Court Opinion

ID: 9595718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:51.292597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:30.377503
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, C. J.
(dissenting). The question presented by this appeal is whether the possession of an amount of heroin insufficient for the use commonly intended will support a conviction for violation of MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123.
We hold it will not.
The defendant and a companion were arrested on a charge of shoplifting and transported to the police station in the rear seat of a police car. On the way the police officer observed defendant in the rear view mirror squirming and fidgeting with his hands behind his back. Later the officer removed the rear seat and two small packages were found. Two metal caps in one of the packages contained a minute residue of heroin.
The other package contained paraphernalia described as a "heroin kit”.
Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a retrial. 1 The defendant was again convicted and that conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In its opinion reversing defendant’s first conviction the Court of Appeals pointed out that there is a split of authority on this question. California and Texas require that the quantity be sufficient for the drug’s common use. See People v Leal, 64 Cal 2d 504; 413 P2d 665; 50 Cal Rptr 777 (1966), and Greer v State, 163 Tex Crim 377; 292 SW2d 122 (1956). A majority of the other states hold that if the substance possessed *51can be identified any quantity will support conviction.
Acknowledging that the minority view may impede efficient law enforcement, and the majority view may encourage infringement of individual rights, the Court of Appeals adopted as a compromise the rule suggested by Arthur C. Whealy of the Ontario Bar in his article Drugs and Criminal Law in 12 Crim Law Quarterly 254 (July 1970). He reported that some Canadian courts have held that if the facts and circumstances of the particular case will support a reasonable inference that it is the remnant of a larger, usable amount, possession is established so as to warrant a conviction.
We are not persuaded by the reasoning.
Even to concede that the remnant is from a usable amount is not to concede that possession of a remnant is possession of the usable amount. Possession of the hide is not possession of the horse.
But apart from any logical deficiency in such a rule we cannot accept it for a more basic reason.
This statute is an exercise of the police power in the area of public health. It has legitimacy and effect only insofar as it can be applied to the accomplishment of a proper function in the area of promoting public health.
To proscribe the possession of an amount of heroin insufficient for use can in no way be justified as promoting public health.
We are constrained to construe statutes so as to preserve this constitutional validity. If we were to adopt the view that possession of any amount of heroin less than a usable amount was proscribed by this statute we would be duty bound to hold the statute void.
Accordingly we hold the proof of possession of less *52than a usable amount of heroin as here will not support defendant’s conviction.
In light of our disposition of this issue we do not reach the other matters urged on appeal.
The conviction is set aside and defendant discharged.

 People v Harrington, 33 Mich App 548; 190 NW2d 343 (1971), lv den 385 Mich 775 (1971).—Reporter.