## Facts

- Irwin Ravin, an Anchorage attorney, orchestrated a test case and was taken into custody after a traffic stop and refusal to sign a citation.
- Police discovered marijuana, and Ravin was charged under Alaska’s marijuana possession prohibition, AS 17.12.010.
- Ravin moved to dismiss, arguing the statute violated (1) the Alaska Constitution’s explicit right to privacy and (2) equal protection and due process by treating marijuana as a dangerous drug while alcohol and tobacco remained legal.
- The district court held extensive hearings with expert testimony on marijuana’s effects and denied dismissal.
- The superior court affirmed on review, and the Alaska Supreme Court granted review to resolve the constitutional questions.

## Issues

1. Whether the Alaska Constitution’s right to privacy bars criminal punishment for an adult’s possession and personal use of a small amount of marijuana in the home.
2. Whether classifying marijuana as a dangerous drug and criminalizing its possession, while permitting alcohol and tobacco, violates equal protection or due process.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held that Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy protects an adult’s possession and ingestion of a small amount of marijuana in the home for personal, noncommercial use.
- The court concluded the state failed to show an adequate justification for intruding on privacy in that narrow context, rendering the statute unconstitutional as applied to that conduct.
- The court emphasized the ruling did not create a general right to possess or use marijuana, and it allowed regulation or prohibition in contexts implicating public health and safety (including use by minors, public use, commercial distribution, and driving under the influence).
- The court rejected the equal protection and due process challenge to the legislature’s classification of marijuana.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 22 of the Alaska Constitution protects a core sphere of privacy in the home, including certain personal decisions about ingestion of substances.
- When government action impairs a fundamental privacy right under Alaska’s Constitution, the state bears a substantial burden to justify the intrusion with a compelling governmental interest.
- For intrusions into home privacy, the state must show a close and substantial relationship between the intrusion and a legitimate governmental interest; scientific uncertainty alone is insufficient.
- The state may regulate or prohibit marijuana use and possession when necessary to protect public health and welfare, including traffic safety, restricting access by minors, preventing public use, and controlling commercial distribution.
- Legislative drug classifications are generally sustained against equal protection and due process challenges if they have a rational basis, even if comparisons to legal substances are debatable.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that the state’s privacy clause prevents criminalizing an adult’s possession and personal, noncommercial use of a small amount of marijuana in the home absent a sufficiently strong justification, while permitting broader marijuana regulation and rejecting a separate equal protection and due process attack on marijuana’s statutory classification.


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