Ravin v. State
537 P.2d 494 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Alaska Constitution's explicit right to privacy protects an adult's possession and personal consumption of marijuana in the home, requiring the state to demonstrate a close and substantial relationship between its prohibition and a legitimate governmental interest to justify such an intrusion.
Facts:
- Ravin was arrested on December 11, 1972, and subsequently charged with violating AS 17.12.010, which prohibits the possession of depressant, hallucinogenic, or stimulant drugs, including Cannabis Sativa L. (marijuana).
- Extensive testimony from expert witnesses and numerous scientific reports were introduced concerning the physiological and psychological effects of marijuana use.
- The expert evidence indicated that marijuana, as typically used in the United States, does not constitute a public health problem of significant dimensions and is less damaging physiologically and socially than alcohol or tobacco.
- Scientific doubts persist regarding potential long-term deleterious effects of intensive cannabis use on the body’s immune defenses, chromosomal structures, and testosterone levels, but without conclusive evidence of harm for typical use.
- The most significant established risk related to marijuana use is the impairment of driving ability while under its influence.
- There is no currently practical means for law enforcement agencies to detect the presence of cannabis in a driver's body for roadside testing.
Procedural Posture:
- Ravin was arrested on December 11, 1972, and charged with violating AS 17.12.010.
- Before trial, Ravin filed a motion to dismiss in District Court, asserting that AS 17.12.010 violated his right to privacy and equal protection under both the federal and Alaska constitutions.
- District Court Judge Dorothy D. Tyner held lengthy hearings with expert testimony and subsequently denied Ravin's motion to dismiss.
- The superior court granted review of the district court’s decision and affirmed it.
- Ravin filed a petition for review to the Alaska Supreme Court from the superior court's affirmance, which the Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Alaska's statute prohibiting the possession of marijuana by adults for personal use violate the right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution, particularly when exercised within the privacy of one's home?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Chief Justice
Yes, Alaska's statute prohibiting possession of marijuana by adults for personal consumption in the home violates the right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution. The court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under both the federal and Alaska constitutions, with special protection afforded to the home. The Alaska Constitution's privacy amendment (Art. I, § 22) places privacy among enumerated rights, suggesting a broader scope than federal protections. While the federal right to privacy typically arises in connection with other fundamental rights (like family and procreation), the Alaska provision uniquely shields activities like the ingestion of substances, though this right is not absolute and may be subordinate to public health and welfare. The court found that the state’s authority to control individuals extends only to activities affecting others or the public at large, not merely to protect an individual from their own folly. Reviewing the scientific evidence, the court concluded there was no firm proof that marijuana, as currently used, is generally a danger to the user or others, and its effects are not serious enough to justify broad societal concern compared to alcohol or barbiturates. The only significant risk to the public is impaired driving. However, the potential harm from impaired driving alone does not establish a 'close and substantial relationship' necessary to justify prohibiting personal possession in the home. The state's legitimate concerns regarding adolescent use and driving under the influence are insufficient to infringe upon adults' privacy rights within their own homes. The court rejected Ravin's equal protection and due process arguments, finding no irrationality in classifying marijuana with other depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogenic drugs, given the distinct penalties for 'hard' drugs in Alaska, and noted that the legislature is not required to regulate all harmful substances equally.
Concurring - Boochever, Justice
Yes, the prohibition on personal marijuana possession in the home is unconstitutional, but the Alaska constitutional right to privacy is broader in scope than the federal right and is not limited to the home. Justice Boochever emphasized that Alaska's explicit constitutional right to privacy (Art. I, § 22) allows for the development of additional constitutional rights beyond minimum federal standards. He clarified that the right of privacy pertains to the 'autonomy of the individual' to make decisions affecting their personal life, as evidenced by federal cases like Eisenstadt and Roe, which extended privacy beyond the marital relationship or the home. He proposed a single, flexible test for privacy infringements, where the state's burden to justify interference depends on the importance of the right and the place of its exercise. While acknowledging the special importance of privacy in the home, he stressed that the right to be left alone and do as one pleases, so long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights, is fundamental. He agreed that driving under the influence of marijuana is a valid public safety concern justifying prohibition in that context, balancing this against the relatively minor status of possessing marijuana in public.
Concurring - Connor, Justice
Yes, I concur with both the majority opinion and Justice Boochever's concurrence, and emphasize that the precise contours of the right to privacy outside the home must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Justice Connor agreed that the right to privacy does not disappear outside the home but acknowledged that its protection diminishes in proportion to how much an individual's activities impact others. He stressed the necessity of a 'critical analysis of the facts of each case' to define the right to privacy outside the home. He concluded that the current record lacked specific facts about Ravin's arrest circumstances, which necessitated the remand for further factual development to properly apply the balancing test between individual privacy claims and the state's legitimate interests.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that significantly expands individual privacy rights under the Alaska Constitution, establishing a unique and more robust protection than typically found under the U.S. Constitution. It limits the state's police power by requiring a 'close and substantial relationship' to a legitimate governmental interest to justify intrusions into personal conduct within the home, setting a high bar for state intervention. Ravin served as a precedent for decriminalization and legalization efforts in Alaska and other jurisdictions, emphasizing that the state cannot impose moral judgments on private behavior without clear proof of public harm. The ruling also highlighted the importance of scientific evidence in balancing individual liberties against public safety concerns, particularly regarding drug policy.
