Also known as: unwarranted invasions of personal privacy · invasion of privacy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A disclosure of personal information or an intrusion into private affairs that lacks adequate justification from a countervailing public interest. The phrase identifies invasions that courts or agencies will not permit because the harm to individual privacy outweighs any asserted benefit from release or access.
A university alumni magazine publishes details of a graduate's past expulsion and suicide attempt drawn from confidential files. The graduate sues claiming the article creates an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court evaluates whether the publication meets the actual malice standard required for false light claims tied to privacy interests.
Federal agents attach a listening device to the outside of a public phone booth and record a suspect's calls without a warrant. The suspect argues the surveillance amounts to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court examines whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the booth that the government violated.
The petitioner was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of California. He faced an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of a federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations. FBI agents had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions thus presented. Based upon previous visual observations of the petitioner, the agents correctly predicted he would use the booth for several minutes at approximately the same time each morning. The petitioner was subjected to electronic surveillance only during this predetermined period. Six recordings, averaging some three minutes each, were obtained and admitted in evidence. They preserved the petitioner's end of conversations concerning placing bets and receiving wagering information. On the single occasion when the statements of another person were inadvertently intercepted, the agents refrained from listening to them. The telephone booth was made partly of glass. The petitioner was as visible after he entered it as he would have been if he had remained outside. The agents confined their surveillance to the brief periods during which he used the booth and took great care to overhear only the petitioner's conversations.
View caseA state health department maintains computerized records of all prescriptions for certain controlled drugs including patient names and addresses. Patients challenge the database as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court weighs the state's interest in preventing drug diversion against the patients' privacy claims in medical information.
In August 1970 the New York Legislature created a special commission to evaluate the State’s drug-control laws after determining that drugs with both legitimate and illegitimate uses were being diverted into unlawful channels. The commission found existing laws deficient because there was no effective way to prevent stolen or revised prescriptions, repeated refills by unscrupulous pharmacists, patients obtaining prescriptions from multiple doctors, or doctors over-prescribing. The 1972 New York State Controlled Substances Act classified potentially harmful drugs into five schedules and placed the most dangerous legitimate drugs, including opium derivatives, cocaine, methadone, amphetamines, and methaqualone, in Schedule II. With an exception for emergencies, the Act requires every Schedule II prescription to be written in triplicate on an official form that identifies the prescribing physician, the dispensing pharmacy, the drug and dosage, and the patient’s name, address, and age; one copy must be forwarded to the New York State Department of Health in Albany. Approximately 100,000 Schedule II prescription forms arrive at the Department of Health each month, where they are sorted, coded, logged, and recorded on magnetic tapes for computer processing before being returned to a vault for five-year retention and eventual destruction. The receiving room is protected by a locked wire fence and alarm system, computer tapes are stored in a locked cabinet, the computer runs off-line with no external terminals, and public disclosure of patient identities is prohibited by statute and regulation with willful violations punishable by up to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. At the time of trial, seventeen Department of Health employees had access to the files. Twenty-four investigators were authorized to investigate cases of apparent overuse. After twenty months of operation the computerized data had been used in only two investigations. A few days before the Act became effective, patients who regularly received Schedule II prescriptions, doctors who prescribed such drugs, and two physicians’ associations commenced this litigation challenging the patient-identification provisions. After an initial dismissal that was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a three-judge District Court conducted a one-day trial. Appellees introduced evidence that some patients declined needed Schedule II medication because of fear that the computerized records would stigmatize them as drug addicts. Two parents had taken a child off such medication for that reason. Three adult patients feared disclosure, with one now obtaining drugs out of state. Four physicians testified that patients reacted with shock and concern when informed of the central filing system and that one doctor had stopped prescribing Schedule II drugs altogether, although more than 100,000 such prescriptions continued to be filled each month without reported objections reaching the District Court. The District Court enjoined enforcement of the patient-identification provisions of the Act.
View caseA government employer releases an employee's confidential medical leave records to justify a personnel decision. The employee sues claiming an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court balances the agency's asserted operational need against the employee's interest in keeping sensitive health information private.
Sheila Myers worked as an Assistant District Attorney in the New Orleans office under District Attorney Harry Connick for approximately five and a half years. In early October 1980, Myers was informed she would be transferred to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. She strongly opposed the transfer and expressed her objections to several supervisors including Connick. On October 6, 1980, Myers received formal notice of the transfer. Later that day she discussed her concerns with First Assistant District Attorney Dennis Waldron. That night Myers prepared a questionnaire soliciting the views of fellow Assistant District Attorneys on office transfer policy, office morale, the need for a grievance committee, the level of confidence in supervisors, and whether employees felt pressured to work in political campaigns. The next morning, she typed and copied the questionnaire. She then distributed it to fifteen Assistant District Attorneys. Connick learned of the distribution shortly after noon on October 7. He returned to the office, informed Myers she was being terminated for refusing the transfer, and stated that distributing the questionnaire constituted insubordination. Myers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the termination violated her First Amendment rights. The District Court found the questionnaire was the real reason for discharge, submitted the motivating-factor question to a jury which answered in Myers' favor, and ordered reinstatement with backpay. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA high school assistant principal searches a student's purse after receiving a report that she was smoking in the lavatory. The search reveals cigarettes and marijuana. The student claims the search constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court balances the school's need to maintain order against the student's expectation of privacy in personal belongings.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey, discovered two girls, including fourteen-year-old freshman T. L. O., smoking in a school lavatory in violation of school rules. The teacher escorted the girls to the principal’s office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. When questioned, T. L. O. denied smoking in the lavatory. Choplick then took T. L. O. into his private office and demanded to inspect her purse. Upon opening the purse, Choplick found a pack of cigarettes and a package of cigarette rolling papers. Suspecting drug involvement, he conducted a thorough search of the purse, uncovering a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of one-dollar bills, an index card listing students who owed T. L. O. money, and two letters implicating her in marijuana dealing. Choplick turned this evidence over to the police, and T. L. O. was charged with delinquency based on possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. T. L. O. moved to suppress the evidence from her purse, arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Juvenile Court denied the motion to suppress. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but remanded on other grounds. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding the search unreasonable and ordering suppression of the evidence. The State of New Jersey petitioned for certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted. The Court initially focused on the exclusionary rule but later ordered reargument on the Fourth Amendment standard applicable to school searches.
View caseA city police officer produces and sells sexually explicit videos while off duty using a department-issued uniform and vehicle in some scenes. The department fires the officer for conduct unbecoming. The officer argues the termination rests on an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in off-duty expressive activity.
John Roe, a San Diego police officer, produced and sold videotapes depicting himself stripping out of a police uniform and engaging in sexually explicit acts. He marketed these videos along with custom videos and police equipment, including official San Diego Police Department uniforms, through an eBay account under the username Code3stud@aol.com, which he linked to his law enforcement employment. Roe's supervisor discovered the listings while browsing eBay and recognized Roe from the images. The supervisor shared the materials with higher-ranking officers, prompting an internal affairs investigation. During the investigation, Roe produced an additional custom video at the request of an undercover officer showing him revoking a traffic citation after performing indecent acts in uniform. The San Diego Police Department determined that Roe's conduct violated departmental policies on conduct unbecoming an officer, outside employment, and immoral conduct. After Roe failed to fully comply with an order to cease selling such materials, the department initiated termination proceedings, resulting in his dismissal from the force. Roe filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the termination infringed his First Amendment rights. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. The Supreme Court granted the City's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
View caseThe distinction turns on whether the privacy harm outweighs any public interest in the information. Courts and agencies balance the intimate or stigmatizing nature of the material against legitimate needs such as law enforcement, public safety, or government accountability.
Supporting sources
No. Privacy torts such as public disclosure of private facts protect against publication of true but highly offensive private information. Defamation requires falsity, but privacy claims often proceed on accurate yet intimate details taken from confidential sources.
Supporting sources
Yes when the use involves intimate or identifying material obtained without consent and distributed for marketing purposes. The commercial motive often strengthens the finding that the publicity is unreasonable and lacks public-interest justification.
Supporting sources
…recognized truth as a complete defense. Thus, nondefamatory factual errors could render a publisher liable for something akin to invasion of privacy. The Court ruled that the defendant in such an action could invoke the New York Times privilege regardless of the fame or anonymity of the plaintiff. Speaking for the Court, MR. JUSTICE…