Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Thank you counselor. Can you provide more detail as that doesn't read very clearly. This is very timely because I literally just had this discussion earlier in the day with our legal counsel and the explanation was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory, that the constitution provides protections under certain circumstances that provide a shroud, giving the conditions of privacy, but not a clear right to privacy. It was the circumstances that mattered. Now this discussion was centered around personal property in public spaces, so does that change the interpretation in any way? Please provide more details, because if its wrong I would like to further this discussion with my CPO for obvious reasons.
|
Griswold established that there is a right to privacy, so to say that there is no such right is just wrong. The case is easy to find and read. Every first year law student in the US reads it.
The contours of that right, like the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution from which the Court found such a right, can be a bit hazy. The interplay between the right to privacy and criminal procedure, for example, where there is overlap but (as I recall) no explicit statement of such.
You really should ask your legal counsel for more details. It sounds like you have a specific inquiry regarding a specific situation that might warrant specific and narrowly tailored legal advice.