Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/396/87/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 13:05:29
Document Index: 575363365

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 472', '§ 2', '§ 4705', '§ 6', '§ 4742', '§ 4742', '§ 4742', '§ 152', '§ 151', '§ 4705', '§ 4705', '§ 4705', '§ 8']

Minor v. United States, (full text) :: 396 U.S. 87 (1969) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 396 › Minor v. United States › Case
Minor v. United States,
396 U.S. 87 (1969)
Decided December 8, 1969*
1. With respect to he Marihuana Tax Act, the petitioner seller's claim of violation of his privilege against self-incrimination is not substantial. Pp. 396 U. S. 91-94.
(a) There is no real possibility that purchasers would comply with the order form requirement even if the seller insisted on selling only pursuant to the prescribed form, in view of the $100 per ounce tax on an unregistered transferee; the illegality under federal and state law, and the fact that the Fifth Amendment, as held in Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, relieves unregistered buyers of any duty to pay the tax and secure the order form. P. 396 U. S. 92.
by the seller with § 472(a) means imply that he cannot sell at all. Pp. 396 U. S. 92-93.
(c) That there is a small number of registered marihuana dealers does not change this result, since petitioner's customer was not a registered dealer, and it is unlikely that even a registered dealer would present an order form to an unregistered seller. Pp. 396 U. S. 93-94.
2. Petitioner seller's self-incrimination claim under the Harrion Narcotics Act is likewise insubstantial. Pp. 396 U. S. 94-98.
(a) Petitioner's argument, which assumes that an order form would be forthcoming if he refused to sell without it, is unrealistic, there being no substantial possibility that a buyer could have secured an order form to obtain heroin, virtually all dealings in which are illicit. Pp. 396 U. S. 96-97.
(b) Since petitioner's customer was not a registered buyer, the alleged possibility of incrimination is purely hypothetical. P. 396 U. S. 97.
(c) Even if petitioner's customer were registered, the result would probably be the same, since it is unlikely that a registered dealer would enter the name of an unregistered seller on the order form and record what would surely be an illegal sale. Pp. 396 U. S. 97-98.
James Minor, petitioner in No. 189, sold heroin on two separate occasions in 1967 to an undercover narcotics agent. Having waived trial by jury, petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of selling narcotics not pursuant to a written order on an official form -- a violation of § 2 of the Harrison Narcotics Act, now 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a). [Footnote 1]
Michael Buie, petitioner in No. 271, sold five packages of marihuana in May, 1967, to an undercover narcotics agent. The agent did not have the official order form required for such transactions by § 6 of the Marihuana Tax Act, now 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a). [Footnote 2] A jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted petitioner of violating § 4742(a).
We have considerable doubt that any of these arguments would withstand close scrutiny, [Footnote 3] but we find it unnecessary to appraise them in detail because we have concluded that there is no real and substantial possibility that Buie's purchaser, or purchasers generally, would be willing to comply with the order form requirement even if their seller insisted on selling only pursuant to the form prescribed by law.
Buie's situation thus bears little resemblance to the situation that confronted Leary. The vice of the statute in that case -- as in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62, and Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85 (1968) -- stemmed from the dilemma that confronted the buyer. The statute purported to make all purchases of marihuana legal from the buyer's viewpoint at his option; all he had to do to avoid the federal penalty was to secure the form and pay the tax. But to exercise that option and avoid the federal penalty, he was forced to incriminate himself under other laws. In the present case, the first horn of this dilemma does not confront the seller. In the
face of a buyer's refusal to secure the order form, the option of making a legal sale under federal law is foreclosed by the buyer's decision, and "full and literal compliance" with the law by the seller means simply that he cannot sell at all. [Footnote 4] There is no real and substantial possibility that the § 4742(a) order form requirement will in any way incriminate sellers, for the simple reason that sellers will seldom, if ever, be confronted with an unregistered purchaser who is willing and able to secure the order form.
This conclusion is not affected by the fact that there is a tiny number of registered marihuana dealers -- some 83 in the entire country, according to government figures for 1967. [Footnote 5] In order to register, dealers must show that they are in compliance with local laws, [Footnote 6] and, when
The order form provisions for narcotic drugs thus differ from the marihuana provisions in three principal respects. First, the prospective seller's name does not have to be given to the Government when the order form is secured, but is filled in only when the form is subsequently executed. [Footnote 7] Second, although the marihuana seller apparently does not have to add anything to the order form in making the sale, the seller of narcotics must enter the amounts sold and the dates. Finally, unlike the Marihuana Tax Act, which, at least in theory, permits any person to buy as long as the transfer tax is paid, the Harrison Narcotics Act explicitly forbids the sale of order forms to any but registered dealers and permits registration
only by those "lawfully entitled" under the law of their State to deal in the drug. [Footnote 8]
Like Buie, Minor argues that compliance with the order form provision would compel him to give incriminating information to be preserved in his and the buyer's file and to be made readily accessible to law enforcement agents. Like Buie's argument, Minor' argument assumes that an order form would otherwise be forthcoming if he refused to sell without it, [Footnote 9] and founders if, in reality, there is no substantial possibility that the buyer would or could have secured an order form. As in Buie's case, we are convinced that this possibility is an unreal one. Prospective buyers who have either failed to register or cannot register because their dealings in the drug are illicit -- and petitioner himself strenuously argues that virtually all dealings in heroin are illicit [Footnote 10] -- simply
We doubt that our conclusion would be different even if Minor's customer were registered. It is true that there were some 400,000 registered dealers under the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1967, [Footnote 11] and that registered dealers can readily get order forms issued in blank. It is conceivable, of course, that a registered dealer would seek to buy heroin on the illegal market, but it is difficult to imagine that he would enter the name of an unregistered seller on the order form and make a record of what would surely be an illegal sale. [Footnote 12] Such unlikely possibilities
present only "imaginary and insubstantial" hazards of incrimination, rather than the "real and appreciable" risks needed to support a Fifth Amendment claim. [Footnote 13]
The obligation to furnish the necessary information is in terms placed on the buyer; while his compliance with that obligation may "inform" on the seller, it would not ordinarily be thought to result in the latter's "self-incrimination." Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that buyers cannot get a seller's name except through the seller himself, or that the simple act of selling pursuant to an order form -- even assuming the act is "testimonial" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment -- adds significantly to the information that the Government has already obtained from the buyer. Finally, whatever the merits of a seller's attempt to assert the privilege in a prosecution for failure to keep and exhibit the order forms, it need not follow that he can similarly dispense with the requirement that he sell only to buyers who first identify themselves, via the order form, as lawful purchasers. Cf. Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 276 U. S. 351 (1928); United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 249 U. S. 94 (1919).
It would have been no answer in Leary to suggest that the buyer avoid his dilemma by not buying. See Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 390 U. S. 51-52. But the buyer in Leary, unlike the seller here, was presented with the possibility of both purchasing and complying with the federal law if he would only incriminate himself. In the present case, compliance by selling is foreclosed as a viable option not because the seller might incriminate himself, but because the buyer refuses to meet a specified condition. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment prevents Congress from restricting a seller's market to specified classes of duly licensed buyers. And although the buyer's refusal to comply with the Act's requirements may stem from his fear of incrimination, the buyer's personal privilege cannot be raised by the seller as an excuse for evading the clear statutory requirement. See George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Reid, 392 U. S. 286 (1968); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 (1951).
The regulations, 26 CFR §§ 152.22, 152.23, which limit registration to persons whose dealings are legal under relevant state and local laws, are supported by the legislative history and represent what is by now long-established administrative practice. See Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, 395 U. S. 24 n. 38 (1969); H.R.Rep. No. 792, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1937); S.Rep. No. 900, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1937); Hearings on H.R. 6906 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1937); Hearings on H.R. 6385 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1937).
The difference between the availability of order forms under the Harrison Narcotics Act and the Marihuana Tax Act was explicitly recognized by Congress when it passed the latter Act. See Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6, 395 U. S. 21-22 (1969). The regulation restricting registration to those "lawfully entitled" to deal in narcotic drugs, 26 CFR § 151.24, finds specific support in the language of the Act. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 4705(g), 4721.
The dissent suggests that the courts should refuse to enforce § 4705(a) as part of a revenue measure. But these very order form provisions were upheld long ago as valid revenue laws even though they operated to prevent large classes of people from obtaining order forms -- and hence from acquiring drugs -- at all. United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86 (1919); Webb v. United States, 249 U. S. 96 (1919); see Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332 (1928). A statute does not cease to be a valid tax measure because it deters the activity taxed, because the revenue obtained is negligible, or because the activity is otherwise illegal. See, e.g., Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 390 U. S. 44 (1968); United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 345 U. S. 28 (1953); License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462 (1867).
Even viewing § 4705(a) as little more than a flat ban on certain sales, it is sustainable under the powers granted Congress in Art. I, § 8. See Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178, 268 U. S. 183 (1925). Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 236 U. S. 222 (1915); cf. United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689 (1948); United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 (1941).
attack upon his conviction in this Court is that the requirement of an order form violates his privilege against self-incrimination. But that is not the end of the matter for me. Mr. Justice Holmes used to say that one dealing with the Government should turn square corners. See Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 254 U. S. 143. When the present all-powerful, all-pervasive Government moves to curtail the liberty of the person, it too should turn square corners.
Id. at 249 U. S. 94.
As I view this case, the Government is punishing an individual for failing to do something that the Government has made it impossible for him to do -- that is, obtain an order form from the prospective purchaser prior to making a sale of heroin. Petitioner did, of course, have the option not to sell the heroin, and, in that sense, his compliance with the statute was indeed quite possible. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that the statute does not simply outlaw all sales of heroin. The critical interest of the Government is necessarily in the collecting of the tax imposed by the Act, and it is the order form which provides the crucial link to this proper constitutional purpose. In Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 276 U. S. 341, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for the Court, said: