Replies

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This seems fairly clear to me. If this isn't a guarantee of privacy, what is?

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, (1965)

(Black, J. dissenting)

(...)The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509] Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." (...)

The due process argument which my Brothers HARLAN and WHITE adopt here is based, as their opinions indicate, on the premise that this Court is vested with power to invalidate all state laws that it considers to be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or oppressive, or on this Court's belief that a particular state law under scrutiny has no "rational or justifying" purpose, or is offensive to a "sense of fairness and justice." If these formulas based on "natural justice," or others which mean the same thing, are to prevail, they require judges to determine what is or is not constitutional on the basis of their own appraisal of what laws are unwise or unnecessary. The power to make such decisions is of course that of a legislative body. Surely it has to be admitted that no provision of the Constitution specifically gives such blanket power to courts to exercise such a supervisory veto over the wisdom and value of legislative policies and to hold unconstitutional those laws which they believe unwise or dangerous.(...)

My Brother GOLDBERG has adopted the recent discovery that the Ninth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause can be used by this Court as authority to strike down all state legislation which this Court thinks violates "fundamental principles of liberty and justice," or is contrary to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people." He also states, without proof satisfactory to me, that in making decisions on this basis judges will not consider "their personal and private notions." One may ask how they can avoid considering them. Our Court certainly has no machinery with which to take a Gallup Poll. And the scientific miracles of this age have not yet produced a gadget which the Court can use to determine what traditions are rooted in the "[collective] conscience of our people."

I'm not exactly sure what generates the fear of courts entering into the 'privacy rights' issue as it applies to legislative actions. The courts do this all the time when it comes to first and second amendment rights. Why should the other rights clauses be sacrisanct to lefislative bodies?

There have been a number of comments on this thread that relate to there being reasonable exceptions to rights to privacy, the general welfare and crime being two.

I do believe the Fourth Ammendment establishes privacy rights. If it does not, then all manner of abuses are free to flow in where rights recede.

1. Situation one finds a local Police Chief under pressure from a local power player, to uncover information what would help his business. If the Fourth Ammendment does not guarantee privacy, then there's nothing to stop the Police Chief from directing his officers to enter a business at will, search for and document private information. This is clearly wrong. It is clearly forbidden by the Fourth Ammendment. The owner of the business in question, must be assured his papers are private and not the subject of abuse.

2. A couple likes to take risque photos in their bedroom. They develop a small collection of private materials. They also have private banking and other papers. When they leave on vacation, they have every right to expect their private documents not to be riffled by neighbors or authorities. If any of this information were to be discovered as having been pilfered or having shown up on the internet, the couple would have every right under the constitution to demand criminal prosecution.

3. The leftist Mayor in a small sized town makes it his goal to remove all weapons from the citizens in his jurisdiction. Leaving aside the Second Ammendment rights for a moment, the Mayor cannot demand his police chief have his men go door to door in order to go inside and do a physical inspection. If a citizen is deemed to have a weapon, the police may obtain a warrant and enter for reasonable cause. If challenged, they will have to explain what reasonable cause justified the warrant. And if their case is weak, those associated with this action are open to prosecution.

In certian circumstances, it is agreed that these rights may be infringed at times due to special circumstances. It is not expected that under the normal course of daily activity, citizens should have to be subject to abuse of these rights to privace. I do consider them privacy rights. They clearly are.

Citizens of the United States do have a right to privacy. We are not subject to our government, except as laws are violated, or a clear and present danger to the community exists.

Let's remember something. In our nation we grant power to the government. The government does not grant power to us. Government answers to the people. We must not lose sight of that fact, or we are no better than any other nation.