Arizona v. Attakai
Criminal No. 4098
Coconino County
July 26, 1960
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Appeal by State dismissed by Arizona Supreme Court.
JUDGE: Yale McFate.
OPINION
THE COURT: Well, Gentlemen, I have finally formulated my opinion with respect to this matter.
The defendant admits the possession of peyote, as charged in the complaint, and she is therefore guilty of the crime of illegal possession of peyote unless the statute under which she is charged is unconstitutional. Counsel for defendant strongly urges that it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and of Article 11, Sections 4,8, 12 and 13 of the Arizona Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits any state from enacting any law which abridges the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of liberty without due process of law, or deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. The Arizona Constitution, Article 11, Sections 4, 8, 12 and 13 covers substantially the same subject matter as the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Freedom of religious worship is guaranteed by these fundamental constitutional provisions.
The State of Arizona, under the police power, may regulate or prohibit the use or possession of substances, even though used in religious rites, if reasonably necessary to protect the public health or safety. Liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of our Constitutions may not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the public.
The precise question before this court, therefore, is this: Is this statute prohibiting possession of peyote reasonably necessary to protect the public health?
The measure of reasonableness is: What, under all the circumstances, is fairly appropriate in order to accomplish the purpose of protecting the public health, and not necessarily what is best for that purpose.
The evidence in this case establishes that peyote is a small cactus which grows along the banks of the Rio Grande. When taken internally it produces — especially when the eyes are closed — extraordinary physiological and psychological effects such as bright colors and so-called visions, as though one were witnessing an actual scene; yet, while these effects are being produced, the subject is completely aware of his actual environment and in possession of all his mental faculties. And there are no harmful aftereffects from the use of peyote.
Peyote is not a narcotic. It is not habit-forming. It is actually unpleasant to take, having a very bitter taste.
There is no significant use of peyote by persons other than Indians who practice peyotism in connection with their religion. There are about 225,000 members of the organized church, known as the Native American Church, which adheres to this practice. The peyote rite is one of prayer and quiet contemplation. The doctrine consists of belief in God, brotherly love, care of family and other worthy beliefs. The use and significance of peyote within the religious framework is complex. It is conceived of as a sacrament, a means of communion with the Spirit of the Almighty — and as an object of worship, itself, as having been provided for the Indian by the Almighty.
The Indians use peyote primarily in connection with their religious ritual. When thus consumed, it causes the worshiper to experience a vivid revelation in which he sees or hears the spirit of a departed loved one, or experiences other religious phenomenon; or he may be shown the way to solve some daily problem, or reproved for some evil thought or deed. Through the use of peyote, the Indian acquires increased powers of concentration and introspection, and experiences deep religious emotion. There is nothing debasing or morally reprehensible about the peyote ritual.
The use of peyote is essential to the existence of the peyote religion. Without it, the practice of the religion would be effectively prevented.
From the foregoing, it follows:
First, the only significant use made of peyote is in connection with Indian rites of a bona fide religious nature, or for medicinal purposes.
Second, there are no harmful after-effects from the use of peyote.
Third, it is not a narcotic, nor is it habit-forming.
Fourth, the practical effect of the statute outlawing its use is to prevent worship by members of the Native American Church, who believe the peyote plant to be of divine origin and to bear a similar relation to the Indians — most of whom cannot read — as does the Holy Bible to the white man.
The manner in which peyote is used by the Indian worshipper is not inconsistent with the public health, morals, or welfare. Its use, in the manner disclosed by the evidence in this case, is in fact entirely consistent with the good morals, health and spiritual elevation of some 225,000 Indians.
It is significant that many states which formerly outlawed the use of peyote have abolished or amended their laws to permit its use for religious purposes. It is also significant that the Federal Government has in no wise prevented the use of peyote by Indians or others.
Under these circumstances, the court finds that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the acts of this defendant in the conduct and practice of her religious beliefs.
There will therefore be an order dismissing this complaint, exonerating the bond, and releasing the defendant.
[On April 25, 1961, the Supreme Court of Arizona dismissed the appeal of the above case. Omer C. Stewart, Peyote Religion, University of Oklahoma Press, 1987]