Plaintiff licensed cosmetologist appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed his action for an injunction brought against defendants, State Board of Barber Examiners and State Board of Cosmetology, in an action brought under the Barber Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6500 et seq., and the Cosmetology Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7300 et seq.
The cosmetologist operated two establishments that specialized in the styling and cutting of men’s hair. The cosmetologist argued that defendants had threatened to enforce Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6522 against him and would thereby force him to discontinue his business unless defendants were enjoined from doing so. On appeal, the cosmetologist also argued that § 6522 as amended in 1967 was unconstitutional. Visit the best one of the employment attorneys Los Angeles who know all about Los Angeles employment law.
The court affirmed, concluding that (1) it was not unreasonable for the legislature to say that, although cosmetologists could cut hair in the course of their broader practice of cosmetology, an establishment which was engaged primarily in the business of haircutting had to use those who were trained and registered as barbers; (2) the statute was discriminatory only in the sense that any licensing system discriminated by making specified activity lawful only for those persons who qualify for and obtained a license; and (3) there is a reasonable basis for the limitation, no invidious denial of equal protection was involved.
The court affirmed the judgment which denied the cosmetologist’s action for an injunction brought against the state board of barber examiners and state board of cosmetology.
Appellant sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, (California), which convicted him of possession of cocaine, a violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11350, contending that the warrantless search of his bar by an officer of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control exceeded the scope of administrative searches permissible Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 25753 and 25755.
A Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control investigator entered appellant’s bar during its hours of operation, identified himself. He informed appellant, the holder of the liquor license, that he was conducting an inspection, and asked appellant to provide access to a safe and locked storage facility although he had no search warrant. Appellant did so. The investigator did not seek to obtain consent, although appellant did not object. Twenty-two bindles of cocaine were found in the safe. Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine, a violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11350(a), and sought review. The court affirmed, finding that the warrantless search met the three requirements of reasonableness in regards to a closely regulated business premises and satisfied the applicable U.S. Const. amend IV standard of reasonableness. Specifically, the court found that the inspection of appellant’s premises advanced a substantial government interest that informed the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection was made, the search was necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and finally the search was authorized by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 24200.5, 25753 and 25655.
Appellant conviction for possession was upheld because the court found that there was no error in a warrantless search of his bar by a government inspector. The court held that the warrantless inspection met the three requirements of reasonableness in regards to a closely regulated business premises.