494 |
Alaska |
537 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES |
|
|
Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Alaska, Respondent.
No. 2135.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
May 27, 1975.
As Amended May 28, 1975.
Proceeding was instituted on defendant's motion to
dismiss charge of violation of statute proscribing possession of marijuana. The
District Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Dorothy P. Tyner, J., denied motion to
dismiss and the superior court affirmed and petition for review from the superior courts
affirmance was granted. The Supreme Court, Rabinowitz, C. J., held that need for
control of drivers under influence of marijuana and existing doubts as to safety of
marijuana demonstrate a sufficient justification for statutory proscription of possession
of marijuana, and thus an individual's right to possess or ingest marijuana while driving
is subject to statute proscribing possession of marijuana; and that no adequate
justification exists for State's intrusion into citizen's right of privacy by its
prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in home, and
thus possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally
protected.
Remanded for further proceedings.
Boochever and Connor, JJ., filed specially concurring
opinions.
1.
Criminal Law 1030(2)
Issue of cruel and unusual punishment in
application of statute proscribing possession of marijuana to possession of marijuana for
personal use was not considered by Supreme Court, since issue was not raised below or in
petition for review to Supreme Court, Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 24(c) ; AS
17.12.010, 17.12.150.
2. Constitutional Law
82
Once a fundamental right under State
Constitution has been shown to be involved and it has been further shown that this
constitutionally protected right has been impaired by governmental action, government must
come forward and meet its substantial burden of establishing that abridgment in question
was justified by a compelling governmental interest.
3. Constitutional Law
82
When governmental action interferes with an
individual's freedom to an area which is not characterized as fundamental, a less
stringent test is ordinarily applied and in such cases, court's task is to determine
whether legislative enactment has a reasonable relationship to a legitimate government
purpose, and under this "rational basis" test state need only demonstrate
existence of facts which can serve as a rational basis for belief that measure would
properly serve public interest.
4. Constitutional Law
82
If governmental restrictions interfere with
individual's right to privacy, court will require that relationship between means and ends
be not merely reasonable but close and substantial.
5. Constitutional Law
82
Federal right to privacy arises only in
connection with other fundamental rights, such as the grouping of rights which involve the
home, and even in connection with penumbra of home-related rights, right of privacy in
sense of immunity from prosecution is absolute only when private activity will not
endanger or harm the general public. Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A. Const. Amends.
1, 3-5, 14.
6. Constitutional Law
82
Drugs and Narcotics 41
Right to privacy amendment to Alaska Constitution
cannot be read so as to make the possession or ingestion of marijuana itself a fundamental
right. Const. art. 1, § 22.
7. Constitutional Law
82
Privacy amendment to Alaska Constitution
was intended to give recognition and protection to the home. Const. art. 1, § 22.
8. Constitutional Law
82
Privacy in the home is a fundamental right.
Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.
9. Constitutional Law
82
Right of privacy in the home must yield
when it interferes in a serious manner with the health, safety, rights and privileges of
others or with the public welfare. Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.
10. Constitutional
Law 82
No one has an absolute right to do things
in the privacy of his own home which will affect himself or others adversely. Const.
art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4.
11. Constitutional
Law 82
Right of privacy in home is limited in that
possession of substances is guaranteed only for purely private, noncommercial use in home.
Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4.
12. Constitutional
Law 70.1(10)
In determining validity of legislative
proscription of possession of marijuana, it is not function of court to reassess
scientific evidence in the manner of a legislature.
13. Constitutional
Law 82
State cannot impose its own notions of
morality, propriety, or fashion on individuals when the public has no legitimate interest
in the affairs of those individuals.
14. Constitutional
Law 82
The right of an individual to do as he
pleases is not absolute and it can be made to yield when it begins to infringe on the
rights and welfare of others.
15. Constitutional
Law 81
Authority of state to control activities of
its citizens is not limited to activities which have a present and immediate impact on
public health or welfare.
16. Constitutional
Law 82
State is under no obligation to allow
otherwise "private" activity which will result in numbers of people becoming
public charges or otherwise burdening the public welfare.
17. Health and
Environment 20
Statutes designed to protect the public
health will receive a liberal construction.
18. Health and
Environment 20
There is a presumption in favor of public
health measures.
19. Health and
Environment 20
When there is substantial doubt as to
safety of a given substance or situation of public health, controls intended to obviate
the danger will usually be upheld.
20. Automobiles 332
Need for control of drivers under influence
of marijuana and existing doubts as to safety of marijuana demonstrate a sufficient
justification for statutory proscription of possession of marijuana; and thus an
individual's right to possess or ingest marijuana while driving is subject to statute
proscribing possession of marijuana. AS 05.25.060, 17.12.010, 17.12.150, 28.35.030;
Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 1, 14.
21. Drugs and
Narcotics 43
No adequate justification exists for
State's intrusion into citizen's right of privacy by its prohibition of possession of
marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in home, and thus possession of marijuana
by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected. AS 17.12.010,
17.12.l50; Const art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1, 4, 14.
22. Constitutional
Law 82
Privacy of individual's home cannot be
breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the
intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest.
23. Drugs and
Narcotics 62, 68
Neither federal nor Alaska Constitution
affords protection for the buying or selling of marijuana, nor absolute protection
for its use or possession in public. AS 17.12.010, 17.12.150; Const. art. 1, § 22;
U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1, 4, 14.
24. Drugs and
Narcotics 66
Possession at home of amounts of marijuana
indicative of intent to sell rather than possession for personal use is unprotected.
AS 17.12.010, 17.12.150; Const. art. 1, § 22, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1, 4, 14.
25. Constitutional
Law 250.1(2)
Drugs and Narcotics 43
Statute proscribing possession of marijuana is
not violative of equal protection on ground that other commonly used recreational drugs,
such as alcohol and tobacco, are not proscribed, even though they may inflict more damage
on user than does marijuana. AS 17.12.010, 17.12.150;
Const. art. 1, § 22; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1, 14.
26. Health and
Environment 20
It is not irrational for legislature to
regulate those public health areas where it can do so, when other areas exist where
controls are less feasible.
27. Drugs and
Narcotics 43
Fact that marijuana may be the least
harmful of drugs covered by statute proscribing possession is not alone sufficient to make
classification of marijuana with other drugs covered irrational. AS 17.10.010 et
seq., 17.12.010, 17.12.150(3); U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 1, 14.
28. Constitutional
Law 70.3(12)
Wisdom of statute proscribing possession of
marijuana was for legislature, rather than judiciary. AS 17.10.010 et seq.,
17.12.010, 17.12.l50(3).
|