U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clause serves as a fundamental protection against arbitrary and unjust state actions, particularly when they infringe upon individual freedoms.

The concept of “liberty” as protected by the Due Process Clause encompasses a wide range of personal rights, including the freedom to make choices about one’s private life without undue governmental interference. This protection extends to actions that do not harm others, which fall within the realm of personal autonomy.

Criminalizing victimless actions constitutes an infringement on this liberty without sufficient justification. In these instances, the state’s interest in regulating such behavior does not outweigh the individual’s right to personal freedom. The absence of harm to others further undermines the state’s rationale for imposing criminal penalties, making such laws an overreach of governmental authority.

The prosecution in this case, therefore, represents an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. By penalizing actions that do not cause harm, the state fails to adhere to the principles of justice and due process that are central to our legal system. This misalignment with constitutional protections underscores the need for judicial scrutiny and reform.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

The United States Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy, derived from the “penumbras” of specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights. This landmark case invalidated a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives, establishing a precedent for protecting personal decisions within the private sphere from governmental interference.

The principle established in Griswold extends beyond the specific context of marital privacy and contraception. It underscores a broader constitutional protection for individual autonomy in matters of personal choice, free from unwarranted state intrusion.

Applying this principle to the case at hand, the criminalization of victimless actions similarly intrudes upon the private choices of individuals. When such actions do not harm others, the state’s interest in regulation is significantly weakened, and the right to privacy should prevail. Just as the Supreme Court in Griswold recognized that the state has no place in dictating personal decisions within the private sphere, it is similarly unjust for the state to penalize individuals for victimless conduct that falls within their right to privacy.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

The United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing private consensual sexual conduct between adults, affirming that the state cannot intrude upon the private lives of individuals when such conduct does not harm others. The Court recognized that the right to personal autonomy and liberty is a fundamental aspect of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision in Lawrence emphasizes that moral disapproval alone is not a sufficient basis for criminalizing private conduct. The Court held that adults have the right to engage in private consensual activities without fear of criminal prosecution, again highlighting the importance of individual liberty and the protection of personal choices from unwarranted government interference.

Applying the principles of Lawrence to the case at hand, the criminalization of victimless action represents an unconstitutional intrusion into personal autonomy. Just as the state’s attempt to regulate consensual private conduct in Lawrence was found to be unconstitutional, so too should the state’s attempt to penalize individuals for victimless actions that occur within the privacy of their own lives.

The ruling in Lawrence underscores the importance of respecting individual liberty and the right to privacy, particularly when the conduct in question does not harm others. The prosecution in this case reflects an overreach of governmental authority, infringing upon the personal freedoms that are protected under the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This provision ensures that the rights explicitly listed in the Constitution do not exhaust the full scope of individual liberties. Instead, it acknowledges that other fundamental rights exist, even if they are not specifically enumerated.

The Ninth Amendment is particularly relevant in cases where the state seeks to impose restrictions on personal conduct that does not harm others. This amendment supports the argument that individuals retain certain rights to engage in private, victimless actions without unwarranted governmental interference.

In the context of this case, the criminalization of actions such as the possession of small amounts of marijuana can be seen as infringing upon these unenumerated rights. The right to personal autonomy and the freedom to make decisions about one’s own life, free from arbitrary state intervention, is a fundamental liberty that the Ninth Amendment helps to protect.

The Ninth Amendment serves as a constitutional safeguard against overreach, ensuring that the state does not encroach upon individual freedoms that are inherent to a free society. By criminalizing victimless actions, the state not only disregards these protected rights but also undermines the broader principles of liberty and justice that the Constitution seeks to uphold.

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

The United States Supreme Court struck down a vagrancy law on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague and led to arbitrary enforcement. The Court held that the law failed to provide clear standards for what constituted illegal behavior, thereby allowing law enforcement officials to exercise too much discretion in determining who should be prosecuted.

This case highlights the constitutional requirement that laws must be sufficiently clear and precise to ensure that individuals have fair notice of what is prohibited and to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The principles established in Papachristou can be analogized to argue against the criminalization of victimless actions. Laws that penalize such actions, particularly when they involve conduct that does not harm others, often suffer from similar issues of vagueness. These laws can be overly broad or ambiguous, leading to inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement that disproportionately affects marginalized communities.

In the case at hand, the criminalization of the possession of marijuana illustrates how vague or broadly defined laws can lead to unjust outcomes. When the criteria for criminal behavior are not clearly defined or when the behavior itself poses no harm to others, the law risks being applied in an arbitrary manner, much like the vagrancy law in Papachristou.

Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975)

The Alaska Supreme Court held that adults have a constitutional right to possess and use marijuana for personal use within the privacy of their own homes. The decision emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the right to privacy, particularly when the conduct in question does not harm others.

While Ravin specifically addressed the right to privacy within the home, the underlying principles of the case extend beyond the confines of one’s residence. The central issue in Ravin is the protection of personal autonomy and the right to make private decisions free from unwarranted government interference, especially in spaces where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In the present case, which involves the possession of marijuana in a hotel room, the principles from Ravin remain highly relevant. A hotel room, like a home, is a private space where individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy. The temporary nature of a hotel stay does not diminish the privacy rights of the occupants. As in Ravin, the state’s interest in regulating personal conduct within such a private setting is significantly reduced when there is no harm to others.

Thus, the reasoning from Ravin can be applied to argue that the criminalization of marijuana possession in a hotel room similarly infringes upon the constitutional rights to privacy and personal autonomy. The state’s intrusion into this private space, where no public harm is evident, represents an overreach of governmental authority and conflicts with the principles of liberty and privacy protected by the Constitution.

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

The United States Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing addiction were unconstitutional. The Court held that it is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to criminalize a person’s status or condition, such as being addicted to narcotics. This landmark decision established the principle that criminal law should focus on actions, not conditions or statuses, particularly when those conditions are beyond the individual’s control.

The ruling in Robinson is significant in the context of laws that criminalize victimless actions. The Court’s reasoning—that it is unjust to punish individuals for their status or condition—can be extended to argue against the criminalization of private, victimless behaviors that do not harm others. Just as the state cannot constitutionally punish someone for being an addict, it should not criminalize actions that are simply expressions of personal autonomy and do not pose a threat to public safety or order.

In the present case, the criminalization of the possession of marijuana, particularly in a context where it does not harm others, can be seen as analogous to the issues raised in Robinson. The possession of marijuana, like the status of addiction, is a personal matter that, in itself, does not involve any harm to others. Punishing individuals for such conduct is akin to punishing them for a condition or status, rather than for any harmful action.

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause is a cornerstone of civil rights, ensuring that all individuals are treated equally under the law and that laws are not applied in a discriminatory manner.

Victimless crime laws, such as those criminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana, often have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Studies and statistics have consistently shown that individuals from racial and socioeconomic minorities are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for such offenses, despite similar rates of behavior across different demographic groups.

This disparate impact raises significant concerns under the Equal Protection Clause. When laws are applied in a way that disproportionately affects certain groups, it suggests that those laws may not be serving a legitimate state interest, or that they are being enforced in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of equality and fairness.

In the present case, the prosecution for possession can be viewed as part of a broader pattern of discriminatory enforcement of victimless crime laws. This selective enforcement not only undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice system but also violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law, as applied, fails to treat all individuals equally and instead perpetuates inequality and injustice.

The Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.

This is the primary federal statute that criminalizes the possession, use, and distribution of certain controlled substances, including marijuana. While the CSA has long served as the foundation for federal drug policy, its provisions are increasingly at odds with evolving societal views and the significant movement toward decriminalization at the state level.

In recent years, a growing number of states have passed laws decriminalizing or even legalizing the possession and use of marijuana, reflecting a shift in public opinion and a reevaluation of the harms associated with criminalizing drug use. This trend challenges the continued validity of the CSA’s blanket prohibition on marijuana, raising questions about the rationality and effectiveness of federal drug laws in the current legal and social environment.

The disparity between federal law under the CSA and state-level decriminalization efforts underscores the need for a reassessment of the criminalization of victimless drug offenses. As more states move away from punitive approaches to drug use, the federal government’s continued enforcement of the CSA’s strict provisions becomes increasingly difficult to justify, particularly in light of the growing recognition that such laws do more harm than good.

In the present case, the prosecution for marijuana possession under Wisconsin law, while consistent with the CSA, is emblematic of this broader conflict between outdated federal drug policies and modern understandings of drug use and personal liberty. The enforcement of such laws not only perpetuates a system of criminal justice that is increasingly out of step with societal values but also raises serious concerns about the fairness and rationality of continuing to criminalize behavior that many states no longer view as warranting criminal penalties.

The CSA, while still in force, sets the stage for questioning the continued rationality of criminalizing marijuana possession in light of these changing societal views and the legal landscapes. It is imperative to consider whether the goals of the CSA are still being met or whether its enforcement has become anachronistic and counterproductive.

Therefore, the Controlled Substances Act, while central to federal drug policy, also highlights the need for a critical examination of the criminalization of drug possession, particularly in a legal environment where state-level decriminalization is increasingly the norm. This tension calls into question the rationality and justice of maintaining such prohibitions in the face of such evolving societal norms.

State of Wisconsin, Constitution, Article I, § 1

This section of the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees that “All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This foundational provision underscores the state’s commitment to protecting individual freedoms and ensuring that all citizens have the right to live their lives free from undue governmental interference.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is broad and fundamental, encompassing the freedom to make personal choices about one’s life, as long as those choices do not harm others. This provision of the Wisconsin Constitution supports the argument that the state should not criminalize actions that are victimless and that do not infringe upon the rights or well-being of others.

In the context of the present case, the prosecution for the possession of a substance that has been decriminalized or legalized in many jurisdictions raises serious questions about the state’s infringement on individual liberty. When an individual engages in behavior that is both private and victimless the criminalization of that behavior appears to conflict with the inherent right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution.

The principles enshrined in Article I, § 1 suggest that the state’s interest in criminalizing victimless actions is not sufficiently compelling to override the constitutional rights of individuals. The protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should take precedence, particularly when the conduct in question does not pose a threat to public safety or the rights of others.

Thus, the Wisconsin Constitution provides strong support for the argument that laws criminalizing victimless actions are inconsistent with the state’s own constitutional commitment to individual freedom and personal autonomy. The state should prioritize the protection of these fundamental rights over the enforcement of laws that penalize behavior which does not cause harm.

To further substantiate the argument against the criminalization of victimless actions, it is essential to consider the statistical evidence that highlights the disproportionate impact of these laws on marginalized communities, as well as the broader societal implications. The following data demonstrates the inefficacy and injustice of current enforcement practices.

Disproportionate Impact Across Demographics

The enforcement of drug laws disproportionately affects various demographic groups, exacerbating existing social inequalities. While racial disparities are stark and well-documented, other factors such as socioeconomic status, geographic location, and age also play significant roles in determining who is most impacted by these laws.

Racial Disparities: According to a 2020 study by the ACLU, Black individuals are 3.64 times more likely than white individuals to be arrested for marijuana possession, despite similar usage rates. In Wisconsin, this disparity is even more pronounced, with Black individuals being over 4 times more likely to be arrested for the same offense. This data highlights a deeply ingrained racial bias in the enforcement of drug laws, contributing to the broader issues of systemic racism within the criminal justice system.

Socioeconomic Disparities: Socioeconomic status is another critical factor influencing the likelihood of arrest and prosecution for drug offenses. Individuals from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement and less able to afford legal representation, resulting in harsher penalties and longer sentences. This creates a vicious cycle where poverty is both a cause and a consequence of criminalization, trapping individuals and families in a cycle of economic hardship and incarceration.

Geographic Disparities: Geographic location also plays a significant role in the enforcement of drug laws. In rural areas and certain urban neighborhoods, law enforcement practices may be more aggressive, leading to higher arrest rates for minor offenses like marijuana possession. Additionally, states with harsher drug laws or less progressive criminal justice policies tend to have higher incarceration rates for drug-related offenses, further entrenching regional disparities.

Age Disparities: Younger individuals, particularly those in their late teens and early twenties, are disproportionately affected by drug law enforcement. This age group is more likely to engage in behaviors that attract police attention, such as public gatherings or social events where drug use might occur. Once arrested and convicted, these young people face significant long-term consequences, including barriers to employment, education, and housing, which can have lasting impacts on their futures.

When considering the impact of drug laws, it’s crucial to recognize how these various factors intersect. For instance, a young Black man from a low-income neighborhood is at a significantly higher risk of being arrested for marijuana possession than his white, middle-class and counterpart. The intersection of race, class, geography, and age magnifies the impact of these laws, leading to compounded disadvantages for the most vulnerable members of society.

Inefficacy in Reducing Crime or Improving Public Safety

Studies have consistently shown that states with decriminalized or legalized marijuana have not experienced an increase in overall crime rates. In fact, a 2019 report by the Cato Institute found that states with legalized marijuana saw a reduction in violent crime by an average of 10%. This data underscores the argument that the criminalization of victimless actions, such as marijuana possession, does not enhance public safety—in fact, it can have the opposite effect.

Diversion of Law Enforcement Resources: Criminalizing victimless actions diverts valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing more serious crimes. Police officers, prosecutors, and courts become bogged down with cases involving minor, non-violent offenses, leaving fewer resources available to investigate and prosecute violent crimes and other threats to public safety. This misallocation of resources can lead to an increase in unsolved crimes, particularly those involving violence, theft, or other offenses that directly harm individuals and communities.

Erosion of Community Trust: The enforcement of laws against victimless crimes can erode trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. When individuals are arrested and prosecuted for behaviors that do not harm others, it fosters a perception that law enforcement is more interested in punishing people than in protecting them. This can lead to a reluctance to cooperate with police investigations, report crimes, or participate in community safety initiatives, ultimately making communities less safe.

Perpetuation of Cycles of Violence and Poverty: Criminalizing minor offenses can contribute to cycles of violence and poverty, particularly in marginalized communities. When individuals are incarcerated for victimless actions, they often face significant barriers to reintegration upon release, including difficulties in finding employment, housing, and educational opportunities. This marginalization can lead to economic instability and increase the likelihood of involvement in more serious criminal activity as individuals struggle to survive. Moreover, the criminalization of behaviors such as drug possession can exacerbate underlying issues such as addiction and mental health problems, further destabilizing individuals and communities.

Impact on Public Health: The criminalization of victimless actions, particularly those related to drug use, can also negatively impact public health. Fear of legal repercussions may discourage individuals from seeking help for substance abuse or health-related issues, leading to untreated conditions that can have broader social implications. In contrast, states that have shifted toward a public health approach—focusing on harm reduction and treatment rather than punishment—have seen improvements in both individual health outcomes and community safety.

Contribution to Mass Incarceration and the Prison-for-Profit System

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that approximately 16% of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated for drug offenses, many of which involve the possession of small amounts of controlled substances. The continued enforcement of these laws not only contributes significantly to the problem of mass incarceration, costing taxpayers billions annually and straining the criminal justice system, but it also plays a critical role in perpetuating the prison-for-profit system.

The growth of private, for-profit prisons in the United States is directly tied to the policies that fuel mass incarceration, including the criminalization of victimless actions such as drug possession. These private prisons are driven by profit motives, benefiting financially from higher incarceration rates. This creates a perverse incentive structure, where the focus shifts from rehabilitation and justice to maintaining high occupancy rates to maximize profits.

As a result, laws that criminalize minor, non-violent offenses are not only ineffective in promoting public safety but also serve to funnel individuals into a system that profits from their continued incarceration. The expansion of this prison-for-profit system disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, deepening social and economic inequalities while diverting resources away from more effective, humane approaches to justice.

Analysis

The data presented clearly illustrates the disproportionate burden placed on marginalized communities and the broader inefficacy of criminalizing victimless actions. These statistics underscore the need for a reevaluation of current laws and practices, as they fail to achieve their intended goals of reducing crime or enhancing public safety while perpetuating systemic inequalities.

In summary, the statistical evidence compellingly demonstrates that the criminalization of victimless actions is both ineffective and unjust. The disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, combined with the contribution to mass incarceration and the lack of any significant public safety benefit, underscores the urgent need for legal reform.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Cassandra Davis

Cassandra Davis

Founder and Executive Director, Finding Camelot