Supreme Court punts pot decision

The Alaska State Supreme Court last Friday punted away its decision on a marijuana case brought by Alaska Civil Liberties Union. The AKCLU sued on behalf of two women, identified as “Jane Doe” and “Jane Roe” in court documents.

The women sued to overturn Alaska’s most recent marijuana prohibition, signed into law by then-Governor Frank Murkowski in 2006. The new law is meant to override the 1975 court decision Ravin v. State, in which the court ruled that possession of weed by an adult, in their home, in small quantities is protected under the privacy clause of the state constitution. (Suspicion of a personal-use stash is no reason for cops to search your home.)

The women involved in the AKCLU case were not arrested for possession. They wanted a pre-enforcement decision. They argued it is unfair for the state to force them to choose between not using marijuana and breaking the law by using it, then waiting to be arrested before asserting their privacy rights.

The court had to decide if the case was “ripe” for this type of pre-arrest challenge. The two women were suing on a hypothetical case, and courts are sometimes asked to test a law using hypothetical cases. Both the state of Alaska and the AKCLU argued in favor of ripeness, saying they wanted to put the 2006 legislation to the test.

“Under this decision Ravin is still good law and remains the law of the state, until the Supreme Court says otherwise,” says AKCLU staff attorney Jason Brandeis. “All we have here is a really technical decision about ripeness. It does not address the underlying constitutionality of the statute.”

The Alaska Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the Ravin decision, even to the point of limiting a law passed by a vote of the people, instead of the state legislature. In a 2004 case, Noy v State, the court explained that even though ballot initiatives can make law, those laws ar

e on par with laws made by the legislative branch and still subject to constitutional tests in court. (And a collective, “Well, duh” was heard throughout the north.)

“The Ravin decision is all about the right to privacy and when the state can violate privacy in the home,” Brandeis says, adding that the 2006 legislation does not parse out when it’s okay for cops to enforce the law or not. “They said that marijuana use is illegal under any circumstances at any time,” he says.

“I’m surprised that the court did not address the underlying issue, especially since both sides—both the state and the ACLU—agreed that this issue is ripe for a decision.”