Privacy

Alaska's constitutional right to privacy gave protection from unreasonable government intrusion for persons to grow and possess marijuana. Ravin v. Alaska

[7] This court has consistently recognized that the home is constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, reasoning that the home itself retains a protected status under the Fourth Amendment and Alaska's constitution distinct from that of the occupant's person. The privacy amendment to the Alaska Constitution was intended to give recognition and protection to the [537 P.2d 494, 504] home. "

BOOCHEVER, Justice (concurring, with whom CONNOR, Justice, joins).

By its reliance on certain United States Supreme Court cases Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, (1969); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965) and the manner in which some of the conclusions are set forth, the opinion may be read as limiting the right of privacy principally to protection of activities engaged in within the confines of the home. The opinion relies chiefly on United States Supreme Court precedent, although there is no Federal Constitutional provision corresponding to art. 1, § 22 of the Alaska Constitution which specifies that "the right of people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed". While Federal cases defining the right of privacy derived from other provisions of the United States Constitution are of assistance in determining the perimeters of our constitutional right to privacy, we are construing the separate Alaska provision.

There are 10 states with explicit right of privacy.
Privacy Protections in State Constitutions
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/privacy/stateconstpriv03.htm

One of the roots of the right of personal privacy is in the fourth amendment. Roe v. Wade(1973) 410 US113, 35L Ed 2d

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. …..They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. ……They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)

The police may be justified to search and seize marijuana, but is the law justified that authorized this invasion of privacy?

The privacy of an individual’s home can not be breached absent of a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate government interest. Raivn v. State of Alaska, 537 P2d 494.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485 ;

“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion.” Id., at 453.Griswold

Ravin v. State  p. 497, Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the state may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S. Ct. 412,417 (1960) Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155, 93 S.Ct 705, 35 (1973).

Ravin v. State  537 P. 2d 494p.497 The law must be shown necessary and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible State Policy. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196, 85 S. Ct. 283, 290 (1964). Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)

Ravin v. State of Alaska Alaska 537 P. 2d 494P. 503 The Fifth Amendment has been described as providing protection against all government invasion of a man’s home and the privacies of life. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 630, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886).

Ravin v. State of Alaska Alaska 537 P. 2d 494