Ravin v. State - Revision history

Adm1n at 19:12, 26 February 2015

2015-02-26T19:12:09Z

Adm1n: /* History */

2015-02-26T19:11:54Z

‎History

Adm1n: Created page with "Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), was a 1975 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that held the Alaska Constitution's right to privacy protects an adult's ability to..."

2015-02-26T19:11:36Z

Created page with "Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), was a 1975 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that held the Alaska Constitution's right to privacy protects an adult's ability to..."

New page

Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), was a 1975 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that held the Alaska Constitution's right to privacy protects an adult's ability to use and possess a small amount of [[marijuana]] in the home for personal use. The Alaska Supreme Court thereby became the first—and only—state or federal court to announce a constitutional privacy right that protects some level of [[marijuana]] use and possession.

== History ==

It was brought about by Irwin Ravin, an attorney who deliberately got arrested in Anchorage for refusing to sign a traffic ticket while in possession of [[marijuana]] in order to challenge the existing law.

The court ruled:

<blockquote>“ ...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied. ”/blockquote>

== Subsequent law ==

Alaskan voters approved a ballot initiative recriminalizing [[marijuana]] possession in 1990, but in Noy v. State, the Alaska Court of Appeals held that ballot iniatives are subject to the same constitutional limitations as legislative enactments, and thus the portion of the amended statutes criminalizing possession of less than four [[ounce]]s of [[marijuana ]]in the home was unconstitutional. In June 2006, the Alaska Legislature amended the law to prohibit the possession of more than one ounce of [[marijuana]] and to make possession of more than one ounce of [[marijuana]] a class A misdemeanor. As of November 2009, Alaskan courts have not considered the constitutionality of this statute.

In November 2014, Alaskan voters approved a ballot measure to legalize the possession and sale of[[ marijuana]], regulating it in a manner similar to alcohol sales.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 26 February 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:

	<blockquote>“ ...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied. ”</blockquote>		<blockquote>“ ...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied. ”</blockquote>
		+

	== Subsequent law ==		== Subsequent law ==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The court ruled:
-<blockquote>“	...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied.	”/blockquote>
+<blockquote>“	...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied.	”</blockquote>
 == Subsequent law ==