Also known as: rights of privacy · right to privacy · privacy right · privacy rights
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An interest in personal autonomy and seclusion invaded by unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity given to private life, or publicity placing another in a false light.
An interest in personal autonomy and seclusion invaded by unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity given to private life, or publicity placing another in a false light.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A fundamental liberty protecting intimate personal decisions concerning marriage, procreation, contraception, and family relationships from unwarranted governmental interference.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A fundamental liberty protecting intimate personal decisions concerning marriage, procreation, contraception, and family relationships from unwarranted governmental interference.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Rhea Reynolds discovered that a neighbor had installed a hidden camera aimed at her bedroom window. She sued for damages after learning the footage had been viewed repeatedly. The court held the neighbor liable because the conduct constituted an unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion.
Roger Ramirez's employer published his medical records without consent. Ramirez suffered emotional distress and lost employment opportunities. The court imposed liability on the employer for the resulting harm to Ramirez's privacy interests.
The right of privacy is invaded by unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity given to private life, or publicity that places another in a false light.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must prove an invasion of the right of privacy and resulting harm to protected interests.
Supporting sources
Rowan Russell, a sixteen-year-old, sought nonmedical contraceptives at a local pharmacy without a physician's approval. State law required such approval for anyone under sixteen. The restriction was struck down because it unduly burdened the fundamental privacy right concerning contraception.
Riley Rivera, an unmarried adult, was denied access to contraceptives under a statute that permitted distribution only to married persons. The court invalidated the statute because the right of privacy belongs to the individual regardless of marital status.
Rajesh Rao and his spouse were prosecuted for using contraceptives in violation of state law. The court held that the statute violated the constitutionally protected zone of privacy surrounding the marital relationship.
Ryan Roberts challenged a state program that collected names and addresses of patients prescribed certain drugs. The court upheld the program because reasonable safeguards existed and the administrative collection did not invade a protected zone of privacy.
No. The right inheres in the individual and extends to both married and unmarried persons in decisions about contraception and procreation.
Supporting sources
No. Such a requirement unduly burdens the fundamental privacy right concerning contraception and is therefore invalid.
Supporting sources
No. Reasonable administrative recordkeeping with adequate safeguards does not impermissibly invade a protected zone of privacy.
Supporting sources
…considered against important state interests in regulation. Pp. 152-166. (a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford , 141 U.S. 250 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of…