Also known as: zones of privacy · penumbral privacy · Griswold privacy
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A range of fundamental privacy rights implied by the Bill of Rights guarantees that protect intimate personal decisions and confidential information from unwarranted governmental intrusion.
Zeke Zola and his wife visit a pharmacy to fill a prescription for contraceptives. State officials enforce a rule that blocks the prescription because the couple is married. The couple challenges the rule as an invasion of their protected zone of privacy surrounding marital decisions.
Zelda Ziegler receives a prescription for a controlled medication. The state pharmacy board collects and stores her name and address in a secure database with access limited to regulators. Ziegler sues claiming the collection invades her zone of privacy, but the court upholds the program because reasonable safeguards prevent improper disclosure.
Zoya Zamorano, a high school student, keeps personal items in her locker. A school official searches the locker after receiving a tip about contraband. Zoya argues the search intrudes on her zone of privacy, but the court balances the intrusion against the school's need for order.
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 caseZara Zuberi, an investigative reporter, refuses to name a confidential source in a grand jury proceeding. Prosecutors seek to compel disclosure. Zuberi contends the demand invades a zone of privacy essential to newsgathering, though the court weighs the claim against the need for evidence.
In November 1969, Paul Branzburg, a staff reporter for the Courier-Journal newspaper in Louisville, Kentucky, published an article describing his observations of two individuals synthesizing hashish from marijuana in Jefferson County. The article included a photograph and stated that Branzburg had promised not to reveal the identities of the two. He was subsequently subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury and refused to identify the individuals he had observed. A state trial court ordered him to answer, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition for relief. In January 1971, Branzburg published a second article detailing drug use in Frankfort, Kentucky, based on interviews with several dozen users over two weeks. He was subpoenaed by the Franklin County grand jury to testify about violations of drug statutes. The Court of Appeals denied the requested writs and rejected his First Amendment claim. This Court granted certiorari. In July 1970, Paul Pappas, a television newsman-photographer, was assigned to cover civil disorders in New Bedford, Massachusetts, involving the Black Panthers. He entered Panther headquarters under an agreement not to disclose what he saw or heard inside except for an anticipated police raid, which did not occur. Two months later, he was summoned before the Bristol County grand jury but refused to answer questions about his observations inside the headquarters. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that he must appear and testify. In February 1970, Earl Caldwell, a New York Times reporter covering the Black Panther Party in San Francisco, received a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury investigating possible violations of federal law by the group, including threats against the President. The District Court denied the motion to quash but issued a protective order. Caldwell refused to appear and was held in contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed, recognizing a qualified privilege. This Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases.
View caseZuri Zuberi is hospitalized after a car crash. Police order a blood sample without a warrant to test for intoxication. Zuri claims the procedure invades her zone of privacy in her body, but the court evaluates whether the intrusion is justified by exigent circumstances.
Petitioner Schmerber and a companion had been drinking at a tavern and bowling alley on November 12, 1964. Petitioner was driving from the bowling alley about midnight when the car skidded, crossed the road, and struck a tree. Both petitioner and his companion were injured and taken to a hospital for treatment. A police officer who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident smelled liquor on petitioner's breath and testified that petitioner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and sort of a glassy appearance. The officer saw petitioner again at the hospital within two hours of the accident and noticed similar symptoms of drunkenness. He thereupon informed petitioner that he was under arrest and that he was entitled to the services of an attorney, that he could remain silent, and that anything he told the officer would be used against him in evidence. At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital. The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication. The report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected petitioner's contentions and affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseZion Zhao operates a clinic providing abortion services. State law imposes strict limits on the procedure. Zhao challenges the restrictions as invading a zone of privacy in reproductive decisions, but the court holds that no such federal right exists under current doctrine.
Mississippi's Gestational Age Act provides that, except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen weeks. The Mississippi Legislature made findings about prenatal development and the risks and nature of dilation-and-evacuation procedures used after 15 weeks. Jackson Women's Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors filed suit in Federal District Court challenging the statute. They alleged that the law violated this Court's precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion. The District Court granted summary judgment for the respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Petitioners defended the statute before this Court, arguing that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether all pre-viability prohibitions are unconstitutional and whether Roe and Casey should be overruled.
View caseThe zone of privacy recognized in Griswold centers on intimate marital choices but has been described more broadly to include an interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. Later cases confirm that administrative collection of medical data with safeguards does not invade the protected zone.
Supporting sources
Government programs that collect names and addresses of patients or customers for regulatory purposes do not violate the zone of privacy when reasonable safeguards limit access and prevent public disclosure. Courts have upheld such systems as permissible administrative recordkeeping.
Supporting sources
State interference with intimate marital decisions about contraception is subject to heightened scrutiny because the marital relationship lies within the zone of privacy created by several constitutional guarantees. Laws that directly burden this interest must be justified by a compelling interest and narrowly tailored.
Supporting sources
The zone of privacy encompasses both decisional autonomy in intimate matters and an interest in avoiding disclosure of personal information. Informational privacy claims are evaluated by whether the government has a legitimate purpose and employs reasonable safeguards against unwarranted dissemination.
Supporting sources
…v. Botsford , 141 U.S. 250 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it…