People v. Baldwin
1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1140, 112 Cal.Rptr. 290, 37 Cal. App. 3d 385 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute criminalizing oral copulation does not violate the Establishment Clause, the right to privacy, or the Ninth Amendment when applied to acts committed in a public place between non-married individuals, as such conduct is not considered a fundamental right and the state has a legitimate interest in regulating public morality.
Facts:
- Dill and another defendant were present in a public restroom at 3:40 a.m.
- A plainclothes San Diego police officer was also in the restroom, and his presence was known and observable by the defendants.
- A few minutes before the incident, Dill took hold of the police officer’s testicles while the officer stood at a urinal in the restroom.
- The defendants were observed engaging in an act of oral copulation within the view of the plainclothes police officer.
Procedural Posture:
- The People (prosecution) charged defendants Dill and another with a violation of Penal Code section 288a (oral copulation).
- Defendants filed a demurrer to the information in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action on the ground that the facts stated did not constitute a public offense.
- The People (appellant) appealed the dismissal of the action to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Penal Code section 288a, which criminalizes oral copulation, unconstitutionally violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the right to privacy under the federal or California Constitutions, or the Ninth Amendment, when applied to acts committed in a public restroom observable by a police officer?
Opinions:
Majority - Whelan, Acting P. J.
No, Penal Code section 288a does not unconstitutionally violate the Establishment Clause, the right to privacy, or the Ninth Amendment, as applied to the defendants' public conduct. The court affirmed that Penal Code section 288a does not offend the nonestablishment clause, citing McGowan v. Maryland, which held that practices with religious origins can be retained as secular institutions if they reflect public consensus. The court rejected the argument that the law making polygamous marriages criminal violates the nonestablishment provision, citing Davis v. Beason. The court further held that the defendants lacked standing to assert a right to privacy, particularly marital privacy, because their act was not performed in private, nor were they husband and wife or in a stable union. It distinguished Griswold v. Connecticut, noting that Griswold granted standing to those with a professional relationship to married people, not individuals engaging in public acts. The court emphasized that the practice of oral copulation in a public place has not been declared a fundamental right, and regulating public conduct is well within the Legislature's province, citing People v. Drolet for the state's police power to promote public morals. The Ninth Amendment argument was dismissed, with the court noting that it was not intended to broaden judicial power to define fundamental rights based on unmentioned liberties.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the limits of the constitutional right to privacy, particularly when applied to public conduct and non-marital relationships. It upholds the state's broad police power to regulate public morality, even for acts that may have historical religious condemnation, if they have achieved secular public consensus. The decision underscores judicial deference to legislative determinations of social policy and restricts the expansion of privacy rights into the realm of public sexual acts, making it harder for individuals to challenge moral legislation based on broad interpretations of unenumerated rights.
