Leary v. United States

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Leary v. United States
ArgueDateA=December 11
ArgueDateB=12
ArgueYear=1968
DecideDate=May 19
DecideYear=1969
FullName=Timothy Leary v. United States
USVol=395
USPage=6
Citation=89 S. Ct. 1532; 23 L. Ed. 2d 57; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3271; 69-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P15,900; 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2006
Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=The Marijuana Tax Act required self-incrimination, thus violating the Fifth Amendment of Constitution. Leary's conviction reversed.
SCOTUS=1967-1969
Majority=Harlan
JoinMajority=Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, White
Concurrence=Black
Concurrence2=Stewart
Concurrence3=Warren
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. V, Marijuana Tax Act
Superseded=Controlled Substance Act

"Leary v. United States", ussc|395|6|1969, is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of Marihuana Tax Act. 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. However, Congress responded shortly after by passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.

Facts that Triggered the Dispute

The circumstances surrounding petitioner's conviction were as follows. On December 20, 1965, petitioner left New York by automobile, intending a vacation trip to the Mexican state of Yucatán. He was accompanied by his daughter and son, both teenagers, and two other persons. 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 them to alight, examined the interior of the car, and saw what appeared to be marihuana seeds on the floor. The inspector then received permission to search the car and passengers. Small amounts of marihuana were found on the car floor and in the glove compartment. A personal search of petitioner's daughter revealed a silver snuff box containing semi-refined marihuana and three partially smoked marihuana cigarettes.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

a.“If read according to its terms, the Marihuana 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 marihuana 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."

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395

External links

* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1960-1969/1968/1968_65 Oyez.org entry]
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=6 Opinion of the Court]