U.S. v. Quaintance, CR NO. 06-538 JCH.

• Decision Date: 22 December 2006
• Docket Number: No. CR NO. 06-538 JCH.,CR NO. 06-538 JCH.
• Citation: 471 F.Supp.2d 1153
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Danuel Dean QUAINTANCE, Mary Helen Quaintance, Timothy Jason Kripner, and Joseph Allen Butts, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

471 F.Supp.2d 1153

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Danuel Dean QUAINTANCE, Mary Helen Quaintance, Timothy Jason Kripner, and Joseph Allen Butts, Defendants.

No. CR NO. 06-538 JCH.

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

December 22, 2006.

Marc H. Robert, Federal Public Defender's Office, Mario A. Esparza, Las Cruces, NM, Leon Schydlower, El Paso, TX, for Defendants.

Luis Armando Martinez, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HERRERA, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Danuel Dean Quaintance's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Incorporated Memorandum, filed April 7, 2006, [Doc. No. 34] ("Motion to Dismiss"). Defendants Mary Helen Quaintance and Joseph Allen Butts join in the Motion to Dismiss. On August 21, 2006, the Court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Danuel Dean Quaintance was present at the hearing and was represented by Marc H. Robert, Esq. Defendant Mary Helen Quaintance was present and represented by Mario A. Esparza, Esq. Defendant Joseph Allen Butts was present and represented by Bernadette Sedillo, Esq. The United States was present and represented by Assistant United States Attorney Luis Martinez and Special Assistant United States Attorney Amanda Gould. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, along with the arguments of counsel, written briefs, and applicable law, the Court concludes that the Motion to Dismiss is not Well taken and should be denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendants. Danuel Quaintance, Mary Quaintance, and Joseph Butts are charged with possession of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 841, and with conspiracy to possess more than 100 kilograms with the intent to distribute in violation of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 846.¹

Defendant Danuel Quaintance is the founder of the Church of Cognizance, and Defendants Mary Quaintance and Joseph Butts are members of the Church of Cognizance. Defendants maintain that marijuana is a sacrament and deity and that the consumption of marijuana is a means of worship. Defendants argue that the application of the CSA to members of the Church of Cognizance constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., as well as the Establishment Clause and First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

DISCUSSION

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed in 1993 in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). In that case, the Supreme Court abolished the compelling interest test for judicial claims involving the free exercise of religion. RFRA re-established the strict scrutiny test for judicial claims involving the free exercise of religion. RFRA states in relevant part:

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception.

Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person —

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a) and (b). Defendants maintain that the application of the CSA to the Church of Cognizance constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by members of the Church of Cognizance. Although Defendants also argue that the application of the CSA to members of the church is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and that it is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, the parties seek only a ruling on whether the CSA substantially burdens their religious beliefs.

A person claiming that the government has placed a substantial burden on his or her practice of religion must establish that the governmental action (1) substantially burdens (2) a religious belief, not just a philosophy or way of life, (3) which belief is sincerely held. United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1482 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Thiry v. Carlson, 78 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir.1996)). That showing must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

The Government concedes that application of the CSA substantially burdens the Defendants' beliefs. Accordingly, the only questions before the Court are (1) whether Defendants' beliefs are religious, and not simply a philosophy or way of life, and (2) whether those beliefs are sincerely held.

I. Religious Belief.

In United States v. Meyers, the Tenth Circuit set forth the following five factors a district court should consider in determining whether a belief is "religious" for purposes of RFRA: (1) ultimate ideas, (2) metaphysical beliefs, (3) moral or ethical system, (4) comprehensiveness of beliefs, and (5) accoutrements of religion. Id. at 1483. In United States v. Meyers, the United States charged the defendant with two offenses stemming from marijuana possession and trafficking. 906 F.Supp. 1494, 1495 (D.Wyo.1995). Meyers asserted that the United States could not prosecute him for these crimes, because, as a "Reverend" of the "Church of Marijuana," his possession and distribution of marijuana was legally protected religious conduct. Id. The question before the Meyers court was whether the "Church of Marijuana" was a bona fide religion that triggered the protections of RFRA. Id. The district court concluded that Meyers's beliefs were secular and not religious, id. at 1508, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. In so holding, the Tenth Circuit explained that Meyers's beliefs "more accurately espouse a philosophy and/or way of life rather than a `religion.'" 95 F.3d at 1484.

In applying the Meyers factors, the Tenth Circuit explained that a district court "`cannot rely solely on established or recognized religions to guide it in determining Whether a new and unique set of beliefs warrants inclusion.'" Id. (quoting Meyers, 906 F.Supp. at 1503). Moreover, the Tenth Circuit indicated that "`no one of these factors is dispositive,'" and that "the factors should be seen as criteria that, if minimally satisfied, counsel the inclusion of beliefs within the term `religion.'" Id. (quoting Meyers, 906 F.Supp. at 1503). That Said, the court concluded that "`purely personal, political, ideological, or secular beliefs'" would not likely"`satisfy enough criteria for inclusion.'" Id. (quoting Meyers, 906 F.Supp. at 1504) (additional citations omitted);" see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (philosophical and personal beliefs are not religious beliefs); Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1036 (3d Cir.1981) (finding beliefs are secular and not religious); Berman v. United States, 156 F.2d 377, 380-81 (9th Cir.1946) (beliefs that are moral and social are not religious); Church of the Chosen People v. United States, 548 F.Supp. 1247, 1253 (D.Minn.1982) (beliefs that are sexual and secular are not religious). Whether a particular set of beliefs are "religious" within the meaning of RFRA is a legal question reviewed de novo. Meyers, 95 F.3d at 1482.

Defendants maintain that their beliefs meet the criteria of Meyers.² The Government disagrees. The Court addresses each of the Meyers factors in turn.

A. Application of the Meyers Factors.

1. Ultimate Ideas.

In explaining this factor, the Meyers court stated, "Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death. As one court has put it, `a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters.'" Id. at 1483 (quoting Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032). "These matters may include existential matters, such as man's sense of being; teleological matters, such as man's purpose in life; and cosmological matters, such as man's place in the universe." Id. The district court in Meyers concluded that Meyers's beliefs did not deal with "ultimate concerns" such as life, purpose, and death; they did not address "a fear of the unknown, the pain of loss, a sense of alienation, feelings of purposelessness, the inexplicability of the world, and the prospects of eternity." 906 F.Supp. at 1505. The district court "simply was unable to discern anything ultimate, profound, or imponderable about Meyers's beliefs." Id.

Defendants' beliefs likewise do not meet the "ultimate ideas" factor.³ In describing how the Church of Cognizance meets this criterion, Defendant Danuel, Quaintance testified that the "purpose of life is to live a good life and help others. You start as a seed and you grow from that point, and you expand in knowledge and wisdom, and hopefully, on a right path, a narrow path, to the longevity, to the longest life that you can live." Aug. 22, 2006, Tr. at 240-41; see also id. at 248 (Testimony of D. Quaintance) (The Church of Cognizance is a "truth-based religion, where we seek longevity, we seek to live the longest, healthiest life within our means. It's a narrow path to that."); id. at 226 (Testimony of D. Quaintance) (the church teaches that the "main thing in life is extending life and to live as long a life as possible"). Mr. Quaintance also explained that the purpose of the church "is to try to, you know, bring people around to the right way of life. . . . [T]here[][are] two paths, the broad path through destruction and the narrow path through righteousness." Id. at 227.

Although the Church of Cognizance attempts to answer questions regarding the purpose of life, the Court does not believe that these answers are sufficient to qualify as "ultimate ideas" within the meaning of Meyers. There is nothing "ultimate, profound, or...