, 15250.6, 15255, 15255.1. 15275,
21456.1.21801.22450.22651. 22658. 23157,23161.23166,23168,23186,

11
12
13

23195. 34500. 34505.1. 34505.6, 35581, 35780.3. 36305, and 40508 of. and to
amend and repeal Sections 12804.9 and 12804.12 of. and to repeal Sections 12804
and 23157 of. the Vehicle Code. relating to transportation, and declaring the
urgency thereof. to take effect immediately."

14

(title of document you are filing)

15

and any attachments was served, either in person or by mail, on the persons listed

16

below.

17
18

Signature

Date Served

Notary NOT required


19
20
21

Name of party served

Address

Officer A. Santos

Lakewood Station
5130 Clark Avenue, Lakewood, CA 90712

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Pag e: 8 of 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 272, 1993
That the attached transcript of
5
page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&b>~~
DEBRA BOWEN

Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (RE V 01/2009)

~ OSP 09 113643

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Page: 9 of 13

2.7z..Cu)
Ass~mbly

Bill No. 301

Passed the Assembly July 16, 1993

Passed the Senate July 15, 1993

~ . d- ~ ~
-.. ... .- Sfi:retary of the Senate
;1

\. o

, :
i

\.
as received by the Governor tltis

c4}1:11

day of ----l;~~~~--, 1993, at;Y.'L()o'clock ~M.

-2-

.AB 301

CHAPTER

Ct

;L)~u..)

Ct
l

i\n act to amend Sections 39005 and 81(}:3..3 o. rmci tc.


repeal Section 81034 of, the Education Code, to amend
Section 14007 of the Govenunent Code: to a.m.en.d ~-
tions 21602,99234, and 102051 of the Public Ct:ili.ties Code.
to amend Section 101.8 of, and to add Section 2!11 to. the
Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Sections 41u.
635' 4453' 4461 , 4604.. 11713.3, 12500.. 1250'2. 12505. 12517 .2..

S)

tl

p
0

3t

12524, 12802, 12804.2, 12804.7, 12810..5: 12812.133.52. 14606.


-250::>" A.':-C. . ..t1 .:.l.~t
~ - ;;E1
.;:) ~ I-250
~
6 ~ r-255-,:>
, 15255 1~ I:.!'r."~l::l? :...1~..i
__
1;)
22450, 22651? 22658, 23157: 23161, 23166, 2.3168. 231~.
t) AC:::t\~ 6
3558-'1 : _'4~0..>
':: ..1.~-"l:::. Q~ ,--"
23195 ' 34500' 34505-- 1" ~:).
)
;J<.J t ~J.oJ .J'..Ar.i.J. h.l
40508 of., and to amend and repeal Sections EL<~.9 a<,d
12804.12 of, ~~d to repeal Sections lZS and ~lS: oL tile
Vehicle Code= relating to transportation~ and dec.la.--in:
thP. 1u-gency thereot to take effeet irru.-ne.diate1y .

LEGISL.t.ffi' COt.:\SEL'S DiGl='...sT

C,

li

:\B 301, Katz. Transportation: "-ehid es: Omnibu.'


Tra.Ib--portation Act.
( 1) A provision of law which formerly requ:i..Ted ea
county to .annually submit to the Depar-rment c
Transportation any additions or e.~clusiolli :&om i~
mileage of maintained county highways. " 'as ?epealed by
Chapter 1243 of the Statutes of 199'2
This bill would reinstate that pro\isicm.

(2 ) Under existing la-w, if a site proposed tc be


acouired for a communitY eolle\re building; i..- "t<"ith i :G ~
m.iies of an airport boundiD:,. tht:> go\'erning~board ;f :he
community college district is required to give notice ai
the proposed acquisition to the Board of Governo:-~ or L'-:ie
California Community Coll~es. The hoard of Q:overnors
is required to ilrlffiediateh notifY t."te Di;ision oi
Aeronautics in the Department of T~a:nspt.>."'"t..ation of t..he
proposed acquisition. The Di\ision of :\eronauti~ is
required to make an in, 'e.stigation and. ~ithin 25 &"~
report to th- board of govem'Ors. The board of goveTnOTE
is required to investigate the prO{-X\..~i site ~..nd. ~ithin 3\:1
days. submit a '"'Titten report and recomm-endation~

Sl

t]

c
SJ
~

1
r;

a
e
tJ

a
e
p

r.
c

----..--JCa;as~e=-..J,1.:~:
4=-s~si.U
o..J_
77.~....---.~ows.u.l"-1
28..u.I.-:
20ioLolo~o.::4J--_~~
~.,9224533

-23-

DktEn try: 5 -19

Page: 11 of 13

. AB 301

or refuse to renew a franchise in violation of A.""ticle 4


(commencing with Section 3060) of Chapter 6 of Division

2.
(m) To employ a person as a representative who has
not been licensed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing
with Section 11900) of Chapter 4 of Division 5.
(n) To deny any dealer the right of free association
with any other dealer for any lawful purpose.
(o) To compete \vith a dealer in the same line-make
operating under an agreement or franchise from a
manufacturer or distributor in the relevant market area.
A manufacturer or distributor shall not, however, be
deemed to be competing when operating a dealership
either temporarily for a reasonable period, or in a bona
fide retail operation which is for sale to any qualified
independent person at a fair and reasonable price, or in
a bona fide relationship in which an independent person
has made a significant investment subject to loss in the
dealership and can reasonably expect to acquire full
ownership of the dealership on reasonable terms and
conditions. A distributor shall not be deemed to be
competing when a wholly owned subsidiary corporation
of the distributor sells motor vehicles at retail, if, for at
least three years prior to January 1, 1973, the subsidiary
corporation has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the
distributor and engaged in the sale of vehicles at retail.
(p) To unfairly discriminate among its franchisees
with respect to warranty reimbursement or authority
granted its franchisees to make warranty adjustments
with retail customers.
( q) To sell vehicles to persons not licensed under this
chapter for resale.
(r) To fail to affix an identification number to any park
trailer, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 18010 of
the Healt.l} and Safety Code, which is manufactured on or
after January 1, 1987, and which does not clearly identify
the nnit as a park trailer to the department. The
configuration of the identification number shall be
approved by the department.
SEC. 17. Section 12500 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
91

520

Case: 14-55077

AB 301

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Page: 12 of 13

-24-

12500. (a) ~o person shall drive a motor vehicle


upon a highway~ tmless the person then holds a driver?s
license issued under this code, except those persons who
are expressly exempted under this code.
(b } No person shall driv~ any motorcycle,
motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a
highway, unless the person then holds a drivers license
or endorsement issued under thk code for that class,
except those persons who are expressly exempted under
this code, or those persons specifically authorized to
operate motorized bicycles \\rith a class C licenses as
specified in subdivision (g ) of Section 12804.9.
(c) No perso~ shall drive a motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the
person is licensed.
(d ) No person shall diive a motor vehicle in or upon
any offstreet parking facility, un!ess the p erson then holds
a driver's license of the appropriate class or certification
to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision,
"offstreet parking facility" means any offstreet facility
held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and
includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet
parking, and privately owned facilities for offstreet
parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park
and which are held open for the common public use of
retail customers.
SEC. 18. Section 1250-2 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
12502. (a) The following persons may operate a
motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's
license under this code:
( l 1 A nonresident over the age of 18 years having in his
or her immediate possession a valid drivers license issued
by a foreign jurisdiction of which he or she is a resident,
except as provided in Section 12505.
(2) A nonresident having in his or her immediate
possession a valid driver's license, issued by the
Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Office of the Office of Foreign
Missions of the United States Department of State, for the
type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that the
person is operating.
91

540

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-19

Page: 13 of 13

JUL 3 0 i993
Approved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1993

'

-~

FILED

Governor

tn the office of the Seaetucy of Stcft


of the State of California

1 0

" '""

- -- ..

- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - ---------

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-20

Page: 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle

2
e, O

\ "' ~Y:.~~

C ~~.~ C~\.S
~ '7~ c.~1 or- p.~?
tf\~.s. co>J
1.~\"

~~~ 1. ~

Appellant in Pro Per

~~

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10

II

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel -2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 20l(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #20

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

OR\G\NAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-20

Page: 2 of 13

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Section 5220 of the Business an

Professions Code, to amend Section 44241 of the Health and Safety Code, and to

amend Sections 407, 1808.4, 5004.1, 12500, 12951, 14601.2, 14601.5, 14608,

14609,22511.55,22511.6, 23302, and 40202 of, to add Section 5902.5 to, and to

repeal Section 24016 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation."

9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

rZIJ< rL1:z
Philip Christian Bikle

Vits/1 cr
Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-20

Page: 8 of 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California ,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 1292, 1993
That the attached transcript of
s page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August15,2014

&~--~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV 01/2009)

~ OSP 09 11 3843

case~

14-550 1 1

0872872014

Senate Bill No. 274

Passed the Senate Septembe:r il:t 1993

Prwsed the Assembly September 9, 1993

This bill was received by the Governor this


day

"~v

1993, at

d:=.

cf23 1-..:}

o'clock~.

c ase: 14-550 77

SB

~4

oetze;zot4

10. !!!45~~

E>MEt tli y. 5 28

Po:~ e. 18 ef 19

-2CHAPrER

Jd-'j d-

An act to amend Section 529D of the Business and


Professions Code, to amend Section 44241 of the rtealth

and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 4f11, 1808.~


5004.1, 12500, 12951, 14001.2., l.t601.5, 14008, 146m,
22511.55, 22511.6~ ~ and 40102 of, to add Section
5902.5 to, and to repeal Section 24016 of, the Vehicle
Code, relating to transportation.
LECISIATIVE COUNSEL!.S DIGEST

SB
274,
Committee
on
Transportation. Transportation: records: vehicles:
highways.
( 1) The Outdoor Advertising Act defines the term
ccprimary highway,. to mean any highway, other than an
interstate highway, at any time officially designated as
p~ t of the federal-aid primary system by the Director of
Transportation and approved by the appropriate
authority of the federal government.
This bill would change that definition to include any
highway, other than an interstate highway, designated as
part of the federal-aid primary system in existence on
June ~, 1991, and any highway that is not in that system
but which is in the National Highway System.
(2) Existing law provides for a specified fee on motor
vehicles registered in an air pollution control disbict or
air quality management district, as specified, to
implement the California Clean Air Act. Those fee
revenues are required to be allocated, among other
allocations, to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District to implement specified transportation control
projects and programs.
This bill would add to those listed projects and
programs, the implementation of an automotive buyback
scrappage program.
(3) Existing law defines a motorized quadricycle" as
a four-wheeled device designed to carry not more than 2
persons, including the driver, and having either an
electric motor or a motor with an automatic transmission

Case: 14-55o77- ~08/28/2014

10: 9224533 - Dktt"ntry: 5-20

-11-

Page: 11 of 13 -

SB 274

amended to read;
5004.1.

(a) An owner of any vehicle that is a 1962 or

older model year vehicle may~ after the requirements for


the registration of the vehicle have been complied with
and with the approval of the departmen~ utilize iicense
plates of this state with the date of year corresponding to
the model year date when the vehicle was manufactured,
if the model year date liceDSf:! plate is legible and
serviceable, as determined by the department, in lieu of
the license plates otherwise required by this code. The
department may consult 'With an organization of old car
hobbyists in determining whether the date of year of the
license plate to be used corresponds to the model year
date when the vehicle was manufactured.
(b) A fee of thirty-five dollars ($3-5) shall be charged
for the application for use of the special plates.
(c ) In addition to the regular renewal fee for the
ve~ricle for which the plates are authorized, the applicant
for a renewal of the plates shall be charged an additional
fee of ten dollars ($10). When payment of a regular
vehicle renewal fee is not required by this code, the
holder of any license plates with a date corresponding to
the model year may retain the plates upon payment of an
annuai fee of twenty dollars ($20) > which shall be due at
the expiration of the registration year of the vehicle to
which the plate was last assigned under this section.
(d) Whenever any person who has been authorized to
utilize the special license plates applies to the
department for transfer of the plates to another vehicle;
a transfer fee of twelve dollars ($12) shall be charged in

addition to all other appropriate fees.


SEC. 6. Section 5902.5 is added to the Vehicle Code,
to read:
5902.5.

Whenever any application for a registration


transaction is filed with the department during the 30
days immediately preceding the date of expiration of
registration of the vehicle, the application shall be
accompanied by the full renewal fees for the ensuing
registration year in addition to any other fees that are due
and payable.
SEC. 7. Section 12500 of the Vehicle Code, as
93 300

>-.- ._

Case: 14-55077

SB 9:14

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-20

Page: 12 of 13

-12-

amended by Section 17 of Chapter 272 of the Statutes of


1993, is amended to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle
upon a highway, unless the pe!'SOn then holds a valid
driver~s license issued under tlLs code, except those
persons who are expressly exempted under this code.
fb) No person shall drive any motorcycle,
motor..cJriven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a
highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's
license or endorsement issued under this code for that
class, except those persons who are expressly exempted
under this code, or those persons specifically authorized
to operate motorized bicycles with a valid driver,s license
of any class, as specified in subdivision (g) of Section
12804.9.
(c) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or
comb;nation of vehicles that is not of a type for which the
person is licensed.
( d} No person shall drive a motor vehicle in or upon
any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds
a valid driver's license of the appropriate class or
certification to operate the vehicle. As used in this
subdivisil)n} "offstreet parking facility'' means any
offstreet facility held open for use by the public for
parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned
facilities for offstreet park!ng, and privately owned
facilities for offstreet parking where no fee is charged for
the privilege to park and which are held open for the
common public use of retail customers.
SEC. 8. Section 12951 of the Vehicle Code is amended
to read:
12951. (a) The licensee shall have the valid driver's
license issued to him or her in his or her immediate
possession at all tim~s when driving a motor vehicle upon
a highway.
Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed
when the person charged produces in court a driver~s
license duly issued to that person and valid at the time of
his or her arrest, except that upon a third or subsequent
charge the court in its discretion may dismiss the charge.
When a temporary, interim, or duplicate driver's license
93 390

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

.ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-20

so
Governor

1 0

Page: 13 of 13

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-21

Page; 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle

~'~
rtJAU
fi g
U.S. OOUAr
0FAPfJA1~K

AUG28 20f4
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8: 13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

V.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #21

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-21

Page: 2 of 13

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend sections 15975 and 29535 of the

government code, to amend section 99314.6 of, and to add sections 130051.21 and

130243 to, the public utilities code, to amend sections 188.8, 348, and 438 of, and

to add section 73.3 to, the streets and highways code, and to amend sections 1801,

4000, 12500, 12800.5, 12804.14, 21212, 22651, 23136, 23137, 23158.2, and

42205 of, and to add Sections 5002.7 and 25282 to, and to repeal section 32108 of,

I0

the vehicle code, relating to transportation, and declaring the urgency thereof, to

11

take effect immediately."

12

13

14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21

elf( Kh
Philip Christian Bikle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry 5-21

Page: 8

oJ 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California ,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 10, 1996
That the attached transcript of
s page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&b\~ ~
DEBRA BOWEN
Secretary of State

Sea/State Form CE-109 (REV 01/2.009)

~OSP09 l1 3643

c ase: 14-556 77 69/29/2014

r-

10:--9224533

bklt:!litry. S-21 Pdg.-9 mMti.'(l_.~J


~~

1-

~c:) ~)

I
I

Assembly Bill No. 1869

'
Passed the Assembly January 25, 1996

~OL4<~
Acting

Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Passed the Senate September 15, 1995

J~tJ.L_Jj;
:..Secretary of the Senate

d\

1bis bill was received by the Governor this ~0 day


of

~\lrutf 1~ at '3-'.?-() o'clock +\1-

~eL~,
.. c..__
Private Secretary oj
~rnor
Corrected 1-29-96

mw::a:~-...riiM&II!!IIi!M
ll lllilll61111iiliiii07iiii7.._1@99!19{~289!1/~29~1~:4---tt
l Dr.: -':t92r.2~4~533

AB 1869

-2- (

CHAPTER/0

DktEntry: 5-21

Page: 10 of

U/

An act to amend Sections 15~5 and 29535 of the


Gove rnment Code, to amend Section 99314.6 of, and to
add Sections 130051.21 and 130-243 to, the Public Utilities
Code, to amend Sections 188.8, 348, and 438 of, and to add
Se ction 73.3 to, the Streets and Highways Code, and to
amend Sections 1801,4000, 12500, 12800.5, 12804.14, 2121~
22651, 23136, 23137, 23158.2, and 42205 of, and to add
Se ctions 5002.7 and 25282 to, and to repe al Section 32108
of, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation, and
decJ 'lring the urgency thereof, to take effect
imme diately.
LEGISLI\ID'E COtNSET ;s DlGESr

AB 1869, Katz. Transportation.


(1 ) Unde r
the Social Service Transportation
Improvement Act, transportation planning agencies and
county transportation commissions are r e quired to adopt
and submit reports to the Director of Transportation on
all existing social service transportation services in their
respe ctive geographic areas, and we re require d, not later
than December 31, 1981, to adopt and submit to the
Secre tary of the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency an action plan describing in detail the steps
required to accomplish the consolidation of social service
transportation services. The action plan includes
de signating a single agency or multiple agencies as
consolidated transportation service agencie s.
This bill would provide that in Ventura County, the
county transportation commission is the consolidated
transportation service agency.
(2) Existing lav.r requires a local transportation
commission to be established for each county not within
the jurisdiction of a statutorily cre ate d regional
transportation planning agency or a council of
governments: .A local transportation commission is
required to be comprised of members appointed by the
county board of supervisors, members appointed by the

93

Case: 14-55077

.AB 1869

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-21

Page: 11 of 13

-18-

organi?ation is providing emergency roadside assistance


to that vehicle. However, the operatcr of a tO\\' truck
providing that assistance to that vehicle is not responsible

for the violation of subdivision (a) \\rith respect to that


vehicle. The O\vner of an unr~tStered vehicle that is
disabled and located on private property, shall obtain a
permit from the department pursuant to Section 4003
prior to having the vehicle towed on the high\\ray.
(g) For purposes of this section, possession of a
California driver~s license by the registered owner of a
vehicle shall give rise to a rebuttable prestJmption that
the owner is a resident of California.
SEC. 11. Section 5002.7 is added to the v ehicle Code~
to re!l.d:
5002.7. (a) For any county of over 20~000 square miles
in area and 2,855 miles of maintained county roads>any
member of the county board of supervisors who is
regularly issued a county-o\vned vehicle may apply to the
department for regular series license plates for that
vehicle) if a request for that issuance is also made by the
county board of supervisors. The application and the
request shall be in the manner specified by the
department.
(b) Regular series license plates issued pursuant to
subdivision (a) shall be surrendered to the department
by the board member or administrative officer, as
applicable, upon the reassignment of a vehicle~ for which
those plates have been issued, to a person other than the
person who requested those plates.
SEC. 12. Section 12.500 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
12500. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon
a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's
license issued under this code~ except those persons who
are expressly exempted under this code.
(b) No person shall drive any motorcycle,
motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a
highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's
license or endorsement issued under this code for that
class, except those persons who are expressly exempted
93

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

-19-

DktEntry: 5-21

Page: 12 of 13

_.t\13 1869

under this code, or those persons specifically authorized


to operate motorized bicycle s vrith a valid driver~s license
of any class, as specified in subdh'ision (g) of Section
12804.9.
(c) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in or upon
any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds
a valid driver's license of the appropriate class or
certification to operate the vehicle. As used in this
subdivision, "offstreet parking facility" means any
offstreet facility held open for use by the public for
parking vehicles and includes any publicly O\\."ned
facilities for offstreet parking, and privately O\vned
facilities for offstreet parking \Vhere no fe e is charged for
rhe privilege to park and "hich are held open for the
common public use of retail customers.
(d) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles that is not of a type for "vhich the
person is licensed.
SEC. 13. Section 12800.5 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:
12800.5. (a) A license issued after January 1, 1981,
shall bear a fullface engraved picture or photograph of
the licensee.
(b) A license issued on or after July 1~ 1995~ including
a temporary license issued pursuant to S~ction 12506,
shall bear the following notice: ..This license is issued as
a license to drive a motor vehicle ; it does not establish
eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public
benefits.,,
(c) The department may demand proof of age prior to
the issuance of a license.
SEC. 14. Section 12804.14 of the Vehicle Code is
amended to read:

12804.14. (a) The department may issue a r estricted


class A driver's license for the operation of any hvo-axle

vehicle weighing 4,000 pounds or more unladen when


towing a livestock trailer exceeding 10,000 pounds, but
not exceeding 15,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
or gross vehicle weight~ if all of the following conditions
are met:
93

. '1.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntiy: 5-21

Page: 13 of 13

:~

i.

'\

?
:,1~

;~
4 ~t
i-:

'

:
:!

'

r\

..

..
;

Approved

~S-\, \ u

r. t

, 1996

.,
In the office of the Secretary ot Staie
of the State of Califoil!~

Governor

,:

. \
' t --.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-22

Page: 1 of 8

RECEIVED

Philip Christian Bikle

MOU.Y C, DWYER, CLERK


U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

AUG 2 8 2014
f l l . i D ' - - - - - - - -

PQCKIHOI.--,.,Mflfti~- -"- !J:ili'l~

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-5 5077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #22

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20

Defendants

21

Case: 14-55077

10 : 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-22

Page: 2 of 8

To all parties. please be advised that plaintift/appellanL Philip Christian


Bii..Je. In Pro pt:r. moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of tht: inf(m11ation within the follow ing ~eJected pages from the California
legislative net entitled. "An act ro amend Sections ~60 and 15:; l 0 oC and to add

1 .,

Section 3 5 I 0.1 to. 1he Vehicle Code. relating to vehicles."

:?fv~J: (_ ,' ~~~-,


I
/!

8
9
lO

ll
12

14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21

,' 1

Phili p Christian Bikh:

Case: 14-55077

1848

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEn try: 5-22

STATUTES OF 2003

Page: 8 of 8

[Ch. 222]

CHAPTER 222
An act to amend Sections 260 and 15210 of, and to add Section 35103
to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
[Approved by Governor August 9, 2003. Filed with
Secretary of State August II, 2003.}

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1. Section 260 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
260. (a) A " commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type
required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed,
used, or maintained ptimarily for the transportation of property.
(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not
commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.
(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not
apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.
SEC. 2. Section 15210 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
15210. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, as used in
this chapter:
(a) "Commercial driver's license" means a driver's license issued by
a state or other jurisdiction, in accordance with the standards contained
in Part 383 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which
authorizes the Iicenseholder to operate a class or type of commercial
motor vehicle.
(b) (1) " Commercial motor vehicle" means any vehicle or
combination of vehicles which requires a class A or class B license, or
a class C license with an endorsement issued pursuant to paragraph (4)
of subdivision (a) of Section 15278.
(2) "Commercial motor vehicle" does not include any of the
following:
(A) A recreational vehicle, as defined in Section 18010 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(B) Military equipment operated by noncivilian personnel, which is
owned or operated by the United States Department of Defense,
including the National Guard, as provided in Parts 383 and 391 of Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(C) An implement of husbandry operated by a person who is not
required to obtain a driver's license under this code.

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 1 of 13

Philip Christian Bikle

2
3
4
5

Appellant in Pro Per

6
7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCU1T

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff - Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doel-2, in individual capacities;

) of Evidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

) NOTICE #23

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20

Defendants

ORIGINAL

21

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 2 of 13

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the California

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 407.5, 12500, 12509, 12804.9,

21225, and 21235 of, and to add Section 21226 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to

vehicles."

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

tp Chnsttan B1kle

Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 8 of 13

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN , Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 755, 2004
That the attached transcript of
s page(s) is a full , true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

8c~~~
DEBRA BOWEN

Secretary of State

Sea;IState Form CE-109 (REV 01/2009)

~ OSP 09 1136113

Assembly Bill No. 1878

Passed the Assembly

August 15.2004

.,
1',(

Passed the Senate

August 24. 2004

This bill was received by the Governor this

&pj:m/:Jer .

2004. at_j_

!J/h

day of

o'clock~.

~~k.Oh>

Private Secretary of the Gcnenwr

Case: 14-55077

10: 9224533

08/28/2014

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 10 of 13

- 2-

AB 1878

An act to amend Sections 407.5, 12500. I 1509. 12804.9.:! l225.

and 2123 5 of. and to add Section 21226 to. the Vehicle Code.
relating to vehicles.
LEGISLmVf COl":"St:L'S Dl<it:ST

AB 1878. Chan. Motor scooters.


( 1) Existing law requires a manufacturer of nlotorized scoot~rs.
as defined. to provide each buyer of those scooters with a specified
disclosure regarding insurance policie~ and related co\crage.
This biil would revise the definition of 1notorized scooters. and
would additionally require those manufacturers to proYide a
specified disclosure ro those buyers that advises the buyers that
they may not modify or alter the exhaust system to cause it to he
amplified or create an excessi\e noise in violation of noise
restrictions and n1uftler requirements imposed by the bill . or to
cause it to fail to meet applicable emission requiren1ents.
(2} Existing law prohibits operating a motorized scooter
without certain equipment or in certain manners.
This bill would prohibit a person from operating a motorized
scooter that is powered by a source other than electrical power.
both on a highwav- and off-highwav. unless that motorized scooter
has a muftler. in constant operation and properly maintained. that
meets the requiren1ents of this bill.
(3) Under existing law~ a person may not operate a motorized
scooter when the operator is under the age of 16 years.
This bil! instead would prohibil a person from operating a
n1otorized scooter unless that person holds a valid cla~s C dn vers
I icense or instnlction permit.
This bill would also prohibit a perso~ from modifying or
altering the exhaust system of a motorized scooter in violation of
noise restrictions and muft1er requirements imposed by the bill.
(4) Existing law specifies that the statures governing motorized
scooters do not prevent a city or county, by ordinance. from
regulating, among other things, the parking and operation of
motorized scooters on pedestrian or bicycle facilities if that
regulation is not in conflict with the Vehicle Code.
~

1} _,

Case: 14-55077

AB 1878

08/28/2014

JD: 9224533

DktEntry: 5- 23

Page: 11 of 13

- 6-

(2) The di$closure required under paragraph (I. l shall meet both
of the following requirements:
.
(A) The disclosure shall be printed in not less than 14-pomt
boldface type on a ~ingle sheet of paper that cont;tins no
information other than the disclosure.
(B) The disclosure shall include the following language in
capital letters:
" YOU MAY NOT ~10DIFY OR ALTER THE EXHAUST

SYSTEM OF THIS SCOOTER TO CAUSE IT TO AtvfPLlFY


OR CREATE EXCESSIVE NOISE PER VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 21226. OR TO FAIL TO MEET APPLICABLE

ErvUSSION REQUIREMENTS PER VEHICLE CODE


27 J56.--

(e) This section shaH become operative on January l. 2008.


SEC. 3. Section I 2500 of the Vehicle Code is an1ended to
read:
! 2500. (a} A person may not dri\'e a motor vehicle upon a
highway. unless the person then holds a valid drivers license
issued under this code. except those persons who are expressly
exempted under this code.
(b) A person may not drive a motorcycle. motor-driven cycle.
or motorized bicycle upon a highway. unless the person then holds
a valid drivers license or endorsement issued under this code for
that class. except those persons who are expressly exempted under
this code. or those persons specifically authorized to operate
motorized bicycles or motorized scooters with a valid driver\
license of any class. as specified in subdivision fg) of Se~tion
12804.9.
(c) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in or upon any
offstreet parking facility. unless the person then holds a valid
drivers license of the appropriate class or certification to operate
the vehicle. As used in this subdivision. ..offstreet parking
facility .. means any offstreet facility held open for use by the
public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned
facilities for offstreet parking. and privately owned facilities for
offstreet parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park
and which are held open for the common public use of retail
customers.

'f: : .

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

- 7-

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 12 of 13

AB 1878

(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of


vehicles thal is nor of a type for which ihe person is licensed.
(e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all
times be equip~d with an engine that complies with the applicable
State Air Resources Board emission requirements.
SEC. 4. Section 12509 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
l ~509. {a) Except as othef\,vise provided in ~ubdivision (t) of
Section 12514. the departn1ent. for good cause. may issue an
inslruction pem1it to any physicaHy and n1entally qualitied person
who n1eets one of the following requirements and who applies to
the department for an instruction permit:
( 1 ) Is age J5 years and 6 n1onths or O\'er. and has successfully
completed approved courses in :..mtomobile driver education and
driver training as provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section i 28 l-t6.
( 2) Is a~e 15 Jvears and 6 months or over. and ha" successfuJJ v
completed an approved course in automobile driver education and
is taking driver training as provided in paragraph (J) of
subdivision (a) of Section 12814.6.
( 3) Is age 15 years and 6 months and enrolled and participating
in an integrated driver education program as provided in
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
12814.6 .
(4) Is O\'er the age of 16 years and is applying for a restricted
drivers license pursuant to Section 12814.7.
(5) ls over the age of 17 years and 6 months.
(b) The applicant shall qualify for. and be issued. an instruction
pcm1it within 12 months fron1 the date of the application.
(c) An instruction pen11it issued pursuant to subdivision (a)
shall entitle the apphcant to operate a vehicle. subject to the
limitations imposed by this section and any other provisions of
law. upon the highways for a period not exceeding 24 months from
the date of the application.
(d) Except as provided in Section 1281-l-.6. a person , while
having in his or her immediate possession a valid pennit issued
pursuant LO paragraphs (I) to (3). inclusive. of subdivision (a). tnay
operate a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle. motorized
scooter, or a motorized bicycle. when accompanied hy. and under
the immediate supervision of. a California licensed driver with a
~

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

10 : 9224533

DktEntry: 5-23

Page: 13 of i3

, ~

"-

FILED

In the office of the Secr8tary of State


of the State of California

SEP ! 4 2004
At

7
J

J ;;- O'Crock

/ --:>

M.

KEVIN~HE~LEY, ~ta}e
8i2 h &<-th-fi. h 't?[_ (~
Deputy Secretar}' cf Sta

SEP 24 1004
Approved ----------------~-----,2004

.o

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-24

Page: 1 of 12

Philip Christian Bikle

2
RECEIVED
MOLLY C. OWYcR1 Ct.Ei=ll(

U.S. COU~f OF APPEAls

AUG 2 8 2014

FILI!D------ ~,

DOCKETED.:--~-- ~tL
DATE
IFill'"

Appellant in Pro Per

7
8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

10
11

Philip C. Bikle

12

Plaintiff- Appellant,

) Case No. 14-55077


) D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR

13

v.

14

Officer A. Santos, in his individual capacity;

) Request for Judicial Notice

15

Officer Cathy Hayes, in her individual capacity;

) pursuant to Federal Rules

16

Doe 1-2, in individual capacities;

) ofEvidence (Rule 201(c)(2))

17

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department;

18

Los Angeles County;

)NOTICE#24

19

City of Lakewood in Los Angeles County;

20
21

Defendants

ORIGINAL
1

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

ID: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-24

Page: 2 of 12

To all parties, please be advised that plaintiff/appellant, Philip Christian

Bikle, In Pro per, moves the court in the above entitled action to take judicial

notice of the information within the following selected pages from the Califomi

legislative act entitled, "An act to amend Sections 1804, 5002.7, 12500, 12810.5,

12811 , 13005, 15210,22450, and 22452 ofthe Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles."

t/1f. rL&

Philip Christian Bikle

8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19

20
21

riJs/11/
Date

Case: 14-55077

08/28/2014

tO: 9224533

DktEntry: 5-24

Page: 8 of 12

State of California
Secretary of State

I, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California,


hereby certify: Selected Pages, Chapter 630, 2007
That the attached transcript of
4
page(s) is a full, true and
correct copy of the original record in the custody of this office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this


certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State
of California this day of
August 15, 2014

&~*-~
DEBRA BOWEN

Secretary of State

Sec/State Form CE-109 (REV01/2009)

~ OSP 09113643

,,
t,

.'

:::

Passed',the Seriate

.......

S~pteurber

.... .,, ..
~

ll ~ 2007

1-.s:r

This bill was received bY the G<}\ernor thj,


of

6c...~~c=tL... . 2007. at 3:\\ 5

o'ciock

?.

cia\-.-

.\1.

-;:

~'ii

:. -~~
.--~~1
,.i;'!, :

' '

~~ -~

..,_ #,' ...

..

.._. . ..

........

~ ~ .

...

:.-:< !~~- r~).;i~~ii

;..

:~ .

.,_ :::.

. ;,;:;;....

~;-"}>! . / :_:; e;\:.' : :,~: . . .

--~=~ <:: . .;_ifi='acr-~;~~~lr~~~rs&t-::5002;t7~~~~5bfl~~L~sto~5. t28i 1

._.- J'$@.$, 15ii_O,%;:~~~i~fi~~~5ihf,_~zvebicle_Code~


relating to
.,, .

. r,;_:..~ , .
. .....
_., ..veriides.
;

~ r " ,::.

'

. . J:....
'-, ... "".
'.

..

..

....
~

':

~;

r;:;

.,

AB 1728.-C9mi'ni!t~#.-. on;:Tt4nsportation. Vehicles.


(I) EXistiJ;lgI&w req~s e\~ry clerk of a court in which a person
was . convi.cte~':~f~.~ - ~iC>iati.:cirt.:9f the Vehic1~-. Code. or specified
sections of'ow~r ctid~~roprepare an ~hstractofthe recon;l of the
<;olJ!t coveJing:tll~..c.a..:W~~~ the perso~ w~ con,victed. Existing
~aw requ~ llie P.~s-~lt6~cate whe!-fier':the yehide involved
\\!aS of a type_reqti'~irlg ...tb.-~ .,driver to have a driver~s license
endorsement ~utllq~g:~~ ~peration of a tank vehicle.
This bi11 iristead .,voW"d re.ql).ire the abstract ro indicate wherher
the vehicle invdlve(J_ ,was of a.type requiring the driver to have a
driyees license end9~menf~uthorizing the operation of a vehicle
carrying hazardous mat~al~'t rather than a tank vehicle.
(2) Ex1~t!~g Iaw.aWioJ:lies certain county officials who are
regularly issued a county-owned vehicle. in a county of over 20,000
square miles in area,' to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles
for regular series license plates for that vehicle if a request for that
issuance is als~ made l?y the county board of supervisors.
This bill would~ additionally, authorize the county assessor to
apply to the department tor regular series license plates.
(3) Under existing law, a person who holds a class A or class
B driver's license anci an endorsement authorizing the operation
~fa tank vehicle is exempt from being presumed to be a prima
facie negligent operator based on that person being found at a
heating to have a driving record violation point count of 6 or more
points in 12 months, 8 or more points in 24 months. or I 0 or more
points in 36 months.
The bill instead would exempt a person who holds a class A or
class B driver's 'license
and an endorsement authorizing
.
..... the
operation of a vehlcl~ carrying hazardous '11aterials. rather than a
tank vehicle. frmn the application of the presumption.

::~~

--

.
.

: "~.

....,

.
I

~: .
~

r~~;

95

..

~~~t-~;:..- :;~. ;f;~ t.~:.~:.: :.;~~~-.~.~~~:i:I~~'Mlii0~tt~ii~1~~~~~-.:{l.~~~ .:-.~~ ;:.:~;.", :~


r

'7

:..

, .. ' l_rr

' .._; . ........

::~.

....

~'''"''i-1&-!.:'i:l.'ril. -to~b_division

66aid rilember

tO~ ' reassi~nmeltt of


be~n--j'~stied.. i:; person

uested th'ose phttes'.


VehicJ~ CO(Ie is!(tmcnded

to read:
12500.
~pe:i-son rnay not drive a n1otor vehicle upon a
hi:gt)y.,ray. ufil.({s.{ di~ person then holds a valid driver s license
issued trnd~t this~ co~e~ exce pt those 'p ersons who are expressly
exempted under;-t~is code.
(b) A pe~o.ri may n ot drive a motorcycle. . motor-driven cycle.
1
or ~n1otorized bicyt:1ti Upo!i:a highway. unless the person then holds
a valid driv1-~s iioense endorsem,e nt issued uri~er this code for
.that class~ except th0s.e person~ \\ho are expressly exempted under
this code, or th~~e persons specific-ally -a uthorized ~o operate
motorized bicycle_s or motorized scoott;rs \Vtth a valid driver"'s
lic~n;)e of ahy class. as specified in subdivision (h) of Section

or

Ji804.9.
(c) A person n1ay not drive a n1otor vehicle in or upon any
offstreet parking facility~ unless the person then holds a valid
drivers license of the appropriate class or certification to operate
the vehicle. As used in ~hi$ ~ubdivision. "otf~treetparking facility'.
means any offstreet facility held open for use hy the public for
parking vehicles-and includes any puhlicly owned facilities for
offstreet parking~ and privately owned facilities for offstreet parking
where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are
held open for the common public use of retail customers.
(d) A perSOIJ may not driYe a motor Yehide or combination of
vehicle~ that is not of a type for which the pen~on is licensed.
(e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all
times equipped with an engine that complies with the applicable
State Air Resources .B oard e1nission requirements.
SEC. 4. Section 1281 0.5 of the Vehicle Code is ~nnended to
read:
128lO_c;. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b).
a person whose~ d(iving record shows a violation point count of
four or more points in l2 n1onths. six or more points in 24 months,
or eight or more poirtts in 36 months shall be prima facie pre~umed

be

'

.: ~

iE

.:

..

... ~:--~~I

.-i

!.' :

;'t

~~

...

''

:;

o-

:~

':i

!,

-'

"'.:

~._'

.;.

;_.

]
: ~

......
_;'I

.. \:

. '~'; ~;:~. ;:.,f:.~:.

,,.',.

,.:._:

('

,,

i:
' ,:,.

-- ..;"

1,, -

: :

. .,

, :2007

Anda mungkin juga menyukai