Court Opinion

ID: 9567062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:47:58.048484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:40.243858
License: Public Domain

DORAN, J.
I dissent.
The opinion in the Singh case, by changing the preposition “of” to “in,” is judicial legislation.
Although in the Finhelstin case the Supreme Court denied a petition for a hearing, that is not conclusive. The case is not in point. In my opinion, inasmuch as the city of Los Angeles is a chartered city, the police officer is not an “executive officer of this state” within the meaning of the section of the code relied upon by respondent. A police officer of the city of Los Angeles is a civil service employee and is in fact and in law an ‘‘ employee ’ ’ within the meaning and application of section 67% of the Penal Code. The reason for the two sections is obvious.
I would therefore reverse the judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 5, 1954, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 22, 1954. Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Sehauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.