Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Glassgreen2 sentences1992In his concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), Justice Harlan explained that the rule protecting citizens against unreasonable searches applies when two requirements are met: first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” In interpreting the meaning of article 1, section 14 of the Alaska Constitution and the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, article 1, section 22, the Alaska Supreme Court in State 1984Under those circumstances, we held that the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, article 1, section 22, and the Alaska Supreme Court's holding in State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978), compelled suppression of the recording. [1] In the present case, by contrast, the police recording commenced with the detention of Olds and proceeded to document his arrest. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pettitgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Pettit, 251 P.3d 896, 898 (Wash. App. 2011) (recognizing, in reliance on Rankin, that the privacy clause of the Washington Constitution “prohibits law enforcement officials from requesting identification from passengers for investigative purposes unless there is an independent basis that justifies that request”); see also State v. Demmon, 2018 WL 5985324 , at *3 (Wash. App. Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished). 40 See Alaska Const. art. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Druktenisgreen2 sentences2019State v. Druktenis , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 , 1078 (App. 2004) ("One convicted of a heinous sex offense starts a quest for constitutional protection from a much different and clearly less favorable position than those who to date have obtained privacy protection in the United States Supreme Court."). 2019State v. Druktenis , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 , 1078 (App. 2004) ("One convicted of a heinous sex offense starts a quest for constitutional protection from a much different and clearly less favorable position than those who to date have obtained privacy protection in the United States Supreme Court."). | 1 | 1 |
Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Institutegreen2 sentences2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). 60 See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 61 Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009). 62 Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 63 Id. 64 208 P.3d 168 . - 20 - 7215 an unconsenting adult” who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.65 Bigley proposed an alternative plan by which API would provide him food and shelter while allowing him to “come and go from API as he wishe[d].”66 Bigley also asked that API “pay for a reasonably nice apartment” for his use and provide staff support that would “enable him to be su 2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). 60 See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 61 Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009). 62 Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 63 Id. 64 208 P.3d 168 . - 20 - 7215 an unconsenting adult” who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.65 Bigley proposed an alternative plan by which API would provide him food and shelter while allowing him to “come and go from API as he wishe[d].”66 Bigley also asked that API “pay for a reasonably nice apartment” for his use and provide staff support that would “enable him to be su | 1 | 1 |
Valley Hospital Ass'n v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choicegreen2 sentences2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). 60 See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 61 Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009). 62 Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 63 Id. 64 208 P.3d 168 . - 20 - 7215 an unconsenting adult” who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.65 Bigley proposed an alternative plan by which API would provide him food and shelter while allowing him to “come and go from API as he wishe[d].”66 Bigley also asked that API “pay for a reasonably nice apartment” for his use and provide staff support that would “enable him to be su 2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal, for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). . | 1 | 1 |
Huffman v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Myers, 138 P.3d at 252 ; see also Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 347 (Alaska 2009) ("The final step in a privacy analysis is to inquire whether the State has demonstrated that ‘no less restrictive means could advance’ the compelling interest it has articulated.” (quoting Valley Hosp. 2018See id. ("Although the state cannot intrude on a fundamental right where there is a less intrusive alternative, the alternative must actually be available, meaning that it is feasible and would actually satisfy the compelling state interests that justify the proposed state action.”); Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 347 (Alaska 2009) ("The final step in a privacy analysis is to inquire whether the State has demonstrated that 'no less restrictive means could advance’ the compelling interest it has articulated.”); Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 252 (Alaska 2006) (”[A]dequate pro | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institutegreen2 sentences2018Myers, 138 P.3d at 252 ; see also Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 347 (Alaska 2009) ("The final step in a privacy analysis is to inquire whether the State has demonstrated that ‘no less restrictive means could advance’ the compelling interest it has articulated.” (quoting Valley Hosp. 2018See id. ("Although the state cannot intrude on a fundamental right where there is a less intrusive alternative, the alternative must actually be available, meaning that it is feasible and would actually satisfy the compelling state interests that justify the proposed state action.”); Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 347 (Alaska 2009) ("The final step in a privacy analysis is to inquire whether the State has demonstrated that 'no less restrictive means could advance’ the compelling interest it has articulated.”); Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 252 (Alaska 2006) (”[A]dequate pro | 1 | 1 |
Treacy v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen2 sentences2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). 60 See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 61 Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009). 62 Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 63 Id. 64 208 P.3d 168 . - 20 - 7215 an unconsenting adult” who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.65 Bigley proposed an alternative plan by which API would provide him food and shelter while allowing him to “come and go from API as he wishe[d].”66 Bigley also asked that API “pay for a reasonably nice apartment” for his use and provide staff support that would “enable him to be su 2018Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963, 969 (Alaska 1997))). 60 See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 61 Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009). 62 Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347 . 63 Id. 64 208 P.3d 168 . - 20 - 7215 an unconsenting adult” who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.65 Bigley proposed an alternative plan by which API would provide him food and shelter while allowing him to “come and go from API as he wishe[d].”66 Bigley also asked that API “pay for a reasonably nice apartment” for his use and provide staff support that would “enable him to be su | 1 | 1 |
Cleland v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See also Cleland v. State, 759 P.2d 553, 557 (Alaska App.1988) (stating that "'the sanctity of the home [is] protected by the privacy clause, not the use of marijuana"). | 1 | 1 |
Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Societygreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., Chico Feminist Women's Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Soc'y, 557 F. Supp. 1190, 1202-03 (E.D.Cal. 1983) (woman's choice regarding abortion protected against private interference under state constitutional right to privacy); Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal. App.3d 265 , 165 Cal. Rptr. 608, 612 (1980) (letters regarding defendant's behavior, some of which contained personal facts, stated a cause of action for tortious invasions of constitutional right to privacy). 1989See, e.g., Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Soc’y, 557 F.Supp. 1190, 1202-03 (E.D.Cal.1983) (woman’s choice regarding abortion protected against private interference under state constitutional right to privacy); Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal.App.3d 265 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 608, 612 (1980) (letters regarding defendant’s behavior, some of which contained personal facts, stated a cause of action for tortious invasions of constitutional right to privacy). | 1 | 1 |
Kinsey v. MacUrgreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Soc’y, 557 F.Supp. 1190, 1202-03 (E.D.Cal.1983) (woman’s choice regarding abortion protected against private interference under state constitutional right to privacy); Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal.App.3d 265 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 608, 612 (1980) (letters regarding defendant’s behavior, some of which contained personal facts, stated a cause of action for tortious invasions of constitutional right to privacy). 1989See, e.g., Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Soc’y, 557 F.Supp. 1190, 1202-03 (E.D.Cal.1983) (woman’s choice regarding abortion protected against private interference under state constitutional right to privacy); Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal.App.3d 265 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 608, 612 (1980) (letters regarding defendant’s behavior, some of which contained personal facts, stated a cause of action for tortious invasions of constitutional right to privacy). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ravin v. State
green
2 sentences2016Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975). 2003In Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), the Alaska Supreme Court held that the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution (Article I, Section 22) protects the possession of marijuana in one’s home for personal use. | 4 | 1988–2016 |
Doe v. State, Department of Public Safety
green
1 sentence2019Safety , 92 P.3d 398 (Alaska 2004) ; People v. Cornelius , 213 Ill.2d 178 , 290 Ill.Dec. 237 , 821 N.E.2d 288 , 300 (2004) ("Defendant engaged in conduct that lowered the privacy bar as his acts spawned a criminal prosecution culminating in a public record that contains the challenged information." (alterations omitted)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Cornelius
green
2 sentences2019Safety , 92 P.3d 398 (Alaska 2004) ; People v. Cornelius , 213 Ill.2d 178 , 290 Ill.Dec. 237 , 821 N.E.2d 288 , 300 (2004) ("Defendant engaged in conduct that lowered the privacy bar as his acts spawned a criminal prosecution culminating in a public record that contains the challenged information." (alterations omitted)). 2019Safety , 92 P.3d 398 (Alaska 2004) ; People v. Cornelius , 213 Ill.2d 178 , 290 Ill.Dec. 237 , 821 N.E.2d 288 , 300 (2004) ("Defendant engaged in conduct that lowered the privacy bar as his acts spawned a criminal prosecution culminating in a public record that contains the challenged information." (alterations omitted)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Whalen v. Roe
green
2 sentences2001Because the medical marijuana law regulates possession and use of marijuana outside the sanctity of the home, and because the state unquestionably has broad power to regulate the administration of drugs for medical purposes, Whalen, 429 U.S. at 603 n. 30,, 97 S.Ct. 869 Ravin is inapposite to the case at hand. 20 . 2001Because the medical marijuana law regulates possession and use of marijuana outside the sanctity of the home, and because the state unquestionably has broad power to regulate the administration of drugs for medical purposes, Whalen, 429 U.S. at 603 n. 30,, 97 S.Ct. 869 Ravin is inapposite to the case at hand. 20 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
California v. Ciraolo
green
2 sentences2001Second, is society willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable?" California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 , 106 S.Ct. 1809 , 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). . - Although all of Cowles's acts were open to view from the ticket window and open door and by the co-employees who were almost continuously in the office, what is needed under the first prong of the expectation. of privacy analysis is an inquiry into the degree-rather than the fact (or the mere possibility)-of public exposure. 2001Second, is society willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable?" California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 , 106 S.Ct. 1809 , 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). . - Although all of Cowles's acts were open to view from the ticket window and open door and by the co-employees who were almost continuously in the office, what is needed under the first prong of the expectation. of privacy analysis is an inquiry into the degree-rather than the fact (or the mere possibility)-of public exposure. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1992In his concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), Justice Harlan explained that the rule protecting citizens against unreasonable searches applies when two requirements are met: first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” In interpreting the meaning of article 1, section 14 of the Alaska Constitution and the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, article 1, section 22, the Alaska Supreme Court in State 1992In his concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), Justice Harlan explained that the rule protecting citizens against unreasonable searches applies when two requirements are met: first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” In interpreting the meaning of article 1, section 14 of the Alaska Constitution and the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, article 1, section 22, the Alaska Supreme Court in State | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.