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.
7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam 2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam 2002In Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973), the Alaska Supreme Court adopted this test as the appropriate standard for determining what constitutes a protected privacy interest under the Alaska Constitution. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Glassgreen1 sentence2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam | 1 | 1 |
Risher v. Stategreen1 sentence1992In Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 424-25 (Alaska 1974), the Alaska Supreme Court, construing the Alaska Constitution, adopted a twofold standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence1985Giacomazzi v. State, 633 P.2d at 222 ; Troyer v. State, 614 P.2d at 318; Johnson v. State, 631 P.2d 508, 512 (Alaska App.1981) This bifurcated standard applies equally in cases involving the voluntariness of Miranda waivers and the voluntariness of confessions. | 1 | 1 |
Nathanson v. Stategreen2 sentences1979See also Nathanson v. State, 554 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1976). 1979See also Nathanson v. State, 554 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Wolfish
green
2 sentences2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam 2009See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring) ("My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, 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.' "); see also State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 , 875 & n. 9 (Alaska 1978) (applying Justice Harlan's articulation of the rule in Katz under Alaska law); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793, 797 (Alaska 1973) (sam | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Giacomazzi v. State
green
1 sentence1985Giacomazzi v. State, 633 P.2d at 222 ; Troyer v. State, 614 P.2d at 318; Johnson v. State, 631 P.2d 508, 512 (Alaska App.1981) This bifurcated standard applies equally in cases involving the voluntariness of Miranda waivers and the voluntariness of confessions. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1973Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the `plain view' of outsiders are not `protected' because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited." 389 U.S. at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 516 , 19 L.Ed.2d at 587-588. 1973Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the ‘plain view’ of outsiders are not ‘protected’ because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited.” 389 U.S. at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 516 , 19 L.Ed,2d at 587-588. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.