Leary v. United States

Last updated

Leary v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 11–12, 1968
Decided May 19, 1969
Full case name Timothy Leary v. United States
Citations395 U.S. 6 ( more )
89 S. Ct. 1532; 23 L. Ed. 2d 57; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3271; 69-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 15,900; 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2006
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Holding
The Marihuana Tax Act required self-incrimination, thus violating the Fifth Amendment of Constitution. Leary's conviction reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall; Warren (in part)
ConcurrenceStewart
ConcurrenceBlack (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V, Marihuana Tax Act

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly written Controlled Substances Act while continuing the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States. [1]

Contents

Background

On December 20, 1965, Leary left New York by automobile, intending to take a vacation trip to the Mexican state of Yucatán. He was accompanied by his daughter and son, both teenagers, and two others. On December 22, 1965, the party drove across the International Bridge between the United States and Mexico at Laredo, Texas. They stopped at the Mexican customs station and, after apparently being denied entry, drove back across the bridge. They halted at the American secondary inspection area, explained the situation to a customs inspector, and stated that they had nothing from Mexico to declare. The inspector asked to search the car, examined its interior, and saw what appeared to be marijuana seeds on the floor. Small amounts of marijuana were also found on the car floor and in the glove compartment. A personal search of Leary's daughter revealed a silver snuff box containing semi-refined marijuana and three partially smoked marijuana cigarettes. Though Leary was arrested for violating the Marijuana Tax Act, it was also illegal in the state of Texas to possess marijuana. Hence, compliance under federal law would have provided self-incriminating evidence.

a. If read according to its terms, the Marijuana Tax Act compelled petitioner to expose himself to a "real and appreciable" risk of self-incrimination;
b. [The statute] required him, in the course of obtaining an order form, to identify himself not only as a transferee of marijuana but as a transferee who had not registered and paid the occupational tax;
c. Compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of [a]..."selective" and "suspect" group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these provisions created a "real and appreciable" hazard of incrimination.

Later development

The Marihuana Tax Act ultimately was repealed by the United States Congress in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Controlled Substances Act</span> United States drug-regulating law

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute establishing federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances is regulated. It was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The Act also served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marihuana Tax Act of 1937</span> American law placing a tax on cannabis

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub. L.Tooltip Act of Congress#Public law, private law, designation 75–238, 50 Stat. 551, enacted August 2, 1937, was a United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis. The H.R. 6385 act was drafted by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937. The Seventy-fifth United States Congress held hearings on April 27, 28, 29th, 30th, and May 4, 1937. Upon the congressional hearings confirmation, the H.R. 6385 act was redrafted as H.R. 6906 and introduced with House Report 792. The Act is referred to, using the modern spelling, as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act. It was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bank Secrecy Act</span> 1970 act of the United States Congress

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA), also known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, is a U.S. law requiring financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports if the daily aggregate exceeds $10,000, and report suspicious activity that may signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act</span> Proposed changes to the legal status of cannabis in U.S. federal law

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use", is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. After being proposed repeatedly since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated 2024 rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The majority of 2024 public comments supported descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shafer Commission</span> United States commission

The Shafer Commission, formally known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, was appointed by U.S. President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. Its chairman was former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer. The commission issued a report on its findings in 1972 that called for the decriminalization of marijuana possession in the United States. The report was ignored by the White House, but is an important document against prohibition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal drug policy of the United States</span> Nationwide framework regarding the abuse of drugs in the United States

The drug policy in the United States is the activity of the federal government relating to the regulation of drugs. Starting in the early 1900s, the United States government began enforcing drug policies. These policies criminalized drugs such as opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine outside of medical use. The drug policies put into place are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Classification of Drugs are defined and enforced using the Controlled Substance Act, which lists different drugs into their respective substances based on its potential of abuse and potential for medical use. Four different categories of drugs are Alcohol, Cannabis, Opioids, and Stimulants.

The crack tax was the name given to the taxes on illegal drugs in Tennessee. The tax, under a law passed by the Tennessee General Assembly in January 2005, was applied to illegal substances including cocaine, marijuana, and moonshine. Drug dealers were required to pay anonymously at the state revenue office, where they received a stamp to prove their payment. If a drug dealer was arrested without having a stamp, the state would seek the money owed it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other amendments, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.

The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009, introduced during the 111th United States Congress by House Republican Ron Paul of Texas) and House Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts) on April 2, 2009, sought to clarify the differences between marijuana and industrial hemp as well as repeal federal laws that prohibit cultivation of industrial, but only for research facilities of higher education from conducting research. Industrial hemp is the non-psychoactive, low-THC, oil-seed and fibers varieties of, predominantly, the cannabis sativa plant. Hemp is a sustainable resource that can be used to create thousands of different products including fuel, fabrics, paper, household products, and food and has been used for hundreds of centuries by civilizations around the world. If H.R.1866 passes American farmers will be permitted to compete in global hemp markets. On March 10, 2009, both Paul and Frank wrote a letter to their Congressional colleagues urging them to support the legislation. This bill was previously introduced in 2005 under the title of Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1934 due to the lack of restrictions in the Harrison Act of 1914. The Harrison Act was a revenue-producing act and, while it provided penalties for violations, it did not give authority to the states to exercise police power regarding either seizure of drugs used in illicit trade or punishment of those responsible.

This is a history of drug prohibition in the United States.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act</span> US marijuana decriminalization bills

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act is a series of federal marijuana decriminalization bills that have been introduced multiple times in the United States Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1891</span>

The Immigration Act of 1891, also known as the 1891 Immigration Act, was a modification of the Immigration Act of 1882, focusing on immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms for foreigners arriving from countries other than China. It was the second major federal legislation related to the mechanisms and authority of immigration enforcement, the first being the Immigration Act of 1882. The law was passed on March 3, 1891, at the end of the term of the 51st United States Congress, and signed into law by then United States President Benjamin Harrison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glossary of cannabis terms</span>

Terms related to cannabis include:

During the administration of American President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969), the government made moves to reconsider cannabis law enforcement in the nation, including a more treatment-based approach to drug use. However, Johnson was saddled with controversies regarding the Vietnam War and internal national tensions, and was not able to make major changes to cannabis policy before declining to run for a second term in 1968. During the Johnson administration, cannabis usage was an issue of concern both in the youth counterculture as well as among American troops serving in the Vietnam War.

References

  1. Fahey, David M.; Miller, Jon S. (2013). Alcohol and Drugs in North America: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 210–. ISBN   978-1-59884-479-5.
  2. See Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1292 (October 27, 1970). See also Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1998).