Privacy Rights/Legal Codification/US implicit
Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?
In the United States, the right to privacy was not originally codified but established through Supreme Court cases around the 1960s (Privacy, n.d.). Prior to this time, the Court recognized in Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934) that some concepts of fairness are fundamental, but not expressed. In 1965, the Court heard and decided Griswold v. Connecticut. In the majority opinion, Justice William Douglas argues that the Court had previously ruled on cases in which rights were not explicit in the Bill of Rights, but the rights were justifiable to the Court through the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, par. 11). Later in the opinion of the court, he states that in other cases, such as Boyd v. United States (1886), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), and Poe v. Ullman (1961), the court used the ‘penumbras’ of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to make decisions on implicit liberties (Griswold v. CT, 1965, pars. 14-15). Combined, these penumbras create what the Griswold v. Connecticut majority opinion calls “zones of privacy” (Privacy, n.d.). In a concurring Griswold opinion, Justice Arthur Goldberg argues that while liberties extend beyond the Bill of Rights, he, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice William Brennan feel that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not include “all of the first eight amendments” (Griswold v. CT, 1965, par. 21). However, in a different concurring opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan found “[t]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands […] on its own bottom” (Griswold v. CT, 1965, par. 53; Privacy, n.d.). Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion became the predominant argument used in later privacy cases (Privacy, n.d.). In 1967, the Supreme Court decided the case of Katz v. United States (Katz v. US, n.d.). Katz, located in Los Angeles, had been using a public phone booth to inform bettors in Boston and Miami, and in an effort to convict him, federal agents tapped the phone booth (Katz v. US, n.d.). A lower court allowed this evidence to be admitted, but Katz claimed it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Katz v. US, n.d.). The Supreme Court sided 7-1 with Katz and establishes that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” (Katz v. United States, 1967). In a concurring opinion, Justice Harlan established the Expectation for Privacy Test (Katz v. US, n.d.; Expectation of Privacy, n.d.). This test is two-fold – the individual must have an expectation for privacy which is rooted in law and society finds that expectation for privacy to be reasonable – and has been used as a basis for privacy since (Expectation of Privacy, n.d.). After these two cases, the Supreme Court has continued to extend the right to privacy, notably so in three landmark cases: Eisenstadt v. Baird (1971), Roe v. Wade (1972), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) through the use of the Fourteenth Amendment and Justice Harlan’s concurring Griswold opinion (Privacy, n.d.). Eisenstadt extended the use of contraceptives beyond married couples to individuals (Privacy, n.d.). Roe extended the right to privacy to the women’s right to have an abortion (Privacy, n.d.). Lawrence v. Texas' overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and extended privacy to private conduct (Privacy, n.d.).
REFERENCES:
Expectation of Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 13, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479
Katz v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347
Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/97