Diaz
People v. Diaz
Opinion
concurrence Opinion
Gill, J.
I concur.
CHARLES R. GILL, Presiding Judge, Appellate Division
concurrence Opinion
Kaneshiro, J.
I concur.
GALE E. KANESHIRO, Judge, Appellate Division
lead Opinion
II. Equal Protection
Appellant's equal protection argument is based on the assertion that the challenged ordinance improperly infringes on Appellant's right to travel. The California Supreme Court in Tobe analyzed this issue at length, and concluded that the ordinance in question there, which prohibited camping and storage of certain items in particular public places, did not impermissibly *432 infringe on the right of the homeless, or others, to travel. ( Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4 th at pp. 1096-1104, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 .) The Court cited Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 1994) 846 F.Supp. 843 , in which that Court rejected the argument that the city must show a compelling state interest under a strict scrutiny standard, noting that the law was not facially discriminatory as it did not distinguish between residents of the city and other persons.
The California Supreme Court in Tobe reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Santa Ana ordinance impermissibly infringes on the right of homeless to travel and declared:
( Tobe, supra, 9 Cal.4 th at pp. 1103-1104, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 , 892 P.2d 1145 ; see also, Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4 th at p.…