Ravin v. State
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 1975 Alaska Supreme Court case, the court held that the Alaska Constitution’s right to privacy protects an adult’s possession and personal use of marijuana at home, absent a compelling state interest.

1975 | State Juristiction

Ravin v. State

Keywords right to privacy; marijuana; personal use; home use; compelling state interest; adult use
Open Case as PDF

The Alaska Supreme Court's 1975 Decision on Marijuana Possession

The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court ruling established a precedent recognizing the Alaska Constitution's protection of an adult's right to privacy concerning personal marijuana use within their home. This right, the court determined, supersedes state interests unless those interests are demonstrably compelling.

Open Case as PDF

State v. Ravin: Privacy and Marijuana Possession

The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision in State v. Ravin established a precedent regarding the intersection of constitutional privacy rights and marijuana possession. The court found that the Alaska Constitution's guarantee of privacy protects an adult's private, in-home use of marijuana. This protection, however, is not absolute and hinges on the absence of a compelling state interest justifying government intervention. The ruling highlights the tension between individual liberties and the state's power to regulate potentially harmful substances. The court's analysis weighed the individual's right to privacy against the state's interests in public health and safety.

Open Case as PDF

Alaska Marijuana Case of 1975

The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court case established that the state constitution's guarantee of privacy safeguards an adult's right to possess and use marijuana privately at home. This protection holds unless the state demonstrates an overwhelmingly important reason to restrict it.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 1975, Alaska's highest court said that people have a right to keep and use marijuana at home. The court said this right comes from the state's constitution, which protects people's privacy. The government can only stop this if it has a really, really good reason.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

537 P.2d 494 (1975)

Highlights