overbreadth doctrine in Alaska

1985The overbreadth doctrine was described in Marks v. Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646 (Alaska 1972): The overbreadth doctrine has evolved to give adequate breathing room to specific first amendment freedoms; a statute violates the doctrine when constitutionally-protected conduct as well as conduct which the state can legitimately regulate are included within the ambit of the statute’s prohibition. [Footnote omitted.] The statute in question regulates conduct, the possession and sale of certain specific drugs, not speech or association.

1981The overbreadth doctrine was described in Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646 (Alaska 1972): The overbreadth doctrine has evolved to give adequate breathing room to specific first amendment freedoms; a statute violates the doctrine when constitutionally protected conduct as well as conduct which the state can legitimately regulate are included within the ambit of the statute's prohibition.

1979For insight into the overbreadth doctrine in Alaska, see, Summers v. Anchorage, 589 P.2d 863, 869 (Alaska 1979) (antisolicitation for prostitution statute not overbroad); Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977) (statute criminalizing lewd and lascivious acts on the body of a child not overbroad as construed by the court); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 7 (Alaska 1974) (overbreadth doctrine not applicable to antipollution statute); Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646-50 (Alaska 1972) (breach of the peace statute held overbroad).

1977As we stated in Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646 (Alaska 1972): The overbreadth doctrine has evolved to give adequate breathing room to specific first amendment freedoms; a statute violates the doctrine when constitutionally-protected conduct as well as conduct which the state can legitimately regulate are included within the ambit of the statute’s prohibition, (footnote omitted) More recently, in Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska, April 8, 1977), we held that “overbreadth analysis is generally available only to challenge statutes which arguably chill exercise of first amend

1985See Summers v. Anchorage, 589 P.2d at 867 ; McKenzie v. Anchorage, 631 P.2d 514, 516-17 (Alaska App.,1981).

1979For insight into the overbreadth doctrine in Alaska, see, Summers v. Anchorage, 589 P.2d 863, 869 (Alaska 1979) (antisolicitation for prostitution statute not overbroad); Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977) (statute criminalizing lewd and lascivious acts on the body of a child not overbroad as construed by the court); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 7 (Alaska 1974) (overbreadth doctrine not applicable to antipollution statute); Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646-50 (Alaska 1972) (breach of the peace statute held overbroad).

1994See Holton v. State, 602 P.2d 1228, 1232-34 (Alaska 1979); Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977).

1982Holton v. State, 602 P.2d 1228 , 1234 n. 7 (Alaska 1979); Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351, 354-55 (Alaska 1977).

1979For insight into the overbreadth doctrine in Alaska, see, Summers v. Anchorage, 589 P.2d 863, 869 (Alaska 1979) (antisolicitation for prostitution statute not overbroad); Anderson v. State, 562 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1977) (statute criminalizing lewd and lascivious acts on the body of a child not overbroad as construed by the court); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3, 7 (Alaska 1974) (overbreadth doctrine not applicable to antipollution statute); Marks v. City of Anchorage, 500 P.2d 644, 646-50 (Alaska 1972) (breach of the peace statute held overbroad).

1977See State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316, 322 (Alaska 1975); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1974). *507 Appellant next asserts that the kidnapping statute is void for vagueness.

2006Constitutional Law § 812 (2005); see also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (noting that "the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech”). 20 .

2006Constitutional Law § 812 (2005); see also Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497 , 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (noting that "the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech”). 20 .

1997See Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502 ; United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 (3rd Cir.1976); State v. O’Neill, 103 Wash.2d 853 , 700 P.2d 711 (1985).

1997See Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502 ; United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 (3rd Cir.1976); State v. O'Neill, 103 Wash.2d 853 , 700 P.2d 711 (1985).

1988Bell, 598 P.2d at 912-13 ; Hemphill v. State, 673 P.2d 888, 889-90 (Alaska App.1983). 2 Allen also renews the overbreadth challenge that he raised below.

1985See Summers v. Anchorage, 589 P.2d at 867 ; McKenzie v. Anchorage, 631 P.2d 514, 516-17 (Alaska App.,1981).

1979An overbreadth challenge is available to prevent a chilling effect on first amendment rights, see Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965), and the closely allied right of free association, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. at 612-13 , 93 S.Ct. at 2915-2916 , 37 L.Ed.2d at 840 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 81 S.Ct. 247 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960).

1979An overbreadth challenge is available to prevent a chilling effect on first amendment rights, see Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 , 92 S.Ct. 1103 , 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965), and the closely allied right of free association, Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. at 612-13 , 93 S.Ct. at 2915-2916 , 37 L.Ed.2d at 840 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 81 S.Ct. 247 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960).

1977See State v. Martin, 532 P.2d 316, 322 (Alaska 1975); Stock v. State, 526 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1974). *507 Appellant next asserts that the kidnapping statute is void for vagueness.