California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from State v. Rodriguez, 77 Cal.App.4th 1101, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 (Cal. App. 2000):
6. City of Los Altos v. Barnes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1193, cited by both parties on this issue, is irrelevant because that case concerned zoning ordinances restricting home offices in residential neighborhoods. The ordinance in Barnes only allowed business to be carried on in a home if no assistants were employed, the business was conducted in the dwelling by the occupants of the property, and the business was clearly incidental to the residential use of the building. (Id. at p. 1197.) In addition, the business could not change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling or negatively impact the residential uses of the district. (Ibid.) However, a home office that does not qualify under the ordinance may nevertheless qualify as an integral part of a dwelling for purposes of the burglary statute.
6. City of Los Altos v. Barnes (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1193, cited by both parties on this issue, is irrelevant because that case concerned zoning ordinances restricting home offices in residential neighborhoods. The ordinance in Barnes only allowed business to be carried on in a home if no assistants were employed, the business was conducted in the dwelling by the occupants of the property, and the business was clearly incidental to the residential use of the building. (Id. at p. 1197.) In addition, the business could not change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling or negatively impact the residential uses of the district. (Ibid.) However, a home office that does not qualify under the ordinance may nevertheless qualify as an integral part of a dwelling for purposes of the burglary statute.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.