Opinion ID: 1789370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Criminal Conviction for Use of Unprescribed Narcotic Drugs.

Text: Sec. 161.02 (3), Stats., establishes three offenses involving the use of narcotics. It provides that no person shall take or use narcotic drugs (1) habitually or (2) excessively or (3) except in pursuance to a prescription for permitted use as prescribed . . . The latter offense embraces a single instance of use and it was with this offense that Browne was charged. The defendant contends that to make a crime of such use of unprescribed narcotic drugs by a person who is addicted to the use of narcotics constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of substantive due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution. He relies upon Robinson v. California [2] as the sole support for his argument. Robinson is clearly distinguishable. The California statute that was held unconstitutional made it a crime to be a drug addict. Robinson came to California from Oregon and was charged with the status crime of being addicted to the use of narcotics. He was not charged with, nor was there any evidence offered of any particular incident of use of drugs either in California or otherwise. The United States supreme court, in reversing a judgment of conviction, stated, at page 666: This statute, therefore, is not one which punishes a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration. It is not a law which even purports to provide or require medical treatment. Rather, we deal with a statute which makes the `status' of narcotic addiction a criminal offense, for which the offender may be prosecuted `at any time before he reforms.' California has said that a person can be continuously guilty of this offense, whether or not he has ever used or possessed any narcotics within the State, and whether or not he has been guilty of any antisocial behavior there. Robinson does not invalidate any state statute, such as sec. 161.02 (3), Stats., that makes it a crime for a person, whether an addict or not, to take and use narcotic drugs without a legal prescription. In the case at bar Browne was not charged with being an addict but with a specific act of taking and using drugs not pursuant to a prescription. We must conclude that there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the statute is unconstitutional.