Court Opinion

ID: 9452198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:32:39.224903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:06.426156
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
Like Judge Danaher, I think that subsection (i) of the narcotics vagrancy act does not apply to subsection (b) (1) (B) of that act.1 But I also think that guilt under subsection (b) (1) (B) requires a finding that the defendant had some knowledge of the presence of narcotics in the “place, abode, house,” etc. where he was found. Otherwise, the severe limitations on freedom of movement as to places and persons would raise serious constitutional questions.2
Since the requisite knowledge was not shown here, appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I join in Judge Danaher’s disposition.
WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, dissents.

. D.C.Code § 33-416 (a) (1961) states in part:
“(b) For the purpose of this section— “(1) the term ‘vagrant’ shall mean any person who is a narcotic drug user or who has been convicted of a narcotic offense in the District of Columbia or elsewhere and who—
* * * * *
“(B) is found in any place, abode, house, shed, dwelling, building, structure, vehicle, conveyance, or boat, in which any illicit narcotic drugs are kept, found, used, or dispensed;
$ H* $ ^ ^
“(i) In all prosecutions under the provisions of this section, the burden of proof shall be upon the defendant to show that he has lawful employment or has lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source.”

. “Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958). ‘[F]reedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to rights of free speech and association.” Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 517, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 1669, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964).