“ ‘Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.’” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26 -27 (1905) Crowley v. Christensen 137 U.S. 86, 89, 90

Liberty is freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty is the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992).

 Liberty is freedom from all restraints but such as…. are justly imposed by law. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 127 (1873).

By the term "liberty," …..freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 142 (1876)

 "liberty"……freedom from bodily restraint. Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968).

It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13 (1968).

A "seizure" triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have, by “means of physical force or show of authority, . . . in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16 (1968).

An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows.392 U.S. 1 at 26.

A full custodial arrest is …a severe intrusion on an individual's liberty, its reasonableness hinges on "the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999).

Right To Property

The American Judiciary does not recognized marijuana as property. If Marijuana is not property what is it?

Maine Constitution Article I. Declaration of Rights. Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

“The Congress [of the United States] makes the following findings: (1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.” Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarty (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996,Title 22 U.S.C.-6081. http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=Tw6ZcN/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Check Supreme Court Citations
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=135

“ ‘The great end for which men entered in society was to secure their property.’ ” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627; 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886).

Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 127

….It is, after all, such consumer goods that people work and earn a livelihood in order to acquire. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 91

“property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.” Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. at 111.

The right to use and enjoy one’s property is a fundamental right protected by both the State and Federal Constitutions, Buskey v Town of Hanover, 1990, 577 A2d 406, 133 NH. 318.

“Private property is held subject to implied condition that its use will not injure or impair public interest.” State v. Lewis , 406 A.2d 886 Me 1979.

“The right to enjoy property … is in truth a ‘personal’ right … [A] fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.” Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972). Emphasis added.

“[T]he Constitution recognized the right of property… and made no distinction between [this] description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the [State], whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 451, (1857).

One's right to life, liberty, and property, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.

“Such rights …… do not vanish simply because the power of the state is arrayed against them. Nor are they enjoyed in subjection to mere legislative findings.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 548; 54 S.Ct. 505 (1934).

“The right to acquire, enjoy, and dispose of property is declared in the constitutions of several states to be one of the inalienable rights of man; but this declaration is not held to preclude the legislature of any state from passing laws respecting the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of property.” Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 90, (1890).

[L]egislative authority to abridge [plaintiff’s liberty and ] property rights … can be justified only by exceptional circumstances and, even then, by reasonable regulation only, and that legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are subject to judicial review.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 543; 54 S.Ct. 505, (1934). Emphasis added.