 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anchorage Police Dept. Employees Association v. Municipality of Anchorage6/15/2001
right to privacy. For the reasons explained below, however, we prefer to resolve the parties' arguments using the analytical framework that governs unlawful searches and seizures; and although we find substantial guidance in cases interpreting the United States Constitution, we limit our decision to the requirements of the Alaska Constitution's search and seizure clause.
Article I, section 14, of the Alaska Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and other property, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Article I, section 22, defines Alaska's right to privacy: "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section."
We have held that both of these provisions afford broader protection than their federal counterparts. Alaska's guaranty of privacy is broader than the protection found in the federal constitution, which contains no express privacy provision:
Since the citizens of Alaska, with their strong emphasis on individual liberty, enacted an amendment to the Alaska Constitution expressly providing for a right to privacy not found in the United States Constitution, it can only be concluded that the right is broader in scope than that of the Federal Constitution.
And Alaska's search and seizure clause is stronger than the federal protection because article I, section 14 is textually broader than the Fourth Amendment, and the clause draws added strength from Alaska's express guarantee of privacy. Because the Alaska Constitution provides broader protection to Police Employees and Fire Fighters under both constitutional theories that they argue in this appeal, we need only determine whether the Municipality's policy violates the Alaska Constitution's requirements. Thus, we base our ultimate ruling exclusively on the Alaska Constitution.
Moreover, while the parties raise legitimate constitutional concerns under both the privacy and search and seizure clauses of the Alaska Constitution, we think it best to focus our decision on article I, section 14 -- the search and seizure provision. In prior opinions, this court has emphasized that the primary purpose of both Alaska provisions -- section 14's search and seizure protection and section 22's privacy guaranty -- is to protect "personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the State, or other governmental officials." Accordingly, in cases involving allegedly invalid searches, we have recognized that the standard for determining compliance with Alaska's search and seizure clause is "inexorably entwined" with the standard of privacy established in article I, section 22.
The Municipality policy at issue here requires Police Employees and Fire Fighters members to submit to urinalysis for purposes of disclosing potential substance abuse. The United States Supreme Court has held that urine testing conducted under analogous circumstances qualifies as a "search" for constitutional purposes:
Because it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable, the Federal Courts of Appeals have concluded unanimously, and we agree, that these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment.
Because the policy at issue here unquestionably requires employees to submit to "searches," and because Alaska's search and seizure clause incorporates the requirements of Alaska's privacy clause, we can resolve all of the constitutional issues raised in this case by applying the analyti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|