Heading

 

 

RIGHT OF PRIVACY

 

Explicit Right of Privacy Protections in State Constitutions 

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/privacy-protections-in-state-constitutions.aspx

 

[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 AmendmentOlmstead 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)

 

Privacy

 

Law keys http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravinkn.htm
Case http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravin.htm
Footnotes http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravinfn.htm

 

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.
 

 

 


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.


Law Keys that follow http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravinkn.htm Law keys http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravinkn.htm
Case http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravin.htm

Footnotes http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/legal/l1970/ravinfn.htm
 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).

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal