Right to privacy which amendment

Introduction The U. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs 1st Amendment , privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers 3rd Amendment , privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches 4th Amendment , and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.

Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.

Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children.

In Meyer v Nebraska , the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country.

Justice McReynolds wrote: "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The privacy doctrine of the s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the s when, in Griswold v Connecticut , the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty.

Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia : "Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home.

Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest. In , the court, in Lawrence v. Texas , overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used. In the marketplace, the FTC enforces this right through laws intended to prevent deceptive practices and unfair competition. The Privacy Act of prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government.

A person has the right to review their own personal information, ask for corrections and be informed of any disclosures. The Financial Monetization Act of requires financial institutions to provide customers with a privacy policy that explains what kind of information is being collected and how it is being used. In Griswold v. Connecticut , Justice William O. Image via Library of Congress , circa , public domain.

Much like liberty, justice, and democracy, privacy appears to be an easy concept to understand in the abstract. Defining it in a legal context, however, is difficult and complicated by the fact that there are constitutional rights to privacy and also common law or statutory rights of privacy.

Brandeis nonetheless stated that the First Amendment protected the privacy of the home. Initially, the common law upon which the U. Constitution, state constitutions, and state laws are based, protected only property rights. During the s, however, legal scholars began to theorize that the common law of torts, which involves injuries to private persons or property, also protected against government invasion of privacy. Warren and Louis D. Their article inspired some state courts to begin interpreting the civil law of torts to protect a right of privacy.

Later, Dean William Prosser, a torts law expert, in an influential article in the California Law Review wrote that there are four distinct types of privacy torts:. Sometimes privacy tort claims conflict with First Amendment free speech or free press claims. The Court has rendered a number of decisions involving First Amendment freedoms and privacy. In Packer Corporation v.

Utah , Justice Brandeis suggested that the Court should consider the conditions under which privacy interests are intruded upon. A warrantless arrest may be justified where probable cause and urgent need are present prior to the arrest. Probable cause is present when the police officer has a reasonable belief in the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information prior to the arrest.

For instance, a warrantless arrest may be legitimate in situations where a police officer has a probable belief that a suspect has either committed a crime or is a threat to the public security. A warrantless arrest may be invalidated if the police officer fails to demonstrate exigent circumstances.

The ability to make warrantless arrests are commonly limited by statutes subject to the due process guaranty of the U. A suspect arrested without a warrant is entitled to prompt judicial determination , usually within 48 hours. There are investigatory stops that fall short of arrests , but nonetheless, they fall within Fourth Amendment protection. For instance, police officers can perform a terry stop or a traffic stop.

Usually, these stops provide officers with less dominion and controlling power and impose less of an infringement of personal liberty for individual stopped. Investigatory stops must be temporary questioning for limited purposes and conducted in a manner necessary to fulfill the purpose.

To determine if the officer has met the standard to justify the seizure , the court takes into account the totality of the circumstances and examines whether the officer has a particularized and reasonable belief for suspecting the wrongdoing. Probable cause gained during stops or detentions might effectuate a subsequent warrantless arrest. In some circumstances, warrantless seizures of objects in plain view do not constitute seizures within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

When executing a search warrant , an officer might be able to seize an item observed in plain view even if it is not specified in the warrant.

A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant , subject to only a few exceptions. To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant , the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified. A court-authority, usually a magistrate , will consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether to issue the warrant. The warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has probable cause and obtaining a warrant is impractical in the particular situation.

For instance, in State v. Helmbright, N. Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops , searches incident to a valid arrest , and seizures of items in plain view.

There is no general exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in national security cases. Warrantless searches are generally not permitted in exclusively domestic security cases.