State of Idaho v. Heath

     On August 21st, 2017, Richard Heath was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by his brother when a police officer stopped them for speeding. After deciding to let Heath’s brother go with a warning, the police officer began questioning the two about an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Heath admitted to the officer that he had some marijuana and gave the officer a small vial of buds and a pipe made from an elk antler. The officer then searched the truck and found three more small vials of marijuana and a bong, also fashioned out of elk antler. The officer took the drugs, pipe, and bong, and cited Heath for a misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

 In September 2017, Heath pleaded not guilty. Heath later moved to suppress the pipe and bong as evidence against him and the magistrate court granted the motion. Heath also moved for the return of the pipe and bong under Rule 41, but the magistrate court denied the motion to the district court, which affirmed this decision. On appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, Heath argued that marijuana is improperly listed as a controlled substance under schedule I of Idaho’s Controlled Substances Act(CSA) and therefore, the pipe and bong were contraband  Heath also argued that the CSA’s prohibition of the use of marijuana violated his religious liberty under article I, section 4 and article XXI, section 19 of the Idaho Constitution, as well as the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act(FERPA). 

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Court held that marijuana is not invalidly proscribed by the CSA and that Heath’s constitutional right to religious liberty is not violated by the CSA. The court also held that it would not consider Heath’s FERPA claim because it was not argued below. Heath claimed that the provisions of the CSA prohibiting the use of marijuana not neutral and generally applicable. However his arguments does not support his conclusion. The prohibition of marijuana under the CSA impairs Heath’s ability to consume marijuana, which he attests is an important element of his belief system. Although they did not question the sincerity of his beliefs, the impact of the CSA on Heath’s ability to legally practice his beliefs is not the dispositive issue. The issue is whether the CSA proscribes religious use of marijuana while permitting non religious use, or has been designed so that it applies primarily to religious motivated conduct, which heath has made no such argument.  

I agree with the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision that the state’s prohibition of marijuana does not violate Heath’s right to religious liberty. First off, Rule 41 does not allow for the return of contraband to a defendant. Even though this Rule provides that they can get their property back if they are unlawfully searched and seized, the pipe and bong were contraband under Idaho Code that states, “It is unlawful for any person to sue or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance.” If the Court interpreted Rule 41 to require the return of contraband whenever evidence is suppressed, they would open the door for defendants to claim much more than drug paraphernalia. Secondly, the prohibition of marijuana under the CSA does not violate Heath’s constitutional right to religious liberty. In State v. Fluewelling the defendant was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the CSA violated his religious freedom because he wasn an active practitioner of THC Ministries, who consumed marikuana and shared it with others as a sacrament of religion. The defendant argued that his practices were protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes conduct that his religion prescribes.”(quoting Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith) . The court applied this same standard to the defendant's claim in the Idaho case. Lastly, The court should not consider Heath’s argument that the CSA violates the Free Excersie of Religion Protected Act because it was raised for the first time on appeal. The magistrate court made no findings of facts or conclusions that would permit appellate review of Heath’s FERPA claim because he never made an argument under FERPA before the magistrate court. Although Heath’s arguments on appeal imply that his FERPA claim is reviewable as a pure issue of law, it is not.