Responding to merchant complaints about addicts congregating by fancy stores, the legislature passed a new law making it a crime “to be addicted to the use of illegal narcotics.” Walking on the public street, Ms. Tres Belle was seen by a police officer walking unsteadily. The officer approached Ms. Tres Belle and asked her if she was okay. Ms. Tres Belle responded, “None of your business.” The officer observed fresh needle marks on Ms. Tres Belle’s arm while she said, “I need my stuff, don’t arrest me.” Ms. Tres Belle was arrested and charged with violating the new law.
The question is, can Ms. Tres Belle be successfully convicted? Choose the correct answer from the options below (10 points)
- Yes, the officer’s observations are sufficient evidence to convict Ms. Tres Belle.
- Yes, the officer’s observations, coupled with Ms. Tres Belle’s statements, are ample evidence to convict.
- No, a conviction would violate Ms. Tres Belle’s constitutional rights.
- No, Ms. Tres Belle’s statement cannot be used against her.
Could Ms. Tres Belle be prosecuted for the crime of being under the influence of narcotics while in public?
3. No, a conviction would violate Ms. Tres Belle’s constitutional rights.
In the circumstance where the legislature passes a new law that states it is illegal to be addicted to the use of illicit narcotics, it would likely be deemed unconstitutional. According to a previous case, Robinson v. California (1962) (Samaha, 2016, p. 68), it is unconstitutional to punish someone who is an addict because it is a condition or “status” rather than an action. It falls under the protection of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, which center around the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment. Since the new law in this case makes it illegal to be addicted rather than punishing specific actions (like using or carrying drugs), it’s the same issue as in Robinson. That means charging Ms. Tres Belle would be unconstitutional.
On the other hand, Ms. Tres Belle could be prosecuted for being under the influence in public. In a similar case, Powell v. Texas (1968) (Samaha, 2016, p. 111), it was okay to punish public intoxication because that’s an action, not just a condition like addiction. The law prohibiting public intoxication did not punish Powell for his alcoholism, but for his being drunk in a public location. If the law said Ms. Tres Belle couldn’t be high in public, she might be guilty. Though this circumstance isn’t about public intoxication, it is about addiction, which cannot be prosecuted constitutionally.
Works Cited:
Samaha, J. (2016). Criminal law (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
