Decriminalization

The Washington Supreme Court Just Decriminalized Simple Drug Possession. Legislators Shouldn't 'Fix' the Overturned Law.

The court said criminalizing unknowing possession violates the right to due process.

|

The Washington Supreme Court effectively decriminalized simple drug possession in that state last week by overturning a law that made possession a felony without any evidence of intent or knowledge. In an opinion issued on Thursday, the court concluded that the absence of a mens rea ("guilty mind") requirement violated the right to due process. As a result of that decision, Washington police have stopped arresting people for simple possession, while prosecutors are dropping pending cases and seeking orders vacating past convictions under the law.

The case involved a Spokane woman named Shannon Blake, who was arrested in 2016 during a vehicle theft investigation. A corrections officer at the jail found a small plastic bag of methamphetamine in the coin pocket of Blake's secondhand jeans, which a friend had given her two days before. Blake said she did not use meth and had no idea she was carrying it. But under Washington law, she was still guilty of possessing a controlled substance, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Washington was the only state that criminalized innocent, unknowing possession of illegal drugs. The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the statute under which Blake was convicted does not require evidence of knowledge or intent. "If the legislature had intended guilty knowledge or intent to be an element of the crime of simple possession of a controlled substance," the court ruled in 1981, "it would have put the requirement in the act." Twenty-three years later, the court reiterated that the legislature had made drug possession a strict liability crime.

Despite that well-established understanding of the law, the court had never before addressed the question of whether the omission of a mens rea element made the law unconstitutional. But in their decision overturning Blake's conviction, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud and four of her colleagues ruled that "the state legislature's exercise of its otherwise plenary police power to criminalize entirely passive and innocent nonconduct with no mens rea or guilty mind violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions."

Writing in dissent, Justice Debra Stephens said the court could have fixed the problem by reading a mens rea requirement into the statute. But in the majority's view, the court's longstanding decisions that declined to do so, combined with the legislature's failure to change the statute in light of those rulings, foreclosed that option. "We have overwhelming evidence that the legislature intends the simple possession statute to penalize innocent nonconduct," it said, "and we have overwhelming legal authority that this violates the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions."

In response to the decision, the Seattle Police Department announced that "officers will no longer detain [or] arrest individuals" for simple possession. Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl likewise said "we will still seize [controlled substances] as contraband, but there will not be any criminal sanctions." The Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs told its members that "law enforcement officers are no longer authorized to conduct a criminal investigation, effect an arrest, seek a search warrant or take any other law enforcement action for simple possession of controlled substances."

The Associated Press reports that the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys "instructed its members to immediately drop any pending cases for simple drug possession, to obtain orders vacating the convictions of anyone doing time for simple drug possession, and to recall any arrest warrants issued in such cases." The article adds that "people who were subject to forfeiture cases could seek redress for the loss of their property."

The state legislature can—and probably will—recriminalize simple possession by amending the statute to include a mens rea element. A bill introduced by state Sens. Mark Mullet (D–Issaquah) and Steven Hobbs (D–Lake Stevens) would add the word knowingly to the provision making it "unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance" without a prescription. "Right now, you can have controlled substances and not get arrested," Hobbs told KOMO News on Friday. "It's kind of crazy. I know several states have gone through this very problem before and now it's our turn, and we have to fix it right away."

A bill narrowly approved by the House Public Safety Committee on February 15 offers an alternative: Like a ballot initiative that Oregon voters passed in November, the Pathways to Recovery Act would eliminate criminal penalties for possessing "personal use amounts" of drugs while expanding addiction treatment services. The bill envisions a program of "peer-driven, noncoercive outreach and engagement" for people with drug problems.

As it stands, Oregon and Washington are the only states where drug use is not treated as a crime. Rep. Lauren Davis (D–Shoreline), the main sponsor of the Pathways to Recovery Act, thinks drug use should instead be treated as a disease. "It is imperative that we stop handing down felony possession convictions that compound shame and create barriers to recovery," she told Marijuana Moment. "We must stop criminalizing symptoms of a treatable brain disease." Her bill likewise says "substance use disorder is among the only health conditions for which a person can be arrested for displaying symptoms."

This view mistakenly describes a pattern of behavior as a brain disease. As Davis' bill notes, people choose to take drugs for identifiable reasons. For example, "People use drugs to escape the painful reality of their lives and circumstances, including trauma that has never had a chance to heal." Characterizing those decisions as the product of a disease denies the autonomy and moral agency of drug users, implying that their choices not only do not matter but, strictly speaking, do not even exist.

Although Davis, to her credit, favors a "noncoercive" approach to addiction, many other politicians, including President Joe Biden, think drug users should be forced into treatment under the threat of incarceration, then locked in "rehab centers" rather than jails or prisons. They counterintuitively present that policy as an enlightened and humane alternative to criminalization.

The focus on addiction as a brain disease also ignores the experiences of most drug users, who neither want nor need the "help" that Biden would like to foist upon them. The injustice of our drug laws should be clear from the simple fact that they authorize the arrest and imprisonment of people for peaceful conduct that violates no one's rights. That policy is morally abhorrent regardless of whether its victims qualify for a diagnosis of "substance use disorder."

Sen. Hobbs thinks "it's kind of crazy" that people cannot be arrested and locked in a cage for possessing an arbitrarily proscribed intoxicant. To the contrary, it's the policy Hobbs supports that is manifestly irrational.

NEXT: Brickbats: March 2021

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. nice time to be alive. the white-knuckled drives across town in my youth were fun *and* a bitch

    1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder. Say Goodbye To QWE Your Old Job ! Limited Number Of Spots Open… GOOGLE CASH 1

      1. I like my yob.

        1. You are a yob.

          1. I’ll yob you.

            1. Yob your own knob.

              1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much HAER better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info

                on this page…..READ MORE

  2. Always wondered what would happen when they bring in the drug dogs to search the used car I just bought.

    1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .UJm . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do………. JOBS APP

  3. They should remove all legal restrictions on drugs and only mandate treatment for those who have demonstrated other criminal behavior as a result of drug use. If you use drugs and otherwise obey laws, then fine, your choice. But if your drug use leads to behavior that criminally hurts others, then you need treatment.
    Also it is well established that some drugs are chemically addictive.

    1. “Also it is well established that some drugs are chemically addictive.”

      Addiction should not be a “crime,” nor seen as civil problem requiring mandatory “rehab.” There are millions, literally, addicted to alcohol, the majority of whom, function well, and are no threat to society.

      My wife’s uncle was addicted to heroin for over twenty years (clean the last fifteen), and the worst “crime” he ever committed was a civil violation for having too much “stuff” around his house (he was “up-recycling). And that was after his “recovery.”

      1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. shol Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
        COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

    2. Or just punish people for their criminal behavior. More complication just makes for more opportunities for abuses of power, and won’t help anybody.

    3. That is the worst argument for legalization I have ever read. Failing to grasp that what you wrote is actually an appeal for enhanced sentencing for non-drug related crimes is particularly obtuse.

      Ken was right. Your malevolence is just the inevitable result of a weak mind being given a public forum to regurgitate malformed notions. That used to be the purview of Congress. Now it is everyone with a smartphone.

    4. The drug war is nothing more than Puritanism. People do drugs because it makes them feel good, and feeling good is a sin.

    5. >>But if your drug use leads to behavior that criminally hurts others

      criminal actions lead to others hurt by crime.

    6. 100% agree. The act of a human ingesting a substance does not harm the general public.

      1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. sho Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
        COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. READ MORE

  4. The government owes a whole lot of people reparations.

  5. But…but…but, we’re supposed to be sending messages to “The Children” with our drug laws. And not messages of compassion and understanding, the only thing that children could possibly respond to is threats of punishment. That Drug-Free America is just one or two busts around the corner, don’t give-up now.

  6. The court said criminalizing unknowing possession violates the right to due process.
    Due process?
    What’s that?

  7. When I arrived in Amsterdam in the 90s I was warned not to park my car within the city limits so I parked at a train station and rode the train. When the train doors opened, there was a line of Morroccan immigrants saying, “Psst, cocaine, ecstacy”. All of it is fake, counterfeit dope.
    There were Junkies everywhere. On weekend nights, packs of wasted Brits ran down the street destroying bikes and breaking windows. There were “methadone buses” that drove around the city administering methadone.
    The only ones that benefit from legalizing drugs like heroin and meth are the Junkies. Everyone else suffers from the consequences of addicted scumbags trying to pay for their fix.
    Honestly, after a week you just wanted to get out of there, take a long bath, and never return. It was not a good look.

  8. The subtext is clear, without ‘criminalization of possession’, or some variation thereof, in our totalitarian toolbox, how are we going to exert control over those deemed as ne’er-do-wells, undesirables and/or malcontents?

    I have to wonder how many lives have been ruined in Washington State by felony convictions for simple possession?

  9. “the state legislature’s exercise of its otherwise plenary police power to criminalize entirely passive and innocent nonconduct with no mens rea or guilty mind violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions.”

    While I approve, I wonder if the judge understands how far reaching this is going to be? This will extend to a massive range of areas.

    Is she going to be happy to be known as ‘the judge that legalized statutory rape’, for example? Now that mens rea needs to be proved the ‘I didn’t know she wasn’t 18’ excuse is back in play.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.