SR-6-R (6)
e
.z.-c;8-oo 9
e
b--I?
CA:RMH:SC:bl
Counc~l Meet~ng 7/28/81
Santa Monlca, Cal~forn~a JUL 2 8 1981
STAF? REPORT
TO: Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
FROM: Clty Attorney
SUBJECT: L~censlng of Hypnot~sts
INTRODUCTION
Under the present prOV1Slons of the Munic1pal Code, the
practlce and teach1ng of hypnot1sm lS classlf1ed and 11censed
as "fortune telllng," and restrlcted to the CityJs Amusement
Zone (l.e., the area west of lithe promenadeH along the Ocean Front
between the south boundary of the Clty and Kinney Street and the
P 1 er) .
Santa Monlca Munlclpal Code Sect10ns 6204H and 6204H2. ThlS
off1ce has recently recelved a number of requests from lndlvidual
practlt10ners and professlonal hypnotlsts' aSSoclat1ons to reVlse
what they conslder to be outmoded and 1nvalld restr1ctlon of a
recognlzed professlon. The Clty Attorney's off1ce requests dlrectlon
from the C~ty Cauncll wlth res~ect to contlnued enforcement and
posslble reV1Slon of Sect10ns 6204H and 6204H2.
DISCUSSION
Although the Clty clearly has the rlght to regulate bus1ness
practlces In the lnterest of the publlC health, safety and welfare,
the r1ght to engage In a legitlmate buslness or employment lS
recognlzed as an element of the lndlvldual freedom secured by the
state and federal constltutlons. Doyle v. Board of Barber Exam1ners,
219 Cal. A?p. 2d 504, 33 Cal. Rptr. 349 (1963); WhltcOmb v. Emerson,
6-R
JUL 2 8 1981
-----
e
e
46 Cal. Aoo. 2d 263, 115 P. 2d 892 (1941). L~censlng requlrements
and other forms of regulation w~ll be upheld so long as they are
reasonably related to a proper governmental purpose, such as
assurlng a llcensee's fltness to practice a partlcular professlon.
However, the Clty may not, under the gu~se of regulatlon, sup~ress
or unduly restrlct the practlce of an otherw~se leg~tlmate occupatlon.
~hatever the status of hypnot~sm ~n the past, ~t is presently
recognlzed as a profess~on ut~lized ln conjunct~on w~th counseling,
law enforcement and med~cal treatment, as well as for non-medical
self-~mprovernent purposes (e.g., memory control). The Un~ted
States Department of Labor added hypnotheraplst (alternatlvely
master hypnotlst and hypnotlst) to lts 1976 Dlctlonary of Occupa-
t~onal Titles. The state recogn~zes hypnotism as a cllnical tool
In the practlce of psychology (Buslness and Professlons Code
Sect~on 2903) and ~arrlage, famlly and ch~ld counseling (Business
and Professlons Code Sect~on 17800.2). Moreover, Buslness and
Professlons Code Sectlon 2908 expressly states that the requlre-
ments for llcensure of health care professionals shall not be
construed "to prevent . . . persons util~zing hypnotlc techniques
by referral from persons l~censed to practlce medlclne, dentlstry
or psychology, or persons utlllzlng hypnotlc technlques WhlCh offer
avocational or vocatlonal self-lmprovement and do not offer therapy
for emotlonal or mental dlsorders. . from doing work of a
psychologlcal nature conslstent wlth the laws governlng the~r
respective professlons .
"
In response to thlS revlsed Vlew of hypnosls as a professlonal
dlsclpline, increaslng eVldence that the use of hypnosls lS not
dangerous, and pressure from hypnotlsts' lobbles, many citles have
-2-
e
e
rev~sed 11cens1ng ord1nances which, like Santa Mon1ca's, c1ass1fy
hypnot~sm only as an amusement. Among the ord1nances rev~ewed
are those of Costa Mesa, Torrance, Carson and Sacramento.
ALTERNATIVES
The Clty'S present ordlnance prohib~t1ng the practice of
hypnot1sm except 1n the Amusement Zone would appear to be unduly
restrict1ve and vulnerable to const~tut1onal attack. Accordlngly,
~t lS suggested that the Councll dlrect thlS off1ce to amend
Sectlons 6204H and 6204H2 to ~nc1ude only those uses of hypnot~sm
Wh1Ch are for amusement purposes and to provlde for llcens1ng
hypnotlsts as professlonals. At a m1nlmum, the C1ty should exempt
from the restrictlons of Sect10ns 6204H and 6204H2, profess1onals
11censed by the state to practice hypnos1s and persons working
under the directlon of state licensed professlonals and law
enforcement agenc1es.
If, as suggested, the Councll elects to provlde for llcens1ng
hypnot1sts, there would aDpear to be two a1ternatlve approaches.
The slrnplest and most expanslve would be to allow hypnotlsts to
pract~ce under a general business llcense subject only to the
11mltatlons conta1ned 1n BUSlness and Professlons Code Sect~on
2908, and state law prohlbltlng the unauthorized practlce of
medic1ne. BUSlness and Professlons Code Bectlon 2141. See People
v. Cantor, 198 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 843, 18 Cal. Rptr. 363 (1961)
(treatment of headaches and obeslty by hypnot1st w1thln proh1b1t1on
of Bectlon 2141).
Alternat1vely, the Clty could reqU1re persons seek1ng a
llcense to practlve hypnot1sm to demonstrate competence by one or
-3-
-~
e
e
more obJectlve crlterla. Torrance, for example, requlres proof
of reglstratlon In an lnstitutlon approved by the Offlce of Private
Post Secondary Educatlon pursuant to Educatlon Code Sectlon 943ll(d),
and proof of membershlp In at least one state or natlonwlde pro-
fesslonal hypnotlsts organlzatlon. Alternatlvely, the Clty mlght
requlre a mlnlmum amount of classroom instructlon and/or apprentlce-
ship or supervls1on. The actual study and practlce of hypnotlsm In
Californla (e.g., the number of approved schools of hypnotism) may
make certaln of these requlrernents more or less approprlatei
however, all of the alternatlves would appear to be reasonably
related to the leglt1mate public lnterest ln assuring the competency
of professlonal llcensees.
RECOMMENDATION
It 15 respectfully recommended that the C1ty Councll dlrect
the Clty Attorney's Offlce to draft an ordinance WhlCh would permlt
hypnotists to practlce under a general bU51ness llcense.
Prepared by: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Susan Carroll, Deputy Clty Attorney
-4-