BRYAN MANNING v. DONALD CALDWELL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, August 9, 2018,
Due Process – VA law prohibiting possession of alcohol by someone “interdicted” as a habitual drunkard or intoxicated driver did not violate due process

(Concur – Motz – Criminalizing an act caused by a compulsion is the same as criminalizing a status)

Virginia’s alcohol control laws prohibit individuals who have been “interdicted” from possessing alcohol under certain circumstances.
Four homeless men, including Bryan Manning, were interdicted and subsequently prosecuted for possession of alcohol.
They then filed a class action suit on behalf of “all persons in Virginia who are homeless and who suffer from alcoholism,” claiming that the interdiction laws are unconstitutional because they criminalize a “status” (alcoholic), among other claims.
After losing at the trial level, Manning and the other men appealed.

Held: The Court held that the Virginia interdiction laws are a valid exercise of the State’s power to combat a problem and only target actions (possession/consumption), not a status (alcoholic).

Crimes – It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to declare someone a criminal solely because of his status

From the Case: Manning and the others “contend that because they face an irresistible compulsion to drink, they had no choice but to yield to their compulsion and consume alcohol in violation of the law.”

Crimes – Status – “Although states may not criminalize status, they may criminalize actual behavior even when the individual alleges that addiction created a strong urge to engage in a particular act.”

From the Case: “It is the act of possessing alcohol—not the status of being an alcoholic—that gives rise to criminal sanctions. Virginia has been careful to draft a statutory scheme that falls on the constitutional side of the line…”