Amendments Secure Privacy Rights In The Constitution

The US Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy, but several amendments have been interpreted as establishing a right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and is often invoked in debates about mass surveillance. The Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses citizenship rights, has been used by the Supreme Court to extend privacy rights to unmarried couples and same-sex couples, as well as to uphold the right to abortion. The First Amendment has also been cited in privacy cases, particularly concerning press intrusion and the right to be let alone.

Explore related products

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

$9.99 $9.99

The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life

$27.36 $35

The Poverty of Privacy Rights

$21.85 $26

On Privacy and Technology

$19.54 $24.95

The Freedom Bible: An A-to-Z Guide to Exercising Your Individual Rights, Protecting Your Privacy, Liberating Yourself from Corporate and Government Overreach

$20.99 $29.99

Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations

$82.95

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment was established to prevent the federal and state governments from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, which was a common occurrence under English rule.

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. The determination of whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable involves balancing the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against legitimate government interests, such as public safety. The extent of protection provided by the Fourth Amendment depends on the location of the search or seizure. For example, searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are typically considered unreasonable.

To conduct a legal search and seizure, the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause, which is a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity. This requirement ensures that each search or seizure is authorized in advance, avoiding the previous practice of general warrants that allowed officials to search belongings without cause. However, the Supreme Court has created several exceptions to the warrant requirement. For instance, school officials can search a student under their authority without a warrant, as long as the search is reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, officers can conduct routine stops and searches at international borders, and states can use highway sobriety checkpoints to combat drunk driving.

The Fourth Amendment has faced new challenges with technological advancements, raising questions about what constitutes a "search" in the digital realm. The interpretation of “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment continues to be a subject of debate, with supporters and critics offering differing opinions on the justification for mass surveillance programs in the post-9/11 era.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and personal liberty

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, guarantees "due process of law" and protects the personal liberty of citizens. This amendment was adopted after the Civil War as part of the Reconstruction program to ensure equal civil and legal rights for Black citizens and extend the liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

The Fourteenth Amendment includes the Due Process Clause, which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause guarantees that the government must follow the law and provides procedural protections before depriving someone of their substantive rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to protect certain unenumerated rights, which are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are considered essential liberties that cannot be infringed without a compelling reason.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked in privacy cases, such as Eisenstadt v. Baird (1971) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Supreme Court extended the right to privacy to unmarried couples and same-sex couples, respectively. In Roe v. Wade, the Court also used the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a woman's right to abortion, citing personal liberty and restrictions on state action.

The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption in the post-Civil War era highlights the intention to protect the rights of citizens, particularly those who had been previously enslaved. Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, the primary author of the first section of the amendment, aimed to nationalize the Bill of Rights and make it binding upon the states. This amendment played a crucial role in extending citizenship and ensuring equal protection under the law for all persons born or naturalized in the United States.

In summary, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and personal liberty has been instrumental in shaping privacy rights and ensuring that the government respects the fundamental freedoms of its citizens. The interpretation and application of this amendment by the Supreme Court have evolved over time, reflecting the changing societal values and the need to safeguard individual liberties in a dynamic legal landscape.

Privacy clashes with First Amendment rights in court cases

The Fourth Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The full text of the amendment is as follows:

> 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.

Despite this, privacy claims often clash with First Amendment rights in court cases. For example, individuals may assert a privacy right to be "let alone" when the press reports on their private life or follows them around in an intrusive manner on public and private property.

In De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), the Court declared that the right of people to peaceably assemble does not extend to associations that incite violence or crime. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the Court ruled that freedom of assembly includes the right to freedom of association and acknowledged that individuals are free to associate for the collective advocacy of ideas.

In Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976), the Strongsville City Board of Education rejected faculty recommendations to purchase certain books and ordered the removal of others from the library. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the School Board, upholding the students' First Amendment right to receive information and the librarian's right to disseminate it.

In Sable Communications of California, Inc v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 106 L. Ed. 2d 93, 109 S. Ct. 2829 (1989), the Supreme Court overturned a Telecommunications Act ban on indecent telephone messages, concluding that the law violated the First Amendment because the statute's denial of adult access to such messages far exceeded that which was necessary to serve the compelling interest of preventing minors from being exposed to them.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, parts of the USA Patriot Act expanded government power to conduct surveillance of Americans. Although it prohibits investigations of Americans’ activities that are protected by the First Amendment, some government actions have been challenged in court as violating First Amendment rights. Early cases involved the National Security Agency’s wiretapping practices and a gag order provision that prevented recipients of national security letters from revealing they had received such a letter.

Explore related products

Cyber Privacy: Who Has Your Data and Why You Should Care

$22.66 $27.95

Privacy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 221)

$3.99 $4.79

Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data

$16.18 $17.99

Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy

$15.99 $30

The Right To Privacy

$10.76 $26.95

"I Have Nothing to Hide": And 20 Other Myths About Surveillance and Privacy (Myths Made in America)

$9.91 $17

The Supreme Court extended privacy rights in Eisenstadt v Baird

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, establishing the right to privacy. The text states that citizens have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

The Eisenstadt v Baird decision built on the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut, which granted married individuals the right to obtain contraception. The Court's ruling in Eisenstadt v Baird extended privacy rights to unmarried couples, affirming that the right to privacy "inheres in the individual, not the marital couple". This decision has been influential, with numerous Supreme Court and appeals court cases citing it as an authority.

The Eisenstadt v Baird case also highlighted the role of states' rights and federal power. The First Circuit Court of Appeals initially vacated Baird's conviction, finding that the Massachusetts law infringed on the fundamental rights of unmarried couples under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was then appealed to the US Supreme Court by the prosecuting Sheriff Thomas S. Eisenstadt, who argued that Baird lacked standing to appeal. The Supreme Court upheld Baird's standing to appeal and ruled in his favour, striking down the Massachusetts law as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Eisenstadt v Baird decision has had a significant impact on privacy rights and reproductive freedom in the United States. It affirmed the importance of individual privacy rights and set a precedent for future cases involving privacy and personal autonomy.

The War on Terror led to mass surveillance, sparking Fourth Amendment debates

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The text 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" allowed officials to search a person's belongings without cause.

The War on Terror, sparked by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, led to a wave of mass surveillance. This included monitoring citizens' luggage on airplanes, using automated drones, and the growing field of global Internet communications. The USA PATRIOT Act, for example, allows "sneak-and-peek" searches, where the government can obtain a warrant to search homes and offices without notifying the occupants.

Supporters of these measures argue that they are necessary to deter crime and terrorism and are rooted in "probable cause". Critics, however, claim that these programs are too invasive and widespread to be justified under the Fourth Amendment. They argue that much of the data retrieved is irrelevant to potential court trials, illegally obtained, or an invasion of personal privacy.

The Fourth Amendment has been at the centre of several 20th-century Supreme Court decisions. For instance, in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, the Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence was "tainted" and inadmissible in court. Similarly, in Nardone v. United States, the Court decided that evidence obtained through warrantless wiretaps was also inadmissible.

The right to privacy has also been extended by the Supreme Court to include an individual's right to abortion and the right to purchase contraceptives for unmarried couples, deriving this right from the Fourteenth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions