| Leary v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 11–12, 1968 Decided May 19, 1969 | |
| Full case name | Timothy Leary v. United States |
| Citations | 395U.S.6 (more) 89 S. Ct. 1532; 23L. Ed. 2d 57; 1969U.S. LEXIS 3271; 69-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 15,900; 23 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2006 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| The Marihuana Tax Act required self-incrimination, thus violating the Fifth Amendment of Constitution. Leary's conviction reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall; Warren (in part) |
| Concurrence | Stewart |
| Concurrence | Black (in judgment) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V,Marihuana Tax Act | |
Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is aU.S. Supreme Court case dealing with theconstitutionality of theMarihuana Tax Act of 1937.Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession ofmarijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act requiredself-incrimination, which violated theFifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by JusticeJohn Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Actunconstitutional. Thus, Leary's conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly writtenControlled Substances Act while continuing theprohibition of certain drugs in the United States.[1]
On December 20, 1965, Leary left New York by automobile, intending to take a vacation trip to the Mexican state ofYucatán. He was accompanied by his daughter and son, both teenagers, and two others. On December 22, 1965, the party drove across theInternational Bridge between the United States and Mexico atLaredo, 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 to search the car, examined its interior, and saw what appeared to bemarijuana seeds on the floor. Small amounts of marijuana were also found on the car floor and in the glove compartment. A personal search of Leary's daughter revealed a silver snuff box containing semi-refined marijuana and three partially smokedmarijuana cigarettes.[2] Though Leary was arrested for violating the Marijuana Tax Act, it was also illegal in the state of Texas to possess marijuana. Hence, compliance under federal law would have provided self-incriminating evidence.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
a. If read according to its terms, the Marijuana 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 marijuana 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.
The Marihuana Tax Act ultimately was repealed by theUnited States Congress in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.[3]