What is the test for determining whether a city has authority to regulate the possession of alcohol in public places such as parks?

The People also contend that article XX, section 22 of the California Constitution "is intended to regulate alcohol only as an adjunct to licensing in [25 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4] the stream of commerce." The People do not provide either supporting authority or analysis or suggest guidelines to determine how much alcohol constitutes a stream. The contention is without merit. Finally, the People appear to adopt the trial court's theory that the "free use of the city parks by children, families, should not be curtailed under some preemption section where the state has no interest." The trial court appears to be articulating one of the tests applied in determining implied preemption, relevant only when a court finds there is no direct preemption. (See Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 859, 76 Cal.Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930.) In short, the city has no authority to regulate the possession of alcohol in public places, including parks.

The judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss.

ROBERSON, P.J., and WATAI, J., concur.