COURT CHOOSES PRIVACY OVER POT

The Alaska Supreme Court denied on Thursday a petition by the state
attorney general's office seeking reconsideration of a decision allowing
personal marijuana in the home.

The Supreme Court upheld last year's Court of Appeal unanimous ruling in
Noy v. State of Alaska that solidified the argument a person's
constitutional right to privacy is greater than a voter initiative making
marijuana illegal.

The Court of Appeals decision was based largely upon a controversial 1975
Alaska Supreme Court opinion handed down in Ravin v. State allowing adults
to possess marijuana for personal use in their home.

In 1990, voters passed an initiative on a 55 to 44 percent tally making it
illegal to possess any amount of marijuana, but last year the appeals court
not only ruled voters didn't have the authority to change the state
constitution, but defined 4 ounces or less of marijuana as permissible for
personal use at home.

"Noy basically restored Ravin and reaffirmed the right to privacy," said
attorney Bill Satterberg, who filed the appeal. "People don't realize the
purpose of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the
majority."

The ruling closes a case that began when North Pole police and drug agents
arrested David Noy at his Parkway Road house July 27, 2001.

A North Pole police officer contended he detected the smell of marijuana
emitting from Noy's house while Noy and a group of people were outside
barbecuing salmon. Law enforcement searched the residence and found five
live pot plants, growing equipment, some loose marijuana and paraphernalia,
according to court documents.

A jury convicted Noy of misdemeanor sixth-degree misconduct involving a
controlled substance and Satterberg appealed the conviction, paving the way
to proving Alaska has some of the most liberal marijuana laws and strongest
right to privacy sentiments in the nation.

"I'm certainly encouraged that we've recognized we're dealing with
constitutional right regardless of your personal preferences," Satterberg
said. "I'm glad to see the court not succumb to political pressure."

But that may be the next step Attorney General Gregg Renkes takes.

"We're not giving up," Renkes said.

He'll be taking his case to the legislature where he'll try to prove
marijuana is a harmful enough drug to warrant amending the constitution.

"The state has been denied an opportunity to present a record of the
harmfulness of marijuana," Renkes said. "The exception of privacy at home
does not extend to cocaine because the state has proven it's harmful. It
outweighs the right to privacy."

Renkes said marijuana has an increased potency compared to almost 30 years
ago when the Ravin case was decided, making it more addictive and more
susceptible to be an avenue to harder drugs such as cocaine and
methamphetamines--highly addictive drugs that in many cases produce
extreme, violent behavior.

"I'm really appalled that it appears some people are still fighting the
culture war of the 1970s," he said.

He's also disappointed the Supreme Court took eight months to decide and
didn't give an explanation why he won't get the chance to prove his case in
court when it issued its brief denial.

"To me it's all about the kids and what kind of message we're sending to
our kids," Renkes said.

Last year's appeals court decision also gave numerous defendants and
lawyers another case to cite besides the Ravin case when fighting to
dismiss drug charges.

It has already been used in a Homer man's argument his home was illegally
searched just because law enforcement detected the smell of marijuana
coming from his house.

Leo Crocker Jr. argued his home should have not been searched because
police couldn't adequately prove he had more than the amount allowed for
personal use--4 ounces--in his home when they served a warrant and
discovered a grow operation.

The felony drug charges of against Crocker were dropped when the court
decided to suppress the evidence obtained with the search warrant.

The appeals court upheld the court's decision Aug. 27, but Renkes foresees
asking the supreme court to take a look at this ruing as well.

"It virtually prohibits us from getting search warrants to investigate
marijuana home-growing cases," Renkes said. "The court's saying we have to
have evidence to the amount of marijuana in the operation."

It may be a moot point if voters pass a ballot initiative Nov. 2 making it
legal for adults over the age of 21 to possess marijuana whether for
consumption or distribution.

This initiative, according to its chief architect Tim Hinterberger, is a
more streamlined version of one that was defeated in 2000.

"This initiative specially calls on legislature to regulate marijuana like
alcohol," said Hinterberger, an associate professor of the biomedical
program at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The Cannabis Decriminalization and Regulation Act opens the door for
legislature to levy taxes and potentially providing revenue for the state,
Hinterberger said.

"Alaska clearly has values of independence and responsibility and fairness
that are different than the rest of the country," he said. "Clearly
marijuana prohibition doesn't work, everyone knows that and it's time to
try and find a different way."

Renkes said if Ballot Initiative No. 2 passes, it sends the wrong message
to residents and specifically children in a state that already has a high
rate of substance abuse.

"In a state that has the highest addiction rates in the country and spends
more money in the country on drug prevention," Renkes said, "The last thing
Alaskans can afford is permissive drug use."