Charging Status Crimes such as Vagrancy or Indigency is Unconstitutional By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd.

, Coif Member, United States Supreme Court Bar (C)Copyright (2011C.E.) By Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism P.C, (PA) It appears that some ignorant or corrupt criminal prosecutors are charging defendants with status crimes such as: indigency, vagrancy, mental health, criminal insanity, etc. If fact it is illegal and unconstitutional to charge someone with a status crime. The English and American Common Law both provide that in order for a prosecutor to bring a criminal charge there prosecutor must be able to prove with admissable evidence, in court, that the defendant had mens rea, that is, the specific intent to commit a crime, and the overt physical action constituting the crime. Thus the elements of a crime must include an action by the defendant and inaction, involving mere status, is not enough. In the United States Supreme Court case of Robinson vs. California, 370 U.S.660 (1962), the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, substantive due process clause, for a prosecutor to charge a defendant with a status crime such as: having an illness, being criminally insane or mentally ill, or being a drug addict. The Court reasoned that for there to be a crime, the alleged defendant must have engaged in actual conduct, and that mere inaction or status was not enough. C.f., Alegata vs. Commonwealth, 231 N.E2d

201 (Mass. 1967); and, Hicks vs. District of Columbia, 383 U.S. 252 (1966) (Justice Douglas dissenting) Given the foregoing binding legal authority under stare decisis and res judicata, it is clear that it is illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional for a criminal prosecutor to charge a person

with a status crime such as: indigency, vagrancy, mental health status, a physical illness, a mental handicap, a physical handicap, or criminal insanity. Any statute which makes a status crime a

criminal offense is facially unconstitutional as impinging on the a persons liberty interest. See generally, NAACP vs. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) and Lugar vs. Edmundson Oil, 422 U.S. 915 (1982). See also, State vs. Sinica, 372 N.W.2d 445 (1985). A criminal prosecutor who

actually charges a status crime, can himself be prosecuted in Federal Court under 18 United States Code, section 242, and receive the punishment of 10 years in Federal Prison.