In Re Hinkelman

Good Law
183 Cal. 392·1920 Cal. LEXIS 419·191 P. 682·11 A.L.R. 1222
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 27, 1920Crim. No. 2283.California1,950 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Hinkelman was imprisoned on a warrant of arrest issued out of the police court of the city and county of San Francisco on a complaint charging him with violating sections 32 and 13 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Stats. 1919, pp. 206, 225.) He applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the complaint does not charge a public offense and that sections 13 and 32 of said act, so far as they relate to the offense charged, are unconstitutional.

Section 32 declares it to be misdemeanor for any person to violate any provisions of the act. The particular violation here charged is the driving of an automobile on a public street equipped with a headlight more brilliant and set at a different angle than is permitted by the provisions of section 13. This section makes elaborate and complex regulations relating to headlights. The portions thereof applying to the present case may be summarized as follows:

Subdivision (a) provides that “at all times during the period from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise, every automobile while on the public highway shall carry at the front at least two lighted lamps.” Subdivision (f) provides that during the time above stated “the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.