*1 WHALEN, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH OF
NEW YORK ROE et al. Argued No. 75-839. February October 1976 Decided *2 Greenwald, A. Seth Attorney Assistant General of New York, argued appellant. for him on cause With Lefkowitz, Attorney were Louis Samuel brief J. General, and Hirshowitz, A. First Assistant Attorney General.
Michael Lesch argued for Roe et appellees the cause al. Ferziger. H. the brief was Solomon Z. Miles him on With et him argued appellees cause Patient al. With Jaffe on the brief were Melvin F. Shattuck.* L. John H. Wulf Winkler, Younger, Attorney California, B.
*Evelle J. Jack General Attorney Attorney General, Moore, Chief Assistant S. Clark Assistant Shunji Attorneys General, Kwong, Deputy Asari and Owen Lee Gen- Justice opinion delivered the of the Court. Stevens Mr. question presented The constitutional is whether the State record, computer file, a centralized the names persons and addresses all who obtained, have pursuant to a doctor’s drugs certain which prescription, is both there a lawful and an unlawful market. enjoined
The District Court portions enforcement of the of the New York Act State Controlled Substances require recording ground such on the violate appellees’ protected constitutionally rights privacy.2 We probable jurisdiction appeal noted the Commis- sioner Health, S. 907, and now reverse.3 Many legitimate illegitimate uses. both *3 In response to a concern that such drugs being diverted were into unlawful channels, 1970 New Legislature York in a special drug- created commission to evaluate the State’s existing control laws.4 The commission found defi- laws eral, urging filed brief for State of as amicus curiae California the. reversal.
Robert Plotkin
Paul
Friedman
R.
filed a brief
the National
urging
Association Mental Health
curiae
et
as amici
affirmance.
al.
Laws,
seq.
878;
1 1972
Y.
c.
N.
Y. Pub. Health Law
et
N.
§3300
(McKinney,
(hereafter
Supp. 1976-1977)
Law, except as
Pub. Health
13, infra).
indicated
n.
2
Ingraham,
Supp.
(SDNY 1975).
Roe
403
Dis
F.
931
Earlier the
trict
complaint
Court had dismissed the
for want of a substantial federal
question.
Ingraham,
Roe v.
Supp.
357 F.
1217
The Court
Appeals reversed,
question
holding
was
substantial constitutional
Ingra
presented
three-judge
required.
and therefore a
was
Roe v.
court
ham,
(CA2 1973).
The new New statute which are Drugs, heroin, such sсhedules.7 five recognized no medical use, have abused and highly II through prescribed. Schedules they cannot I; Schedule potential lower progressively drugs which have a Y include Our medical use. recognized have abuse but also Drug Laws Commission to Evaluate Temporary State Report Apr. 5,1971). (Albany, Y.,N. 5 Id., at 3-5. findings: T. S. C. summarized The Chairman of the con- have been and Illinois officials in both California
“Law enforcement multiple prescriptions, since depth about the use of in considerable sulted They indi- time. period of using them for a considerable been *4 adjunct proper identifica- only to the they are not useful cate to us that abusers, but drug unscrupulous culpable and professional tion drug flow pattern the indication of give statistical a reliable also state to stеm sorely needed in this throughout states: their controlled substances.” lawfully manufactured tide of diversion Hardt, App. 87a-88a. R. of Chester Memorandum Report 27-44. Interim Report 21; T. C. Second C. Interim T. S. (West, Supp. 1975 and 11160, Safety 11167 Code Health & Cal. §§ 1977). (a) (Supp. 1308, 1311, 1312 Stat., 56y2, 1976); c. Ill. Ann. §§ 7 drug aspects in all material schedules conform These five Con Drug Prevention and Abuse Comprehensive in the Federal schedules seq. 801 et 21 U. S. C. trol Act of 1970. § concern is limited to II, Schedule includes the most dangerous legitimate of the drugs.8 exception
With an for emergencies, the Act requires II prescriptions all prepared Schedule drugs by physician triplicate in on an completed official form.9 The form identifies the prescribing physician; dispensing pharmacy; the drug and dosage; name, and and address, age patient. cоpy One of the form by is retained the second physician, by the and the third pharmacist, is forwarded to the New York Department of Health in A Albany. prescription made form may official not exceed a 30-day supply, and not be refilled.10
The District Court found that 100,000 about II Schedule prescription forms are delivered to a room receiving at the Department of Health Albany They each month. are logged and and sorted, coded, then taken to room another where the data on the forms is recorded on magnetic tapes processing computer. Thereafter, forms are returned to the room receiving to be retained in a vault for a five- year period and destroyed then required the statute.11 opium These opium derivatives, cocaine, methadone, include and amphetamines, methaqualone. and Pub. Health Law 3306. These § accepted pain uses amelioration of the treatment epilepsy, narcolepsy, hyperkinesia, disorders, migraine schizo-affective headaches. Pub. Health prepared Law 3338. These are forms §§ Department Health, serially, issued groups numbered per (10 form). $10 100 forms group per triplicate cents New York Department Prescription, State Health New York State Form —Official (8/72). NC-77 normally 3331-3333, pharmacist Pub. Health Law 3339. §§ prescription Albany filling forwards the physician after it. If the dis penses drug himself, copies he must forward two Department Health, § 3370,(3), Laws, Pub. Health Law phy 1974 N. Y. c. 16. The § § pharmacist required sician years and the copies to retain their for five *5 receiving room by is surrounded a locked wire fence and
protected by аn system. alarm The computer tapes con- taining kept data are ain locked cabinet. tapes When the computer is run used, “off-line,” which means that computer no terminal outside of the room or can read record any information. 'Public disclosure of identity of patients expressly prohibited is by the statute by Department a regulation.12 of Health Willful viola- also, (6), (4), Pub. Health 3333(4), Law but are not §§3331 required destroy them. 12Section 3371 of the Pub. Health Law states: person, by knowledge
“1. No who has virtue of his office the iden- tity particular patient manufacturing process, subject, of a or research a knowledge, any report trade secret or a formula shall disclose such or thereof, except: or record
“(a) person by purposes employed department, to another executing provisions article; of this or
“(b) judicial criminal inves- pursuant subpoena or court order in a tigation proceeding; or or
“(c) agency, government, board author- department to an or official authorized supervise person who is regulate, ized to license or otherwise any substances, the course of by deal or in this article to in controlled department or agency, investigation proceeding or or before such board; or article. pursuant to this
“(d) registry to a central established is dis- such information any proceeding where In the course “2. party to the rights of necessary effectuate the closed, except when is action as take such officer shall proceeding, presiding the court or report of such information, or record or necessary to insure that such public.” not made is Health has authority, Department statutory to its Pursuant confidentiality as follows: respect of regulations in promulgated identity his office knowledge virtue of person who “No manufacturing process, a subject, a research patient particular of a any report or knowledge, or such disclose formula shall or a secret trade thereof, except: record employee of as an of his office virtue person “(a) another who information; or such to obtain department entitled
595 of tion these prohibitions is a punishable crime by up to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine.13 At the time of trial there 17 Department were of Health employеes with access to the files; addition, there 24 investigators were authority with investigate to cases of overdispensing might which be iden- by computer. tified the Twenty months after effective of date the computerized Act, only data had been used in two investigations involving alleged by specific overuse patients. days
fewA before Act became this effective, litigation by was group commenced of patients regularly receiving prescriptions II for Schedule drugs, by prescribe doctors who such drugs, and two physicians.14 of associations After various preliminary proceedings,15 a three-judge District Court a one-day conducted trial. Appellees offered evidence prove tending persons that in need of treatment with II drugs Schedule will from time to time decline suсh treat- ment because of their computerized fear the misuse of the will cause stigmatized data them to be as “drug addicts.”16 “(b) pursuant judicial subpoena or court order in a criminal inves- tigation proceedings; or or
“(c) agency, department government, of or official board author- regulate, supervise person ized to license or otherwise who is authorized substances, article 33 of the Public deal in Health Law to controlled any investigation or in course proceeding or or before such agency, department board; or
“(d) registry pursuant a central established to article 33 of the Health Public C. R. Law.” N. Y. R. 80.107 § (2) (McKinney 1971). N. Y. Pub. Health Law 12-b § physicians’ associations, Physicians Guild, The Empire and Inc. Dentists, Physicians the American Federation of and articulate no claims physicians. from named there which severable the claims We unnecessary organizations find it fore to consider whether themselves standing to maintain these suits. appeal original complaint, from the dismissal In addition to depositions part parties were made a record and took stipulation into entered facts. their parents were concerned that children testified Two doctor-patient Court “the relation- District held that ship one the zones accorded constitutional provisions protection” patient-identification of the needlessly Act invaded this zone “a broad sweep,” enjoined provisions enforcement of Act which patients’ deal with the reporting names addresses.17
I *7 The District Court found that had been un- the State necessity patient-identifi- to demonstrate for the able of requirement experience during cation on the basis 20 There first months of administration of the new statute. provided was a time when that would have a basis alone York, Lochner New invalidating statute. v. S. permit it a for a baker to legislation making involved crime in In employees his to work than hours a week. more 60 opinion held longer regarded authoritative, an no Court unnecessary unreasonable, “an statute unconstitutional as arbitrary interference with the individual Id., personal his 56. liberty ....” filing system. child had stigmatized central One would be the State’s this Three concern. been taken off his Schedule II medication because their patients they feared names would adult testified that disclosure filing One them now patient result from centrаl identifications. to receive drugs in another The two continue obtains his State. other York, disclosure continue fear prescriptions II in New but Schedule sys- stigmatization. physicians Four testified that had observed a reac- patients’ privacy, and that each tem on entrenches fear, part patients their whom shock, on the tion of and concern II prescribe plan. refuses to Schedule had informed of the One doctor 100,000 per patients hand, the other over patients. for his On their drug prescriptions II without receiving month have been Schedule having to the attention any, filing come objections, if to central of the Act were provisions shows The record District Court. York psychiatry on the section brought to the attention of body apparently declined 166a), but Society (App. State Medical support this suit. 17 (2) (6), (a), Health Law Pub. §§3331 in holding The Lochner has been implicitly rejected many times.18 legislation which has some on effect individ- ual liberty not be held unconstitutional sim- ply a court because finds part.19 whole or in unnecessary, For we have frequently recognized that individual States have broad latitude experimenting possible solutions problems of vital local concern.20
The New represents statute challenged this case attempt considered to deal with such problem. It manifestly product orderly legislative rational It decision. was specially appointed recommended com- mission which held hearings extensive the proposed leg- islation, experience and drew on programs with similar other surely States. There was nothing unreasonable in the assumption patient-identification requirement might Wade, 113, 117; Connecticut, Roe v. v. U. S. Griswold 381 U. S. Ferguson 479, 481-482; Skrupa, FHA 729-730; Darlington, Inc., 91-92. *8 concerned, however, wisdom, need, appro “We are the or with priateness legislation.” the Olsen v. ex rel. Nebraska Western Refer Assn., ence 236, 246. & Bond U. S. 20Mr. proposition Justice Brandéis’ classic of the merits statement reiteration: stay experimentation things grave
“To and a re in social economic is sponsibility. may fraught experiment Denial of the to be consequences happy serious incidents of to the Nation. It is one of the may, choose, system single courageous the if federal a its citizens State try experiments laboratory; serve as and novel social economic country. power without to the rest the This Court has the to risk prevent experiment. embodies strike the statute an down We arbitrary, capricious that, opinion, it ground on the in the measure is our this, process because due power or to do the unreasonable. We applicable Court to matters of substantive clause has been held high procedure. in the of this But exercise law well as matters of guard, prejudices we erect our into power, be our lest we must ever on reason, guide by light of we must let legal principles. If we would Liebmann, 262, 311 Co. Ice our minds bold.” New State omitted). (footnote (dissenting opinion) of laws to minimize the mis- designed the enforcement aid reasonably could drugs. requirement For dangerous use potential expected on violators21 .be have a deterrent effect specific investigation or as well as aid the detection very At it would abuse. apparent least, instances of controlling the State’s vital interest seem clear support would a decision dangerous distribution if For ex- techniques with new for control.22 experiment experience fails —if in this case teaches periment ex- requirement foolish patient-identification results acquire of useless informa- of funds to a mountain penditure to terminate process remains available legislative tion —the en- legislature’s experiment. It follows that the unwise requirement was a patient-identification actment police powers. York’s exercise of New broad reasonable necessity require- finding that District Court’s therefore, not, proved a sufficient reason ment not been is had statutory requirement unconstitutional. holding II a constitu- Appellees contend that statute invades sometimes protected privacy.” “zone of The cases tionally not, course, demonstrate detected does The absence of violations significant that a statute no deterrent effect. societies, legislators judges have beginning of civilized
“From the assumptions underlie assumptions. improvable Such acted various . .” business affairs . . regulation much state of commercial lawful omitted). (citations Slaton, I 49, 61 Paris Adult Theatre reaching from ... “Nothing prohibits in the Constitution con- there no legislatively simply because acting on conclusion and Id., at 63. empirical data.” clusive evidence *9 22 variety assumed, take of valid could regulation, it can be “Such ex Minnesota California, 660, 664. Cf. Robinson 370 U. S. forms.” v. Illinois, 343 45; Beauharnais v. Martinson, Whipple 41, 256 rel. U. S. v. U. S. 261-262. 23 they rely shadows As the basis for the constitutional claim Language prior Rights. by variety in the Bill of provisions cast of as protecting “privacy” characterized have in fact involved at two least different kinds of interests.24 One is the indi vidual in avoiding personal interest disclosure of matters,25 and another is the in independence interest in making certain opinions of the Court provides individual Justices support for the personal rights “implicit concept view some in the liberty” of ordered (see Connecticut, 325, quoted v. Palko Wade, U. S. Roe v. S., 152), at so penumbra are “fundamental” that an undefined may provide independent them with an source protec of constitutional carеfully Wade, however, reviewing tion. In Roe v. after cases, those expressed opinion “right Court of is privacy” founded in the concept personal id., Fourteenth Amendment’s liberty, at 152-153. right privacy, “This it whether be founded in the Fourteenth concept personal liberty Amendment’s upon and restrictions state action, is, or, determined, as we as the District Court in the Ninth feel Amendment’s rights enough reservation of is people, to the broad en compass a woman’s pregnancy.” decision or not to terminate her whether Id., added). id., (emphasis J., at 153 See also at 168-171 (Stewart, concurring); Connecticut, 479, 500 (Harlan, J., Griswold v. 381 U. S. concurring judgment). 24Professor Kurland has written: concept right privacy largely
“The aof constitutional still remains partially undefined. been There least Three facets that have revealed, fully shape but their remain to The form ascertained. right private first is the individual be free in his affairs from governmental right The surveillance intrusion. second is private public government. have his made individual affairs action, right thought, The third is the of an individual to be free in compulsion.” experience, governmental private I, from belief (autumn 1976). University Chicago Magazine 7, The first of the directly Amendment; he is protected describes the Fourth facets correspond and third referred to the second two interests kinds in the text. States, 438, 478, In his dissent Olmstead v. United 277 U. S. Mr. right “the Justice Brandéis characterized to be let alone” as “the most men”; Connecticut, 479, 483, in Griswold valued civilized 381 U. S. penumbra First Amendment Court said: where “[T]he protected Stanley governmental Georgia, from intrusion.” See also 557; Shultz, Bankers Assn. v. California (Douglas, J., dissenting); id., J., concurring). 78at (Powell, *10 important Appellees decisions.26 both of argue that kinds impaired interests are this statute. mere ex- these readily form of the available information about istence II patients’ drugs use of Schedule creates concern genuine a publicly the information will become known that that reputations. makes adversely affect their This concern will patients to reluctant use, some reluctant and some doctors medically to such even when their use is prescribe, making It of deci- they argue, indicated. follows, is in- matters vital to the care their health sions about evitably Thus, statute threatens affected statute. private in the nondisclosure of impair both interest to their important deci- making and also their interest indeрendently. sions " program the New persuaded, however, We sufficiently threat pose grievous a not, face, does violation. a constitutional either interest establish patient information can come about Public disclosure may employees violate ways. Department Health three deliberately negligently, or either failing, the statute security. patient A doctor a proper maintain may be offered the stored data a violation and accused proceeding. Or, thirdly, doctor, judicial in a evidence may voluntarily reveal informa- patient or the pharmacist, form. tion on prior under law and possibility existed
The third computerized to the existence entirely unrelated Loving Virginia, supra; Bolton, 410 U. S. 179; v. Doe v. Wade, Roe v. Society Sisters, Conneсticut, supra; Pierce v. 1; Griswold v. U. S. Allgeyer Louisiana, Meyer Nebraska, 390; v. S. 510; Davis, 693, 713, character In Paul the Court U. S. 578. procrea marriage, dealing relating to with “matters these decisions ized rearing relationships, child and education. family tion, contraception, the States’ there are limitations on areas, In it has been held these substantively regulate power conduct.” data bank. Neither of possibilities provides the other two *11 proper a ground the' attacking statute as invalid on its face. no support There is in experience the or in record, of the two that York States New has for an as- emulated, sumption security' provisions of will be the statute improperly.27 And possibility administered the remote judicial supervision of evidentiary particular use of items of stored protection information provide inadequate will independent investigation The T. S. C.’s Illi of the California and systems filing nois single central failed reveal a to case of invasion of patient’s privacy. Hardt, Chairman, T. S. C. Memorandum Chester R. Triplicate Re: Prescriptions, Act, New York State Controlled Substances Apr. 1, (reproduced App. 88a). effective Buckley Valeo, Just last Term in rejected 424 U. S. we a conten- requirements tion that the reporting Campaign of the Federal Election Act rights of 1971 violated the First Amendment who contribute those minority parties: appellant “But no In- this record .... case tendered evidence stead, appellants primarily rely clearly indi- on 'the fears of articulated viduals, process.’... they experienced political well best offer At testimony persons minor-party of several officials that one two or refused to possibility make On contributions because of disclosure. record, this public the substantial interest in identified disclosure legislative history of alleged.” this Act outweighs generally the harm S., (footnote at 71-72 omitted). Here, too, appellees urge “clearly per on us about the articulated fears” requires nicious effects of disclosure. even more But this us to assume Buckley. than that we refused to do in were to be There the disclosures statutory made in Appellees’ accordance with scheme. disclosures described, only if statutory could be made scheme were violated supra, at 594-595. are parents pre-adolescent who fears of on behalf their children doubly pre-
receiving amphetamines hyperkinesia the treatment only violated provisions must mature. the Act’s nondisclosure Not provi- life, but the stigmatize order enter adult children as years five requiring records after sions destruction of all supra, text. ignored, accompanying would see have to be n. surely unwarranted sufficient against disclosures is patient-identification reason entire invalidating program.28 pri- course,
Even true that public disclosure, without is, employ- vate must authorized information be disclosed to the disclosures, ees Department Health. Such re- from those were however, significantly are not different quired prior they meaningfully Nor are distin- under the law. guishable privacy unpleasant from host of invasions of other many Unques- that are care. assoсiated with facets of health their own tionably, some individuals’ concern for lead them needed medical attention. postpone to avoid private disclosures of medical Nevertheless, *12 to companies, to insurance doctors, hospital personnel, part of modern public an agencies health often essential are may. unfa- reflect practice medical even the disclosure when dis- Requiring such vorably patient.29 of the the character having responsibility closures to the State representatives of automatically not community, for the of the does health impermissible privacy. amount to invasion of an if however, unwarranted Appellees that even also argue, the knowledge actually disclosures not the dо occur, creates file readily computerized in a information is available needed to decline persons some genuine concern causes com evidentiary privilege is unknown to physician-patient subject enactment, it is by legislative mon law. In where it exists States McCormick, many many C. reasons. exceptions and to waiver (2d 1972); Wigmore, Evidence Evidence § 101-104 ed. J. §§ 1961). 3, 5, 6, (McNaughton nn. rev. ed. §§2388-2391 relating to requirements statutory reporting Familiar examples are deadly weapons, injuries disease, abuse, venereal caused child recordkeeping upheld Term certifications Last we fetal death. challenge based on requirements against laws of the Missouri abortion govern free of making abortion decision protected interest Danforth, Missouri Cеntral Planned Parenthood intrusion, mental 79-81. medication. The record supports the conclusion that some use II Schedule drugs has been discouraged by that con- cern; it also is clear, however, 100,000 about prescrip- tions such drugs were being filled each month prior to entry of the District injunction. Court’s there- Clearly, fore, statute did not deprive public of access to the drugs.
Nor can it be any said that deprived individual has been to decide independently, advice his to acquire and to use physician, needed medication. Al- though the no State doubt prohibit could entirely the use particular II Schedule drugs,30 it done so. This case is therefore unlike those in which the Court held that prohibition a total of certain conduct impermissible was an deprivation of liberty. Nor require does access these to be conditioned on any the consent of state official or party.31 other third Within dosage limits which appellees do not challenge, or to decision. prescribe, is left use, entirely physician to the patient. holdWe that neither the immediate nor the threatened impact of the patient-identification requirements in the New York State Controlled Substances Act of 1972 on either the reputation independence patients for whom Schedule II drugs medically indicated is sufficient to constitute
30 is, course, It of powers well settled the police that State has broad regulating the professions. administration of the health California, Whipple Robinson v. Minnesota ex S., 664-665; 370 at rel. U. Martinson, Barsky Regents, S., 45; 256 v. Board v. at 347 U. S. 442, 449. 31 Bolton, Doe v. In 179, cоnstitutionally 410 instance, U. S. required defective statute the written of two concurrence state-licensed other than physicians, patient’s personal physician, before an abortion performed, could be approval and the advance less committee of not hospital procedure than three members of the staff where the to be was performed, regardless physician- whether the committee had a members patient relationship with the concerned. woman by the protected Fourteenth any right liberty invasion Amendment.32
Ill separately doctors statute appellee argue The of unwarranted practice medicine free impairs right their any If the doctors’ claim has reference state interference. proсedures, own of the 1972 statute their impact to the required prior statute frivolous. For even clearly it identifying prepare the doctor to written pre dosage patient and the name address their claim reference To extent drug. scribed concern about disclosure possibility patients’ the doctors’ medication, them to needed refuse induce stronger than, therefore no claim is derivative from, disposes of rejection of their therefore patients’.33 Our claim doctors’ well. privacy right appellees The also claim that constitutional Roe Terry Ohio, Amendment, citing language in the Fourth v. emanates from States, United from Katz v. quotes 1, 9, point 392 U. S. at a where unannounced, narrowly affirmative, cases U. S. 347. But those involve privacy during the course of intо individual criminal focused intrusions investigations. Amendment’s interest have never carried the Fourth We decline to do so appellees as the Roe would us. as far We now. anonymity appellees right
Likewise the Patient derive a to individual Rock, Little cases such as Bates v. from our freedom association Alabama, 449, and NAACP 522-523, 462. 516, 357 U. S. v. purpose protect But those “freedom of advanc cases of association Rock, supra, airing grievances,” Bates v. Little 523, not ing at ideas and Also, anonymity treatment. in those cases there in the course medical NAACP showing past through disclosure, harm was uncontroverted Alabama, supra, here. an element is absent Corp., City Hospitals Health & Cf. Schulman v. Y. N. 2d 2d 501 N. E. rely right a physician’s on two references to to admin doctors Bolton, Doe opinion S., in the at 197- ister medical care Nothing suggests that case that a doctor's to ad 199. strength any greater patient’s right his minister care has than medical
IV A final word about issues we have not We are decided. not unaware of the implicit threat in accumu personal lation vast computer amounts of ized data or government banks other massive files.34 The taxes, collection of secu distribution welfare and social rity supervision public the direction benefits, health, of our Armed Forces, and the of the laws enforcement criminal require preservation all orderly great quantities of: much information, personal of which is and character potentially or if embarrassing right harmful disclosed. The to collect public and use such data for purposes typically accompanied by a regulatory duty concomitant statutory to avoid unwarranted some Recognizing disclosures. that in circumstances that duty arguably has its roots in Consti nevertheless New York’s tution, statutory and scheme, implementing administrative procedures, proper evidence a concern protection with, the individual’s interest of, privacy. ques We therefore need do decide not, any not, tion which might presented the unwarranted disclosure in Doe receive such care. The right constitutional vindicated was right pregnant of a woman to not a child decide whether or to bear statutory without unwarranted state The interference. restrictions procedures they the abortion invalid encumbered the wom- were because constitutionally an’s exercise protected placing of that obstacles path upon rely advice doctor whom she was entitled to impacted in connection her If had decision. those obstacles decision, upon constitutionally protected the woman’s freedom make a they merely physician’s if or less had made the work more laborious any patient, independent impact on the without would not violated the Constitution: Privacy: Boyer, Right The Computerized Medical Records and the Emerging (1975); Miller, Response, 25 Com Federal Buffalo L. Rev. puters, Privacy: Overview, An 4 Colum. Data Banks Individual Rights (1972); Miller, Privacy Human L. A. Assault on Rev. Cullinane, (1971). See also Utz 78-82, App. U. S. D. C. F. 2d 478-482 *15 or uninten- private intentional
of accumulated data —whether comparable did not by system contain tional —or simply hold that this does not security provisions. We record any liberty protected by right establish invasion Fourteenth Amendment.
Reversed. concurring. Justice Brennan, Mr.
I only my understanding opinion express write I Court, join. to dis- requires The New York under attack doctors statute prescriptions close information about certain State provides for the potential with a high abuse, computer storage of that a central file. dis- recognizes avoiding Court that an individual’s “interest aspect is an personal closure of matters” ante, in this 598-600, 2A-25, and nn. but holds that privacy, any seriously enough invaded case, such interest has not been by require showing program was State drug to control abuse. indispensable to the State’s effort this by physician The information disclosed under public only to number of program is made available a small information. legitimate health оfficials with a interest required long As record makes clear, officials make this information available to its doctors to is not here. Such request, practice challenged (cid:127)on field are in the medical reporting requirements limited ante, regarded generally at 602 n. and are familiar, Broad state offi- privacy. as an invasion of dissemination clearly implicate however, would information, such cials presum- and would constitutionally-protected privacy rights, g., e. only compelling See, state interests. ably justified Roe 155-156 Wade, is the scheme, however, about this troubling What is more collected. Ob- of the data thus computer storage central of data storage collection and State argues, viously, State that is in itself legitimate is not rendered un- simply cоnstitutional because new technology makes the operations State’s more efficient. as the However, example of the Fourth Amendment limita puts Constitution shows, not only type on the of information may gather, but also on the means it use to gather it. The central *16 storage easy and accessibility computerized vastly data in- potential crease the for abuse of I that information, and prepared am not to say developments that future will not necessity demonstrate the of some curb on such technology. In this as the case, opinion Court’s makes clear, State’s carefully designed program includes numerous safe- guards to intended forestall the danger dis- indiscriminate closure. Given this serious so far as and, the record shows, prevent to successful effort abuse and limit access to the personal I at information say cannot issue, that the statute’s provisions computer storage, their face, amount to deprivation constitutionally protected privacy interests, any more than the more traditional reporting provisions.
In the absence of such a deprivation, State was not required prove to the challenged absolutely statute is necessary to attempt to drug control Of course, abuse. statute deprivation effect only did such a would be consistent with the if Constitution to necessary were promote a compelling supra; Roe state interest. Wade, v. Baird, Eisenstadt (1972) S. J., (White, concurring result). Justice Stewart, concurring.
Mr. In Katz v. United States, 389 S. the Court U. made clear that although the Constitution prоtection against affords certain kinds of government intrusions personal into and private matters,* “general there is no ‘right constitutional S.,
*See 389 at 350 5:n. Amendment, govern- “The First example, imposes upon limitations general right protection person’s privacy.’ . . . [T]he by people is, let alone other privacy — —his very left life, of his of his protection property like the at 350-351 individual largely to the law of the States.” Id., (footnote omitted). . opinion states concurring Brennan’s Justice
Mr. dissemination state officials of [the "[b]road implicate clearly . . would collected . State] Ante, .”. at constitutionally . . 606. protected privacy rights opinion for this statement only possible support The in his opinion, in the Court’s its earlier reference two footnotes ibid., opinion). antе, (majority nn. citing 598-600, 24r-25 only opinions, Court however, cite to two footnotes, advanced support proposition those cases two do Brennan. Justice Mr. Connecticut, 381 U. Griswold to,
The first case referred constitutionally mar prohibit a held that a cannot of their contraceptives in the couple using from ried *17 a opinion includes Although language of home. broad id., constitutional see at discussion privacy, 484-485, see (1) there also related protection discovered marriage, id., at concurring); id., id., at at 495 485-486; (Goldberg, J., privacy in one’s asso- abridgment ‘freedom associate and mental Alabama, 449, Third ciation.’ NAACP v. 462. The Amend- quartering against peacetime prohibition ment’s the unconsented governmental intrusion. aspect privacy protects soldiers anоther from con- extent, too ‘reflects the Constitution’s To some the Fifth Amendment private enclave where right . ‘to cern for each individual ” ’ Shott, 406, 416. Tehan v. U. private life.'’ S. he lead a personal privacy to Virtually every governmental interferes with action interference question in each case is whether degree. some the United States Constitution.” command of violates a ante, 599-600, a line of 26, there is also notes, As the Court n. affording involving “privacy,” constitu- authority, often characterized family unit autonomy an or a individual protection tional to the raising marriage, procreation, relating making generally decisions children.
500 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment), Poe citing Ullman, 367 U. (Harlan, dissenting); J., S. S., U. at 502-503 (White, J., concurring in judgment); (2) privacy the home, see id., at 484-485 (majority opinion); id., id., at 495 cоncurring); at 500 J., (Harlan, J., (Goldberg, concurring in citing Ullman, Poe v. judgment), supra, at 522 (Harlan, J., dissenting); and (3) right to use contra see 381 U. ceptives, J., concurring at 503 S., (White, judgment); Wade, see also Roe v. 169-170 S. J., concurring). Whatever the ratio decidendi (Stewart, Griswold, it does not recognize general interest in freedom of private from disclosure information.
The other Stanley Georgia, case referred to, constitutionally individual cannot prosecuted held possession of obscene materials in Although his home. Stanley id., makes some reference at 564, rights, holding simply there was that the First Amendment —as made applicable to the protects per States Fourteenth — son’s to read what he chooses circumstances where that choice poses no threat to the sensibilities welfare id., others, at 565-568.
Upon says the understanding nothing today the Court contrary I join to the above its opinion and views, judgment.