New York Law Review

Tag: marijuana possession

  • People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738 (2012): Defines ‘Public Place’ for Marijuana Possession

    People v. Jackson, 18 N.Y.3d 738 (2012)

    A person is in a “public place” for the purposes of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 221.10[1]) when they are located on a highway, even if they are inside a private vehicle.

    Summary

    Samuel Jackson was arrested for marijuana possession after a traffic stop. He pleaded guilty but appealed, arguing the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally deficient because it didn’t adequately allege he was in a “public place” or that the marijuana was “open to public view,” elements of the crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that a person is in a public place when on a highway, regardless of being in a vehicle. The Court also found the allegation that the marijuana was “open to public view” was sufficiently pled. The Court reasoned that a highway is explicitly defined as a public place and that the “open to public view” element was satisfied by the officer’s observation of the defendant holding a bag of marijuana in his hand.

    Facts

    A police officer observed Jackson commit a traffic infraction while driving in Brooklyn. During the traffic stop, the officer smelled marijuana and saw Jackson holding a ziplock bag of marijuana in his hand. Further search revealed more bags of marijuana. Jackson was charged with criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, among other offenses, and pleaded guilty to the fifth-degree possession charge.

    Procedural History

    Jackson appealed his conviction to the Appellate Term, arguing the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally deficient. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a person is in a “public place” within the meaning of Penal Law § 221.10(1) when they are inside a vehicle on a public street (highway)?

    2. Whether the allegation that the marijuana was “open to public view” was sufficiently pled in the accusatory instrument?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because Penal Law § 240.00(1) defines a “public place” as a place to which the public has access, including highways, and the location of the vehicle on a highway qualifies as a public place regardless of whether the individual is inside the vehicle.

    2. Yes, because the accusatory instrument alleged that the officer saw the defendant holding a bag of marijuana in his hand, which supports a reasonable inference that the marijuana was unconcealed and visible to the public.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that Penal Law § 240.00(1) defines a “public place” as “a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access, and includes, but is not limited to, highways.” The Court stated that the legislature made possession in a “public place” an element of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree and incorporated a preexisting definition of the phrase from article 240. Jackson was on a highway, which is a location the legislature specifically designated as a public place. The fact that Jackson was in a car does not alter that he was on a highway and thus in a public place.

    The Court rejected the argument that personal automobiles should be excluded from the definition of “public place.” A person driving in a personal automobile will be in a public place only when the vehicle is in a location that qualifies under the statute as a public place.

    Regarding the “open to public view” element, the Court reasoned that the requirement ensures that a person carrying a small amount of concealed marijuana is not subject to misdemeanor prosecution. The Court stated that although not a model of specificity, the allegations were jurisdictionally sufficient to provide reasonable cause to believe that the marijuana was open to public view. The Court found that because the officer was standing outside the vehicle when she saw the substance in the ziplock bag, these allegations support the inference that any other member of the public could also have seen the marijuana from the same vantage point.

  • People v. Shepard, 50 N.Y.2d 640 (1980): State Power to Criminalize Marijuana Possession

    People v. Shepard, 50 N.Y.2d 640 (1980)

    A state may constitutionally criminalize the possession of marijuana for personal use within the home, as this does not violate an individual’s right to privacy because the legislature has the right to make such judgements.

    Summary

    Martin Shepard was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance after police found nine marijuana plants at his home. He argued that the law criminalizing possession violated his right to privacy, as marijuana was harmless and the state had no legitimate interest in prohibiting its use. Shepard presented expert testimony supporting his claim. The prosecution countered with evidence suggesting marijuana’s harmful effects. The trial court upheld the law’s constitutionality, and the Appellate Term affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the judiciary should not substitute its judgment for the legislature’s regarding the dangers of marijuana.

    Facts

    Martin Shepard was found to be in possession of nine marijuana plants at his home in Sagaponack, New York.

    Shepard conceded possession but argued the criminal possession statute violated his right to privacy.

    Shepard presented evidence and expert testimony suggesting marijuana’s harmlessness, arguing no significant harm or health danger existed for users.

    The District Attorney countered with evidence asserting marijuana’s harmful effects, including brain damage, genetic damage, and impaired lung function.

    Procedural History

    Shepard was initially charged in the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton with felony possession, later reduced to a misdemeanor.

    The trial court denied Shepard’s motion to dismiss, finding he failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

    Shepard was convicted and fined $100.

    The Appellate Term affirmed the trial court’s decision.

    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the State can constitutionally criminalize the possession and cultivation of personal use quantities of marijuana within the privacy of the home without violating the right to privacy.

    Holding

    No, because the Court of Appeals deferred to the legislature’s judgment regarding the potential harms of marijuana use, stating that it is the legislature’s role to make laws and the court’s role to apply them; therefore, the judiciary should not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court acknowledged the individual’s right to privacy in matters such as marriage, education, procreation, contraception, and family relationships, as established in cases like Loving v. Virginia, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Prince v. Massachusetts and Griswold v. Connecticut. However, the court distinguished these cases from the possession of controlled substances, citing the Supreme Court’s footnote in Stanley v. Georgia, which stated that the decision protecting the private possession of obscenity did not infringe upon the power of the State to criminalize the possession of narcotics, firearms, or stolen goods.

    The court emphasized the role of the legislature in enacting laws, particularly in areas of legitimate controversy. While acknowledging disagreement regarding the effects of marijuana, the court stated that the statute represented the current judgment of the elected Legislature acting on behalf of the people of the State. Empirical data concerning the vices and virtues of marijuana for general use is far from conclusive.

    The court deferred to the legislature’s judgment, stating, “It is the business of the court to apply the law, and while we have the power, we clearly lack the right to substitute our own sense of what is a dangerous substance for the considered judgment of the Legislature. Nothing would be more inappropriate than for us to prematurely remove marihuana from the Legislature’s consideration by classifying its personal possession as a constitutionally protected right.” The court emphasized the limited scope within which it could declare a legislative act unconstitutional. Quoting Cardozo, the court noted that “The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness”.