Wednesday, April 14, 2021

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. How to use a bong | Weedmaps

 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.   

 

 


6 comments:

  1. I agree that the court was correct in upholding its conviction of Heath. To start, I agree that it is suspect that he only cited religious reasons for his weed use during his appeal. Furthermore, I agree that cases such as this open a slippery slope in regard to disobeying the law by citing religious reasons. Even though I support the legalization of marijuana or at least having its status as a schedule 1 drug changed, I do not think people should get a pass to do something that is illegal by citing religious reasons, even if they think it should be legal, when they are caught doing that something. If Heath truly had religious reasons for smoking weed he should have fought to change the law and not only bring it up when he is caught doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the decision to uphold Heath's conviction. Employment Div. v. Smith sets a clear precedent that religious exercise is not a blanket protection on activity like drug use. Worse, Heath's argument that it is a part of his sincere religious beliefs seems flimsy. In Smith there was a strong counterargument that use of peyote was part of a structured religious belief system. In this case, Heath fails to explain why and how marijuana fits with his religious beliefs and the state is perfectly within its rights to enforce drug laws with a compelling secular interest in this case. While I believe the burden should be on the state to prove compelling interest, there also needs to be a degree of religious justification shown by Heath in this case in order to improve his argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also agree with the court's decision to uphold the conviction of Heath, and doing so is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. I think a key point here is when you quote the Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith case, implying that the same standards should be applied here. Because the drug is illegal, making religious exceptions definitely opens the flood gates to a slippery slope when further deciding what should and should not be practiced in religious communities even if the matter is illegal. I do not think that there is enough of a burden placed on Heath that will cause harm, but there will further down the road be more of a burden on the community as a whole if they allow this exception.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also agree with the courts decision to uphold this decision. Although marijuana will likely become legal in the coming years, as of right now it is illegal. Allowing Heath to smoke marijuana and get away with possession of it would definitely open up a slippery slope in which there would be a precedent for people to seek amnesty from certain laws simply by saying the breaking of that law goes along with their religious beliefs. Although I also support the legalization of marijuana, I feel that in this case not upholding this decision would cause more harm then good, and does not violate his religious freedoms, and the law is non-biased, even if he feels that is disproportionately affects him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also agree with the courts decision to uphold this decision. Although marijuana will likely become legal in the coming years, as of right now it is illegal. Allowing Heath to smoke marijuana and get away with possession of it would definitely open up a slippery slope in which there would be a precedent for people to seek amnesty from certain laws simply by saying the breaking of that law goes along with their religious beliefs. Although I also support the legalization of marijuana, I feel that in this case not upholding this decision would cause more harm then good, and does not violate his religious freedoms, and the law is non-biased, even if he feels that is disproportionately affects him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the Court's decision. The slippery slope of allowing the return of contraband can't be overstated as well as the use of drugs as religious practice. Just as much as law should not overstep into religion, religion should not govern the laws in which they are applied. It's also to note that the defendant knowingly broke the law and knew that the substance was illegally banned. This is similar to the polygamy case where the defendant had full knowledge that his wife was alive.

    ReplyDelete