The Constitution's Privacy Amendments: What You Need To Know

The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly mention a right to privacy. However, the Fourth Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating that warrants must be based on probable cause. This amendment has been interpreted to protect privacy, particularly in the context of searches and seizures. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to extend privacy rights, such as in Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court found that it protected an individual's right to abortion. Other amendments, such as the First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, have also been interpreted to provide implied privacy rights in certain cases. While there is no explicit right to privacy amendment, various court decisions and laws form the basis for privacy rights in the United States.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World

$28.18 $34.95

Information Privacy Law [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)

$175 $359

Advanced Introduction to U.S. Data Privacy Law (Elgar Advanced Introductions series)

$25.45

IAPP CIPP / US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide (Sybex Study Guide)

$42.28 $55

Cybersecurity and Privacy Law in a Nutshell (Nutshells)

$46.5

The Fourth Amendment protects the right to privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right to privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". This amendment was a response to increasing infringements on privacy in the colonies and England, where "general warrants" allowed officials to search a person's belongings without cause, on the mere suspicion that they were political enemies.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be authorised by a judge and based on probable cause. This was highlighted in two 20th-century Supreme Court decisions: Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920) and Nardone v. United States (1941). These cases ruled that evidence obtained illegally or through warrantless wiretaps was inadmissible in court. The amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those conducted by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. Courts determine what constitutes a search or seizure, and whether an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated.

The degree of intrusion on privacy must be balanced against the need to promote government interests in exigent circumstances. For example, in cases of national security, the government may argue that mass surveillance is justified by the "probable cause" of deterring crime and terrorism. However, critics argue that these programs are too invasive to be justified under the Fourth Amendment.

The right to privacy has been further debated in cases such as Nixon v. Adm'r. of Gen. Servs. (1977), where the Court rejected President Nixon's assertion that the preservation of his recordings and materials invaded his privacy interest. The Court balanced his privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure, upholding the law. In NASA v. Nelson (2011), the Court assumed without deciding that a right to informational privacy could be protected by the Constitution, but held that the government may ask reasonable questions in its interest as an employer.

The Fourteenth Amendment protects informational privacy and confidentiality

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on July 9, 1868, is considered one of the most consequential amendments. It addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, ensuring that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process. The amendment was a response to issues affecting freed slaves following the American Civil War and has been central to landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, which prohibited racial segregation in public schools.

While the Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly mention "privacy," the Supreme Court has suggested that the privacy right protected by the Constitution includes informational privacy and confidentiality. This interpretation falls under substantive due process, which involves the government's justification for restraining life, liberty, or property. In NASA v. Nelson, the Court assumed without deciding that a right to informational privacy could be protected by the Constitution, but held that this did not prevent the government from asking reasonable questions as an employer.

The Fourteenth Amendment's link to privacy rights was further explored in cases like Nixon v. Adm'r. of Gen. Servs., where the Court balanced President Nixon's expectation of privacy against the public interest in disclosing certain materials. Some lower courts have questioned whether this case established a fundamental right to informational privacy. The Supreme Court has also elevated privacy to a fundamental right in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, protecting contraceptive sales, and Lawrence v. Texas, protecting consensual sex.

The Fourteenth Amendment's protection of informational privacy and confidentiality is often considered in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment, which explicitly addresses "The Right to Privacy." The Fourth Amendment safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants to be supported by probable cause. Together, these amendments provide a legal framework for privacy rights and due process under the law.

The First Amendment protects the privacy of the home

The US Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy. However, Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated that the First Amendment protects the privacy of the home. This was further supported by Justice William O. Douglas, who placed a right to privacy in the "penumbra" cast by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

The First Amendment protection of privacy is strongest when an invasion of privacy occurs in the home or other places where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, in Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the Court struck down a Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials in the home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The Fourth Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, also protects the right to privacy by safeguarding individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. This amendment ensures that searches and seizures are authorized by a judge and based on probable cause.

The interpretation of privacy and the First Amendment has evolved over time. In Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court upheld a ban on indecent speech on the radio because it invades the privacy of the home and is accessible to children. On the other hand, in Cohen v. California (1971), the Court ruled that privacy concerns in public places are outweighed by the First Amendment's protection of speech, even when it includes profanity in a political statement.

Explore related products

On Privacy and Technology

$19.54 $24.95

Privacy Law: Cases and Materials

$35

Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life

$11.92 $28

Privacy Law: Cases and Materials

$35

The Poverty of Privacy Rights

$21.85 $26

Privacy and Data Protection Law (University Casebook Series)

$273

The Ninth Amendment protects fundamental rights to privacy

The Constitution of the United States contains several amendments that address privacy rights, including the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. While the Fourth Amendment specifically protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Ninth Amendment is more broadly concerned with fundamental rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean that it is not a valid right. This amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to address concerns that future generations might argue against the existence of certain rights simply because they were not listed.

The Ninth Amendment has been invoked in various court cases to protect privacy and other fundamental rights. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the District Court ruled in favor of a "Ninth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion," emphasizing that this right was not absolute. However, Justice William O. Douglas disagreed, stating that the Ninth Amendment does not create federally enforceable rights.

Despite this interpretation by Justice Douglas, the Ninth Amendment has been viewed by some as a safeguard against government infringement on fundamental liberties, including privacy. Legal scholars such as Thomas B. McAffee have argued that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated "residuum" of rights that the federal government was never empowered to violate. This interpretation aligns with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment, who sought to ensure that no rights were lost through omission.

In conclusion, while the Ninth Amendment may not explicitly mention privacy, its protection of fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution can be interpreted to include privacy rights. This amendment serves as a reminder that the absence of a right from the Constitution does not negate its existence or importance.

Privacy rights often clash with First Amendment rights

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that citizens have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". This amendment was a response to increasing infringements on privacy in the colonies and England, where "general warrants" and "writs of assistance" allowed officials to conduct warrantless searches.

While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy, Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated in Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) that the First Amendment protected the privacy of the home. This was further emphasised by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), who placed a right to privacy in the "penumbra" cast by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

However, privacy rights often clash with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and the press. For example, individuals may claim a privacy right to be "let alone" when the press reports on their private life or follows them in an intrusive manner. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court held that privacy concerns in public places were outweighed by the First Amendment's protection of speech, even when it included profanity in a political statement.

The First Amendment also protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, although this does not extend to organisations that promote unlawful activities. Additionally, the right to a free press can conflict with privacy, as seen in the case of subpoenas issued to journalists, which can deter coverage of certain issues and threaten media independence.

In conclusion, while there is no explicit right to privacy in the US Constitution, privacy rights have been inferred from various amendments, particularly the Fourth Amendment. These privacy rights often clash with First Amendment rights, especially in the context of freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association. The courts have had to balance these competing interests, sometimes prioritising one over the other, leading to a complex and evolving legal landscape.

Frequently asked questions