Victory for Human Rights in Alaska

The Supreme Court upheld last year's Court of Appeal unanimous ruling in Noy v. State of Alaska that solidified the argument a person's constitutional right to privacy is greater than a voter initiative making marijuana illegal.

The Court of Appeals decision was based largely upon a controversial 1975 Alaska Supreme Court opinion handed down in Ravin v. State allowing adults to possess marijuana for personal use in their home.

In 1990, voters passed an initiative on a 55 to 44 percent tally making it illegal to possess any amount of marijuana, but last year the appeals court not only ruled voters didn't have the authority to change the state constitution, but defined 4 ounces or less of marijuana as permissible for personal use at home.

"Noy basically restored Ravin and reaffirmed the right to privacy," said attorney Bill Satterberg, who filed the appeal. "People don't realize the purpose of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

The ruling closes a case that began when North Pole police and drug agents arrested David Noy at his Parkway Road house July 27, 2001.

A North Pole police officer contended he detected the smell of marijuana emitting from Noy's house while Noy and a group of people were outside barbecuing salmon. Law enforcement searched the residence and found five live pot plants, growing equipment, some loose marijuana and paraphernalia, according to court documents.

A jury convicted Noy of misdemeanor sixth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance and Satterberg appealed the conviction, paving the way to proving Alaska has some of the most liberal marijuana laws and strongest right to privacy sentiments in the nation.

"I'm certainly encouraged that we've recognized we're dealing with constitutional right regardless of your personal preferences," Satterberg said. "I'm glad to see the court not succumb to political pressure."

But that may be the next step Attorney General Gregg Renkes takes. "We're not giving up," Renkes said. He'll be taking his case to the legislature where he'll try to prove marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution.

"The state has been denied an opportunity to present a record of the harmfulness of marijuana," Renkes said. "The exception of privacy at home does not extend to cocaine because the state has proven it's harmful. It outweighs the right to privacy."

Renkes [claimed without support] marijuana has an increased potency compared to almost 30 years ago when the Ravin case was decided, making it more addictive and more susceptible to be an avenue to harder drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamines -- highly addictive drugs that in many cases produce extreme, violent behavior. "I'm really appalled that it appears some people are still fighting the culture war of the 1970s," he said. [Ahem. The Progress Report suggests that Renkes take a look in the mirror.]

Last year's appeals court decision also gave numerous defendants and lawyers another case to cite besides the Ravin case when fighting to dismiss drug charges.

It has already been used in a Homer man's argument his home was illegally searched just because law enforcement detected the smell of marijuana coming from his house.

Leo Crocker Jr. argued his home should have not been searched because police couldn't adequately prove he had more than the amount allowed for personal use -- 4 ounces -- in his home when they served a warrant and discovered a grow operation.

The felony drug charges of against Crocker were dropped when the court decided to suppress the evidence obtained with the search warrant.

The appeals court upheld the court's decision Aug. 27, but Renkes foresees asking the supreme court to take a look at this ruing as well.

"It virtually prohibits us from getting search warrants to investigate marijuana home-growing cases," Renkes said. "The court's saying we have to have evidence to the amount of marijuana in the operation."

It may be a moot point if voters pass a ballot initiative Nov. 2 making it legal for adults over the age of 21 to possess marijuana whether for consumption or distribution.

This initiative, according to its chief architect Tim Hinterberger, is a more streamlined version of one that was defeated in 2000. "This initiative specially calls on legislature to regulate marijuana like alcohol," said Hinterberger, an associate professor of the biomedical program at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The Cannabis Decriminalization and Regulation Act opens the door for legislature to levy taxes and potentially providing revenue for the state, Hinterberger said.

"Alaska clearly has values of independence and responsibility and fairness that are different than the rest of the country," he said. "Clearly marijuana prohibition doesn't work, everyone knows that and it's time to try and find a different way."

This landmark court victory means that police cannot get search warrants, kick in doors, or make arrests unless they have reasonable cause to believe that more than four ounces of marijuana are involved.

--- Rob Kampia
(Executive Director, Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C.)

Page One	Page Two	Archive
Discussion Room	Letters	What's Geoism?

Victory for Human Rights in Alaska

North Pole Excitement

Court Chooses Privacy Over Pot

Victory for Human Rights in Alaska North Pole Excitement

Court Chooses Privacy Over Pot

Victory for Human Rights in Alaska

North Pole Excitement