In re Ah Jow
| Decision Date | 23 August 1886 |
| Citation | 29 F. 181 |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of California |
| Parties | In re AH JOW. |
W. E Turner, for petitioner.
B. C Minor, for respondents.
Before SAWYER, J.
The return to the writ shows that petitioner is in custody in pursuance of a judgment upon a conviction upon a complaint charging him with a public offense, to-wit: 'Visiting a room kept, in the city of Modesto, by another, where opium was sold. ' The offense for which the petitioner was convicted and committed as a punishment, is created by section 2 of ordinance No. 4 of the city of Modesto, which reads as follows:
This language is extremely comprehensive, and embraces every possible case of visiting 'such room or place;' no matter whether for a proper and lawful or improper and unlawful purpose; whether the party has knowledge or is ignorant of the character of the 'room or place;' whether he visits it innocently or otherwise. Neither knowledge, nor purpose of the visit, is made an element of the offense. The mere face of going there, without any other element, is made an offense. That the provision was deliberately intended to be thus sweeping and comprehensive is evident from the fact that the provision in the preceding section, 'who visits * * * any such room or place, for any such purpose, is guilty of a misdemeanor,' embraces the purpose, and, necessarily, knowledge of the character of the place, as elements of the offense, and there would be no occasion for section 2, if its provisions are not intended to embrace those cases which do not include knowledge and purpose as elements of the offense.
These places, in view of the ordinance making the keeping of 'such room or place' an offense, would be likely to be kept for the purpose secretly, and the general public know nothing about it; especially if 'the room or place' be an ordinary drug-store, constantly resorted to for the purchase of other drugs. Under this section it would not be lawful for any person, where Caucasian citizen, or other inhabitant, to enter such a place or drug-store for many of the ordinary and proper purposes of life; as to purchase other goods, to collect bills, or transact any legitimate business. To lawfully prohibit, under penalties, the citizens or inhabitants from entering such a place, innocently, not knowing its character, or for any lawful purpose, and without reference to its object, is, in my judgment, entirely beyond the power of the city of Modesto. It is to prohibit an act which is innocent in itself, and lawful under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cressey
...amended Health and Safety Code section 11556 would suffer from the same constitutional infirmity as its predecessor. (See In re Ah Jow (Cir.Ct.Cal.1886) 29 F. 181, 182; Bonwell v. Justice Court, supra, 148 Cal.App.2d 906, 907--908, 307 P.2d 716; cf. In re Cregler (1961) 56 Cal.2d 308, 312, ......
- City of Carthage v. Block
-
Ex parte Martin
...in entertaining jurisdiction at once, notwithstanding the causes were then pending in the state courts, was very plain, namely, In re Ah Jow (C.C.) 29 F. 181, parte Kieffer (C.C.) 40 F. 399, and Ex parte Jervey (C.C.) 66 F. 957. In each of these cases, and others that might be cited of the ......
-
State v. Gage
...act is injurious, essential elements of the injury, and must be made the grounds of the prohibition. State v. Speyer, 67 Vt. 502; In re Ah Jow, 29 F. 181. statute prohibits agreements of every kind and description made for any such purpose. Anderson's Dictionary of Law, 45. The word "agreem......
-
Overdue Process: Why Denial of Physician-prescribed Marijuana to Terminally Ill Patients Violates the United States Constitution
...Ah Lim, 1 Wash. 156 (1890). 125. Id. at 174-75 (Scott, J., dissenting). Justice Stiles concurred with Justice Scott. See also In re Ah Jow, 29 F. 181 (C.C.D. Cal. 1886) (releasing convict on petition for habeus corpus due to overbreadth of opium statute). 126. For example, in a footnote in ......