In re Johnson

Upon petitioner’s application therefor, the supreme court issued a writ of habeas corpus made returnable to this court after its denial of a similar petition.

It appears from the return to the writ and oral evidence of Dr. Bettin, who is connected with the city health department of Los Angeles, that petitioner was, on November 12, 17, and 22, 1918, with her consent, examined and found to he afflicted with gonococcus infection, and thereupon, by order of the health commissioner of the city, confined in a hospital for treatment, which, with the view of effecting a cure, was administered until December 5, 1918, at wMch time, upon application for a writ of habeas corpus, she was, by the superior court, released on bail, at the hearing of which, on

[1] The adoption of measures for the protection of the public health is universally conceded to be a valid exercise of the police power of the state, as to which the legislature is; necessarily vested with large discretion not only in determining what are contagious and infectious diseases, but also-in adopting means for preventing the spread thereof. (Black’s Constitutional Law, sec. 108 ; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 392 , [ 42 L. Ed. 780 , 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383 , see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes] ; State v. Somerville, 67 Wash. 638 , [ 122 Pac. 324 ] ; State Board of Health v. Board of Trustees, 13 Cal. App. 514 , [ 110 Pac. 137 ].) The legislature in its discretion having determined the character of the disease in question, has imposed upon the health department of the city the-duty, when having knowledge that one is afflicted therewith,, of taking the necessary measures to prevent its spread.

In the absence of any showing to the contrary, we must, upon the evidence before us, assume that petitioner was, when subjected to quarantine regulations, and is now, afflicted with and suffering from gonococcus infection, which, by section 2979a of the Political Code (Stats. 1917, p. 171), is, with leprosy, smallpox, typhus fever, and a number of other-diseases, declared to be contagious and infectious. The sole question thus presented is the right of proper authorities to isolate and place her in quarantine. By the section of the-code just cited it is made the duty of the health officer, knowing the existence of any such contagious or infectious disease, to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent the-spread thereof. [2] The isolation of one afflicted with a contagious or infectious disease is a reasonable and proper, indeed the usual, measure taken to prevent the increase and spread thereof.

There is no merit in the contention that the infection with which petitioner is afflicted is noncommunicable except by actual contact, which contact in such cases must be predicated upon the assumption that an offense cognizable by law will be committed. [4] Assuming that grounds exist for petitioner’s contention, no evidence tending to establish such fact has been presented and it is not a matter as to which the court may take judicial notice.

Counsel cites no authorities in support of the contention that one afflicted with a contagious disease cannot be subjected to quarantine regulations until it is first judicially established by some proceeding in court that he is so afflicted. [5] Manifestly to uphold such contention would, render laws for the protection of the public health nugatory. (State v. Superior Court, 103 Wash. 409 , [ 174 Pac. 973 ], where the matter is fully considered.) The writ no doubt was granted upon the argument that petitioner was not, and never had been, afflicted with the infection, which if true would entitle her to be discharged from custody. The return and evidence taken at the hearing conclusively establish the fact to the contrary.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.