Summaries of Religious Use of Marijuana Cases Alabama regulate was conceivable, only that none had Rheuark v. State (1992) 601 So.2d 135 been proposed. Statutes prohibiting possession of marijuana and controlled substances did not violate freedom of California: religion rights of defendant claiming that he People v. Mullins (1975) 50 Cal. App 3d 61 worshipped plants as gods and used marijuana Facts: A deputy sheriff had gone to defendant's and psilocybin as religious practice. premises at night at the invitation of a man who Court compared Defendant’s argument to a past lived in a teepee on the property and who had told ruling on polygamy and quoting the cases the officer there were marijuana plants growing Reynolds v. United State 98 U.S. 145 and there. The officer took two plants as samples to Cleveland v. United States 329 U.S. 14 which in be tested and, three days later, went back to the sum says that morality is defined by statute and property with a search warrant. Defendant's Congress and not the individual’s perceptions of property is not enclosed or surrounded by a morality. Therefore because the possession of fence. From Ten Mile Creek Road there is a marijuana is unlawful, it doesn’t matter that the driveway that leads onto defendant's property. Defendant used it for religious use. There is no gate at the entrance to the property. At the entrance there is a sign reading “Universal Arizona: Life Church of Christ Light.” Defendant's wife People v. Hardesty (2009) 214 P.3d 1004 testified that on and prior to May 30, 1972, there FACTS: Hardesty was driving his van at night was a “no trespassing” sign at the entrance to the when an officer stopped him because one property; that a church known as “Universal Life headlight was out. The officer smelled marijuana Church of Christ Light” is located on the property and recovered a baggie containing fourteen and is open to members of the public who are grams of marijuana from a daypack on the front interested in “The Urantia Book”; that church floorboard of the van, less than two feet from the services are usually held in the area of the driver, and marijuana joint Hardesty had just teepees; and that from this area none of the thrown out the window. Claims that marijuana is gardens are visible. She testified, however, that the main religious sacrament in the church he people were not told they could not leave the attends. The church allows for the members to campsite. create their only family’s unit mode of worship. In Defendant contends that he had a reasonable Hardesty’s mode was to smoke and eat marijuana expectation of privacy from governmental without limit as to time or place. intrusions on his property and particularly the HELD: Hardesty may use religious use as a gardens that were hidden from public view. He defense, but fails as a matter of law also asserts that the initial entry upon defendant's DISCUSSION: Analyzed Hardesty’s defense property was unreasonable because it occurred at under FERA (Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion night and that this circumstance adds to Act). A party who raises a religious exercise claim defendant's “subjective” expectation of privacy. or defense under FERA must establish three With respect to the Deputy's initial entry on the elements: (1) that an action or refusal to act is premises we (Court) observe that it was with the motivated by a religious belief, (2) that the consent of Satterfield, a resident upon religious belief is sincerely held, and (3) that the defendant's property. It is not contended by governmental action substantially burdens the defendant that Satterfield was without authority to exercise of religious beliefs. State conceded to 1 invite persons to enter upon defendant's land for and 2 business and social relationships with Satterfield ISSUE: whether the State met its burden of but it is apparently his contention that any such proving that the statutory prohibition on the invitation could not extend to the gardens which possession of marijuana is the least restrictive he asserts were hidden from public view. means of furthering the government's compelling HOLDING: applicable principle is stated in Katz v. interest. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-352 [19 L.Ed.2d HELD: Courts have consistently treated the 576, 582, 88 S.Ct. 507], as follows: “What a compelling interest/least restrictive means test as person knowingly exposes to the public, even in a question of law to be determined by the court his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth and subject to de novo review. As such, state did Amendment protection. [Citations.] But what he not have to show that no less restrictive way to seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally religion. As observed in Woody, the effect of the protected. [Citations.]” In applying the Katz application of the prohibition must be such as “to standard the California courts have used the remove the theological heart” from the religion. formula of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” (61 Cal.2d at p. 722.) The offer of proof does not (People v. Bradley, 1 Cal.3d 80, 84 [81 Cal.Rptr. proffer any evidence that the prohibition of the 457, 460 P.2d 129]; North v. Superior Court, 8 use of marijuana bars defendant from practices Cal.3d 301, 308-314 [104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d indispensable to the pursuit of his religious faith. 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155].) Accordingly, the Rather it compels him to abandon what he has question in each case becomes a weighing of the discovered is an auxiliary to what is referred to in factual circumstances of the conduct to determine Collins as a “desired intensification of whether it was “reasonable” to expect freedom apperception.” (273 Cal.App.2d at p. 488.) from the particular observation that occurred. ( Defendant indicates in his offer of proof that he North v. Superior Court, supra; Vidaurri v. has been experimenting with other self-induced Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.3d 550, 553 [91 means of attaining the desired apperception and Cal.Rptr. 704]; People v. Fly, 34 Cal.App.3d 665, the capacity for communication with the Supreme 667 [110 Cal.Rptr. 158].) Being but that he has found marijuana to be the The totality of the facts and circumstances most efficacious. This discovery and conclusion discloses that defendant's property had lost its does not necessarily rule out other self-induced private character and that there was no means which are not expectation of privacy at the place where Deputy Agenbroad first viewed the marijuana plants. District of Columbia: Defendant and his wife conducted a church on Nesbeth v. U.S. (2005) 870 A.2d 1193 the premises which was open to the members of FACTS: Nesbeth was found guilty after a bench the public who were interested in “The Urantia trial of simple possession of marijuana, a Book.” Church services were conducted in the conviction that resulted from his arrest for motor area in which Satterfield's teepee was located. vehicle violations and an ensuing search of his This teepee was in close proximity to the garden person, which yielded a small quantity of in which Agenbroad observed the growing marijuana. On appeal, his main contention is that marijuana plants. Persons who attended the the trial judge erroneously barred him from church services were not precluded from going asserting a defense under the Religious Freedom upon other areas of defendant's property, Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (2005) (the including the garden area. There were no fences RFRA or the Act), based on his claim that he is an or gates around the garden and although the adherent of the Rastafarian religion and that garden was surrounded by brush there were marijuana use is a sacrament of that faith. openings in the brush permitting access to the Nesbeth did not bring up religious defenses until garden. We apprehend that if defendant had no his opening statement. He stated that he was expectation of privacy insofar as persons who Rastafarian and had been practicing since came on the property either in connection with the childhood. He claimed an absolute right under the operation of the church or as invitees of persons 1st amendment. When the trial judge (sitting as residing upon the property, it may not reasonably trier of fact) interrupted and asked what authority be contended that public access was restricted appellant had for the defense, he responded by solely to the daylight hours. citing United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549 (9th Religious Use Issue: Applying Woody. Cir.1996). The judge asked if he had case support “We have concluded that the trial court was from this jurisdiction or the Supreme Court, to correct in its determination that defendant's offer which appellant replied that he “merely ha[d] the of proof falls short of the Woody standards. First Amendment [of] the Constitution of the Although the offer proffers evidence that United States.” Displeased with appellant's failure defendant worships and sanctifies marijuana and to notify her of the issue until opening statement, that he uses it in his religious practices, the offer the judge directed the prosecution to begin its of proof does not proffer any evidence that the testimony regarding the arrest and discovery of use of marijuana is an indispensable part of the the marijuana. religion professed by the Universal Life Church of At the end of the day's testimony, the Christ Light of which defendant is a pastor.