To Check Supreme Court Citations


Due process of law requires the deprivation of fundamental rights be justified by a compelling state interest.


United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Liberty, Property, and Privacy


The task of the court, when determining whether a right is fundamental so as to require legislation to be supported by a compelling [government] interest is to assess whether there is such a right explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the constitution. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 33-4, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1296-1297 (1973).


RIGHT OF LIBERTY Freedom from physical restraint​


"Justice the Guardian of Liberty"




Supreme Court of the United States 
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES,  ET AL 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

(Page 78) Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.

 (Pg 80) State decisions interpreting these provisions between the founding and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment almost uniformly construed the word “liberty” to refer only to freedom from physical restraint. See Warren, The New “Liberty” Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 431, 441–445 (1926). Even one case that has been identified as a possible exception to that view merely used broad language about liberty in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding—a proceeding classically associated with obtaining freedom from physical restraint. Cf. id., at 444–445.

(P. 83) When read in light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see how the “liberty” protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from physical restraint. 

And this Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear to interpret the Clause as using “liberty” to mean freedom from physical restraint. In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 (1877)

Read on;



The Constitution does not secure to any one liberty to conduct his business in such fashion as to inflict injury upon the public at large, or upon any substantial group of the people. …. any other form of regulation, is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the Legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 538-39 (1934).


But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 27 (1905).


“ ‘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.Terry v. Ohio 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).


“ ‘Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); 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 of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975).

Right To Property


Criminalizing marijuana is property discrimination.


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.

“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.


United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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


“ ‘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).




Explicit Right of Privacy Protections in State Constitutions


[M]akers 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)>Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 494 (1965).


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described ….. as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We recently referred ……. to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 484-5 (1965)


[A]nd wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy…he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968)


Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967)

[T]he Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general constitutional "right to privacy." That Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967)


[A] fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard individuals from unreasonable government invasions of legitimate privacy interests, and not simply those interests found inside the four walls of the home. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 11 (1977)


[A]nd wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy…he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968)

Ravin v Alaska 537 P. 2d 494,.497 (1975)




Law keys



494 "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."


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 41Right 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.


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.


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.



Irwin RAVIN, Petitioner,v.
STATE of Alaska, Respondent.
No. 2135. Supreme Court of Alaska.
May 27, 1975.
As Amended May 28, 1975.

Law Keys that follow Law keys

This court has declared the seizure “of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard.” The “Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against … physically intrusive governmental conduct … must be the guide for analyzing [Petitioner’s] claims.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal