whalen
roe
argued
october
decided
february
responding
concern
drugs
diverted
unlawful
channels
new
york
legislature
enacted
statutory
scheme
correct
defects
previous
law
statute
classifies
potentially
harmful
drugs
provides
prescriptions
category
embracing
dangerous
legitimate
drugs
schedule
ii
prepared
official
form
one
copy
form
requires
identification
prescribing
physician
dispensing
pharmacy
drug
dosage
patient
name
address
age
must
filed
state
health
department
pertinent
data
recorded
tapes
computer
processing
forms
retained
period
system
safeguard
security
thereafter
destroyed
public
disclosure
patient
identity
prohibited
access
files
confined
limited
number
health
department
investigatory
personnel
appellees
including
group
patients
regularly
receiving
schedule
ii
drugs
prescribing
doctors
brought
action
challenging
constitutionality
schedule
ii
requirements
holding
relationship
one
zones
privacy
accorded
constitutional
protection
act
provisions
invaded
zone
needlessly
broad
sweep
since
appellant
unable
demonstrate
need
requirements
district
enjoined
enforcement
challenged
provisions
held
requirement
reasonable
exercise
state
broad
police
powers
district
finding
necessity
requirement
proved
sufficient
reason
holding
statute
unconstitutional
pp
neither
immediate
threatened
impact
requirement
either
reputation
independence
patients
schedule
ii
drugs
medically
indicated
suffices
constitute
invasion
right
liberty
protected
fourteenth
amendment
pp
possibility
doctor
pharmacist
may
voluntarily
reveal
information
prescription
form
existed
prior
law
unrelated
computerized
data
bank
pp
support
record
experience
two
new
york
program
emulates
assuming
statute
security
provisions
improperly
administered
remote
possibility
judicial
supervision
evidentiary
use
particular
items
stored
information
provide
adequate
protection
unwarranted
disclosure
sufficient
reason
invalidating
entire
program
pp
though
argued
concern
disclosure
may
induce
patients
refuse
needed
medication
statute
deprive
public
access
schedule
ii
drugs
clear
fact
prescriptions
drugs
filed
month
district
injunction
entered
pp
appellee
doctors
contention
statute
impairs
right
practice
medicine
free
unwarranted
state
interference
without
merit
whether
refers
statute
impact
procedures
different
impact
prior
statute
refers
patients
concern
disclosure
rejected
see
supra
stevens
delivered
opinion
unanimous
brennan
post
stewart
post
filed
concurring
opinions
seth
greenwald
assistant
attorney
general
new
york
argued
cause
appellant
brief
louis
lefkowitz
attorney
general
samuel
hirshowitz
first
assistant
attorney
general
michael
lesch
argued
cause
appellees
roe
et
al
brief
solomon
ferziger
miles
jaffe
argued
cause
appellees
patient
et
al
brief
melvin
wulf
john
shattuck
evelle
younger
attorney
general
california
jack
winkler
chief
assistant
attorney
general
clark
moore
assistant
attorney
general
shunji
asari
owen
lee
kwong
deputy
attorneys
general
filed
brief
state
california
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
robert
plotkin
paul
friedman
filed
brief
national
association
mental
health
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
constitutional
question
presented
whether
state
new
york
may
record
centralized
computer
file
names
addresses
persons
obtained
pursuant
doctor
prescription
certain
drugs
lawful
unlawful
market
district
enjoined
enforcement
portions
new
york
state
controlled
substances
act
require
recording
ground
violate
appellees
constitutionally
protected
rights
privacy
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeal
commissioner
health
reverse
many
drugs
legitimate
illegitimate
uses
response
concern
drugs
diverted
unlawful
channels
new
york
legislature
created
special
commission
evaluate
state
laws
commission
found
existing
laws
deficient
several
respects
effective
way
prevent
use
stolen
revised
prescriptions
prevent
unscrupulous
pharmacists
repeatedly
refilling
prescriptions
prevent
users
obtaining
prescriptions
one
doctor
prevent
doctors
either
authorizing
excessive
amount
one
prescription
giving
one
patient
multiple
prescriptions
drafting
new
legislation
correct
defects
commission
consulted
enforcement
officials
california
illinois
central
reporting
systems
used
effectively
new
new
york
statute
classified
potentially
harmful
drugs
five
schedules
drugs
heroin
highly
abused
recognized
medical
use
schedule
prescribed
schedules
ii
include
drugs
progressively
lower
potential
abuse
also
recognized
medical
use
concern
limited
schedule
ii
includes
dangerous
legitimate
drugs
exception
emergencies
act
requires
prescriptions
schedule
ii
drugs
prepared
physician
triplicate
official
form
completed
form
identifies
prescribing
physician
dispensing
pharmacy
drug
dosage
name
address
age
patient
one
copy
form
retained
physician
second
pharmacist
third
forwarded
new
york
state
department
health
albany
prescription
made
official
form
may
exceed
supply
may
refilled
district
found
schedule
ii
prescription
forms
delivered
receiving
room
department
health
albany
month
sorted
coded
logged
taken
another
room
data
forms
recorded
magnetic
tapes
processing
computer
thereafter
forms
returned
receiving
room
retained
vault
period
destroyed
required
statute
receiving
room
surrounded
locked
wire
fence
protected
alarm
system
computer
tapes
containing
prescription
data
kept
locked
cabinet
tapes
used
computer
run
means
terminal
outside
computer
room
read
record
information
public
disclosure
identity
patients
expressly
prohibited
statute
department
health
regulation
willful
violation
prohibitions
crime
punishable
one
year
prison
fine
time
trial
department
health
employees
access
files
addition
investigators
authority
investigate
cases
overdispensing
might
identified
computer
twenty
months
effective
date
act
computerized
data
used
two
investigations
involving
alleged
overuse
specific
patients
days
act
became
effective
litigation
commenced
group
patients
regularly
receiving
prescriptions
schedule
ii
drugs
doctors
prescribe
drugs
two
associations
physicians
various
preliminary
proceedings
district
conducted
trial
appellees
offered
evidence
tending
prove
persons
need
treatment
schedule
ii
drugs
time
time
decline
treatment
fear
misuse
computerized
data
cause
stigmatized
drug
addicts
district
held
relationship
one
zones
privacy
accorded
constitutional
protection
provisions
act
invaded
zone
needlessly
broad
sweep
enjoined
enforcement
provisions
act
deal
reporting
patients
names
addresses
district
found
state
unable
demonstrate
necessity
requirement
basis
experience
first
months
administration
new
statute
time
alone
provided
basis
invalidating
statute
lochner
new
york
involved
legislation
making
crime
baker
permit
employees
work
hours
week
opinion
longer
regarded
authoritative
held
statute
unconstitutional
unreasonable
unnecessary
arbitrary
interference
right
individual
personal
liberty
holding
lochner
implicitly
rejected
many
times
state
legislation
effect
individual
liberty
privacy
may
held
unconstitutional
simply
finds
unnecessary
whole
part
frequently
recognized
individual
broad
latitude
experimenting
possible
solutions
problems
vital
local
concern
new
york
statute
challenged
case
represents
considered
attempt
deal
problem
manifestly
product
orderly
rational
legislative
decision
recommended
specially
appointed
commission
held
extensive
hearings
proposed
legislation
drew
experience
similar
programs
surely
nothing
unreasonable
assumption
requirement
might
aid
enforcement
laws
designed
minimize
misuse
dangerous
drugs
requirement
reasonably
expected
deterrent
effect
potential
violators
well
aid
detection
investigation
specific
instances
apparent
abuse
least
seem
clear
state
vital
interest
controlling
distribution
dangerous
drugs
support
decision
experiment
new
techniques
control
experiment
fails
case
experience
teaches
requirement
results
foolish
expenditure
funds
acquire
mountain
useless
information
legislative
process
remains
available
terminate
unwise
experiment
follows
legislature
enactment
requirement
reasonable
exercise
new
york
broad
police
powers
district
finding
necessity
requirement
proved
therefore
sufficient
reason
holding
statutory
requirement
unconstitutional
ii
appellees
contend
statute
invades
constitutionally
protected
zone
privacy
cases
sometimes
characterized
protecting
privacy
fact
involved
least
two
different
kinds
interests
one
individual
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
another
interest
independence
making
certain
kinds
important
decisions
appellees
argue
interests
impaired
statute
mere
existence
readily
available
form
information
patients
use
schedule
ii
drugs
creates
genuine
concern
information
become
publicly
known
adversely
affect
reputations
concern
makes
patients
reluctant
use
doctors
reluctant
prescribe
drugs
even
use
medically
indicated
follows
argue
making
decisions
matters
vital
care
health
inevitably
affected
statute
thus
statute
threatens
impair
interest
nondisclosure
private
information
also
interest
making
important
decisions
independently
persuaded
however
new
york
program
face
pose
sufficiently
grievous
threat
either
interest
establish
constitutional
violation
public
disclosure
patient
information
come
three
ways
health
department
employees
may
violate
statute
failing
either
deliberately
negligently
maintain
proper
security
patient
doctor
may
accused
violation
stored
data
may
offered
evidence
judicial
proceeding
thirdly
doctor
pharmacist
patient
may
voluntarily
reveal
information
prescription
form
third
possibility
existed
prior
law
entirely
unrelated
existence
computerized
data
bank
neither
two
possibilities
provides
proper
ground
attacking
statute
invalid
face
support
record
experience
two
new
york
emulated
assumption
security
provisions
statute
administered
improperly
remote
possibility
judicial
supervision
evidentiary
use
particular
items
stored
information
provide
inadequate
protection
unwarranted
disclosures
surely
sufficient
reason
invalidating
entire
program
even
without
public
disclosure
course
true
private
information
must
disclosed
authorized
employees
new
york
department
health
disclosures
however
significantly
different
required
prior
law
meaningfully
distinguishable
host
unpleasant
invasions
privacy
associated
many
facets
health
care
unquestionably
individuals
concern
privacy
may
lead
avoid
postpone
needed
medical
attention
nevertheless
disclosures
private
medical
information
doctors
hospital
personnel
insurance
companies
public
health
agencies
often
essential
part
modern
medical
practice
even
disclosure
may
reflect
unfavorably
character
patient
requiring
disclosures
representatives
state
responsibility
health
community
automatically
amount
impermissible
invasion
privacy
appellees
also
argue
however
even
unwarranted
disclosures
actually
occur
knowledge
information
readily
available
computerized
file
creates
genuine
concern
causes
persons
decline
needed
medication
record
supports
conclusion
use
schedule
ii
drugs
discouraged
concern
also
clear
however
prescriptions
drugs
filled
month
prior
entry
district
injunction
clearly
therefore
statute
deprive
public
access
drugs
said
individual
deprived
right
decide
independently
advice
physician
acquire
use
needed
medication
although
state
doubt
prohibit
entirely
use
particular
schedule
ii
drugs
done
case
therefore
unlike
held
total
prohibition
certain
conduct
impermissible
deprivation
liberty
state
require
access
drugs
conditioned
consent
state
official
third
party
within
dosage
limits
appellees
challenge
decision
prescribe
use
left
entirely
physician
patient
hold
neither
immediate
threatened
impact
requirements
new
york
state
controlled
substances
act
either
reputation
independence
patients
schedule
ii
drugs
medically
indicated
sufficient
constitute
invasion
right
liberty
protected
fourteenth
amendment
iii
appellee
doctors
argue
separately
statute
impairs
right
practice
medicine
free
unwarranted
state
interference
doctors
claim
reference
impact
statute
procedures
clearly
frivolous
even
prior
statute
required
doctor
prepare
written
prescription
identifying
name
address
patient
dosage
prescribed
drug
extent
claim
reference
possibility
patients
concern
disclosure
may
induce
refuse
needed
medication
doctors
claim
derivative
therefore
stronger
patients
rejection
claim
therefore
disposes
doctors
well
iv
final
word
issues
decided
unaware
threat
privacy
implicit
accumulation
vast
amounts
personal
information
computerized
data
banks
massive
government
files
collection
taxes
distribution
welfare
social
security
benefits
supervision
public
health
direction
armed
forces
enforcement
criminal
laws
require
orderly
preservation
great
quantities
information
much
personal
character
potentially
embarrassing
harmful
disclosed
right
collect
use
data
public
purposes
typically
accompanied
concomitant
statutory
regulatory
duty
avoid
unwarranted
disclosures
recognizing
circumstances
duty
arguably
roots
constitution
nevertheless
new
york
statutory
scheme
implementing
administrative
procedures
evidence
proper
concern
protection
individual
interest
privacy
therefore
need
decide
question
might
presented
unwarranted
disclosure
accumulated
private
data
whether
intentional
unintentional
system
contain
comparable
security
provisions
simply
hold
record
establish
invasion
right
liberty
protected
fourteenth
amendment
reversed
footnotes
roe
ingraham
supp
sdny
earlier
district
dismissed
complaint
want
substantial
federal
question
roe
ingraham
supp
appeals
reversed
holding
substantial
constitutional
question
presented
therefore
required
roe
ingraham
jurisdiction
conferred
laws
amended
laws
temporary
state
commission
evaluate
drug
laws
hereafter
issued
two
reports
stipulated
constitute
part
legislative
history
act
reports
interim
report
temporary
state
commission
evaluate
drug
laws
state
new
york
legislative
doc
second
interim
report
temporary
state
commission
evaluate
drug
laws
albany
apr
chairman
summarized
findings
law
enforcement
officials
california
illinois
consulted
considerable
depth
use
multiple
prescriptions
since
using
considerable
period
time
indicate
us
useful
adjunct
proper
identification
culpable
professional
unscrupulous
drug
abusers
also
give
reliable
statistical
indication
pattern
drug
flow
throughout
information
sorely
needed
state
stem
tide
diversion
lawfully
manufactured
controlled
substances
memorandum
chester
hardt
app
five
schedules
conform
material
aspects
drug
schedules
federal
comprehensive
drug
abuse
prevention
control
act
et
seq
include
opium
opium
derivatives
cocaine
methadone
amphetamines
methaqualone
pub
health
law
drugs
accepted
uses
amelioration
pain
treatment
epilepsy
narcolepsy
hyperkinesia
disorders
migraine
headaches
pub
health
law
forms
prepared
issued
department
health
numbered
serially
groups
forms
per
group
cents
per
triplicate
form
new
york
state
health
department
official
new
york
state
prescription
form
pub
health
law
pharmacist
normally
forwards
prescription
albany
filling
physician
dispenses
drug
must
forward
two
copies
prescription
department
health
pub
health
law
laws
physician
pharmacist
required
retain
copies
five
years
also
pub
health
law
required
destroy
section
pub
health
law
person
knowledge
virtue
office
identity
particular
patient
research
subject
manufacturing
process
trade
secret
formula
shall
disclose
knowledge
report
record
thereof
except
another
person
employed
department
purposes
executing
provisions
article
pursuant
judicial
subpoena
order
criminal
investigation
proceeding
agency
department
government
official
board
authorized
regulate
license
otherwise
supervise
person
authorized
article
deal
controlled
substances
course
investigation
proceeding
agency
department
board
central
registry
established
pursuant
article
course
proceeding
information
disclosed
except
necessary
effectuate
rights
party
proceeding
presiding
officer
shall
take
action
necessary
insure
information
record
report
information
made
public
person
knowledge
virtue
office
identity
particular
patient
research
subject
manufacturing
process
trade
secret
formula
shall
disclose
knowledge
report
record
thereof
except
another
person
virtue
office
employee
department
entitled
obtain
information
pursuant
judicial
subpoena
order
criminal
investigation
proceedings
agency
department
government
official
board
authorized
regulate
license
otherwise
supervise
person
authorized
article
public
health
law
deal
controlled
substances
course
investigation
proceeding
agency
department
board
central
registry
established
pursuant
article
public
health
law
pub
health
law
mckinney
physicians
associations
empire
state
physicians
guild
american
federation
physicians
dentists
articulate
claims
severable
claims
named
physicians
therefore
find
unnecessary
consider
whether
organizations
may
standing
maintain
suits
addition
appeal
original
dismissal
complaint
parties
took
depositions
made
part
record
entered
stipulation
facts
two
parents
testified
concerned
children
stigmatized
state
central
filing
system
one
child
taken
schedule
ii
medication
concern
three
adult
patients
testified
feared
disclosure
names
result
central
filing
patient
identifications
one
obtains
drugs
another
state
two
continue
receive
schedule
ii
prescriptions
new
york
continue
fear
disclosure
stigmatization
four
physicians
testified
prescription
system
entrenches
patients
privacy
observed
reaction
shock
fear
concern
part
patients
informed
plan
one
doctor
refuses
prescribe
schedule
ii
drugs
patients
hand
patients
per
month
receiving
schedule
ii
drug
prescriptions
without
objections
central
filing
come
attention
district
record
shows
provisions
act
brought
attention
section
psychiatry
new
york
state
medical
society
app
body
apparently
declined
support
suit
pub
health
law
roe
wade
griswold
connecticut
ferguson
skrupa
fha
darlington
concerned
however
wisdom
need
appropriateness
legislation
olsen
nebraska
ex
rel
western
reference
bond
justice
brandeis
classic
statement
proposition
merits
reiteration
stay
experimentation
things
social
economic
grave
responsibility
denial
right
experiment
may
fraught
serious
consequences
nation
one
happy
incidents
federal
system
single
courageous
state
may
citizens
choose
serve
laboratory
try
novel
social
economic
experiments
without
risk
rest
country
power
prevent
experiment
may
strike
statute
embodies
ground
opinion
measure
arbitrary
capricious
unreasonable
power
due
process
clause
held
applicable
matters
substantive
law
well
matters
procedure
exercise
high
power
must
ever
guard
lest
erect
prejudices
legal
principles
guide
light
reason
must
let
minds
bold
new
state
ice
liebmann
dissenting
opinion
omitted
absence
detected
violations
course
demonstrate
statute
significant
deterrent
effect
beginning
civilized
societies
legislators
judges
acted
various
unprovable
assumptions
assumptions
underlie
much
lawful
state
regulation
commercial
business
affairs
paris
adult
theatre
slaton
citations
omitted
nothing
constitution
prohibits
state
reaching
conclusion
acting
legislatively
simply
conclusive
evidence
empirical
data
regulation
assumed
take
variety
valid
forms
robinson
california
cf
minnesota
ex
rel
whipple
martinson
beauharnais
illinois
basis
constitutional
claim
rely
shadows
cast
variety
provisions
bill
rights
language
prior
opinions
individual
justices
provides
support
view
personal
rights
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
see
palko
connecticut
quoted
roe
wade
fundamental
undefined
penumbra
may
provide
independent
source
constitutional
protection
roe
wade
however
carefully
reviewing
cases
expressed
opinion
right
privacy
founded
fourteenth
amendment
concept
personal
liberty
right
privacy
whether
founded
fourteenth
amendment
concept
personal
liberty
restrictions
upon
state
action
feel
district
determined
ninth
amendment
reservation
rights
people
broad
enough
encompass
woman
decision
whether
terminate
pregnancy
emphasis
added
see
also
stewart
concurring
griswold
connecticut
harlan
concurring
judgment
professor
kurland
written
concept
constitutional
right
privacy
still
remains
largely
undefined
least
three
facets
partially
revealed
form
shape
remain
fully
ascertained
first
right
individual
free
private
affairs
governmental
surveillance
intrusion
second
right
individual
private
affairs
made
public
government
third
right
individual
free
action
thought
experience
belief
governmental
compulsion
private
university
chicago
magazine
autumn
first
facets
describes
directly
protected
fourth
amendment
second
third
correspond
two
kinds
interests
referred
text
dissent
olmstead
justice
brandeis
characterized
right
let
alone
right
valued
civilized
men
griswold
connecticut
said
first
amendment
penumbra
privacy
protected
governmental
intrusion
see
also
stanley
georgia
california
bankers
assn
shultz
douglas
dissenting
powell
concurring
roe
wade
supra
doe
bolton
loving
virginia
griswold
connecticut
supra
pierce
society
sisters
meyer
nebraska
allgeyer
louisiana
paul
davis
characterized
decisions
dealing
matters
relating
marriage
procreation
contraception
family
relationships
child
rearing
education
areas
held
limitations
power
substantively
regulate
conduct
independent
investigation
california
illinois
central
filing
systems
failed
reveal
single
case
invasion
patient
privacy
memorandum
chester
hardt
chairman
triplicate
prescriptions
new
york
state
controlled
substances
act
effective
apr
reproduced
app
last
term
buckley
valeo
rejected
contention
reporting
requirements
federal
election
campaign
act
violated
first
amendment
rights
contribute
minority
parties
appellant
case
tendered
record
evidence
instead
appellants
primarily
rely
clearly
articulated
fears
individuals
well
experienced
political
process
best
offer
testimony
several
officials
one
two
persons
refused
make
contributions
possibility
disclosure
record
substantial
public
interest
disclosure
identified
legislative
history
act
outweighs
harm
generally
alleged
omitted
fears
parents
behalf
children
receiving
amphetamines
treatment
hyperkinesia
doubly
premature
must
act
nondisclosure
provisions
violated
order
stigmatize
children
enter
adult
life
provisions
requiring
destruction
prescription
records
five
years
ignored
see
supra
accompanying
text
evidentiary
privilege
unknown
common
law
exists
legislative
enactment
subject
many
exceptions
waiver
many
reasons
mccormick
evidence
ed
wigmore
evidence
nn
mcnaughton
rev
ed
familiar
examples
statutory
reporting
requirements
relating
venereal
disease
child
abuse
injuries
caused
deadly
weapons
certifications
fetal
death
last
term
upheld
recordkeeping
requirements
missouri
abortion
laws
challenge
based
protected
interest
making
abortion
decision
free
governmental
intrusion
planned
parenthood
central
missouri
danforth
course
well
settled
state
broad
police
powers
regulating
administration
drugs
health
professions
robinson
california
minnesota
ex
rel
whipple
martinson
barsky
board
regents
doe
bolton
instance
constitutionally
defective
statute
required
written
concurrence
two
physicians
patient
personal
physician
abortion
performed
advance
approval
committee
less
three
members
hospital
staff
procedure
performed
regardless
whether
committee
members
relationship
woman
concerned
roe
appellees
also
claim
constitutional
privacy
right
emanates
fourth
amendment
citing
language
terry
ohio
point
quotes
katz
cases
involve
affirmative
unannounced
narrowly
focused
intrusions
individual
privacy
course
criminal
investigations
never
carried
fourth
amendment
interest
privacy
far
roe
appellees
us
decline
likewise
patient
appellees
derive
right
individual
anonymity
freedom
association
cases
bates
little
rock
naacp
alabama
cases
protect
freedom
association
purpose
advancing
ideas
airing
grievances
bates
little
rock
supra
anonymity
course
medical
treatment
also
cases
uncontroverted
showing
past
harm
disclosure
naacp
alabama
supra
element
absent
cf
schulman
new
york
city
health
hospitals
doctors
rely
two
references
physician
right
administer
medical
care
opinion
doe
bolton
nothing
case
suggests
doctor
right
administer
medical
care
greater
strength
patient
right
receive
care
constitutional
right
vindicated
doe
right
pregnant
woman
decide
whether
bear
child
without
unwarranted
state
interference
statutory
restrictions
abortion
procedures
invalid
encumbered
woman
exercise
constitutionally
protected
right
placing
obstacles
path
doctor
upon
entitled
rely
advice
connection
decision
obstacles
impacted
upon
woman
freedom
make
constitutionally
protected
decision
merely
made
physician
work
laborious
less
independent
without
impact
patient
violated
constitution
boyer
computerized
medical
records
right
privacy
emerging
federal
response
buffalo
rev
miller
computers
data
banks
individual
privacy
overview
colum
human
rights
rev
miller
assault
privacy
see
also
utz
cullinane
app
justice
brennan
concurring
write
express
understanding
opinion
join
new
york
statute
attack
requires
doctors
disclose
state
information
prescriptions
certain
drugs
high
potential
abuse
provides
storage
information
central
computer
file
recognizes
individual
interest
avoiding
disclosure
personal
matters
aspect
right
privacy
ante
nn
holds
case
interest
seriously
enough
invaded
state
require
showing
program
indispensable
state
effort
control
drug
abuse
information
disclosed
physician
program
made
available
small
number
public
health
officials
legitimate
interest
information
record
makes
clear
new
york
long
required
doctors
make
information
available
officials
request
practice
challenged
limited
reporting
requirements
medical
field
familiar
ante
generally
regarded
invasion
privacy
broad
dissemination
state
officials
information
however
clearly
implicate
constitutionally
protected
privacy
rights
presumably
justified
compelling
state
interests
see
roe
wade
troubling
scheme
however
central
computer
storage
data
thus
collected
obviously
state
argues
collection
storage
data
state
legitimate
rendered
unconstitutional
simply
new
technology
makes
state
operations
efficient
however
example
fourth
amendment
shows
constitution
puts
limits
type
information
state
may
gather
also
means
may
use
gather
central
storage
easy
accessibility
computerized
data
vastly
increase
potential
abuse
information
prepared
say
future
developments
demonstrate
necessity
curb
technology
case
opinion
makes
clear
state
carefully
designed
program
includes
numerous
safeguards
intended
forestall
danger
indiscriminate
disclosure
given
serious
far
record
shows
successful
effort
prevent
abuse
limit
access
personal
information
issue
say
statute
provisions
computer
storage
face
amount
deprivation
constitutionally
protected
privacy
interests
traditional
reporting
provisions
absence
deprivation
state
required
prove
challenged
statute
absolutely
necessary
attempt
control
drug
abuse
course
statute
effect
deprivation
consistent
constitution
necessary
promote
compelling
state
interest
roe
wade
supra
eisenstadt
baird
white
concurring
result
justice
stewart
concurring
katz
made
clear
although
constitution
affords
protection
certain
kinds
government
intrusions
personal
private
matters
general
constitutional
right
privacy
protection
person
general
right
privacy
right
let
alone
people
like
protection
property
life
left
largely
law
individual
omitted
justice
brennan
concurring
opinion
road
dissemination
state
officials
information
collected
new
york
state
clearly
implicate
constitutionally
protected
privacy
rights
ante
possible
support
opinion
statement
earlier
reference
two
footnotes
opinion
citing
ante
nn
majority
opinion
footnotes
however
cite
two
opinions
two
cases
support
proposition
advanced
justice
brennan
first
case
referred
griswold
connecticut
held
state
constitutionally
prohibit
married
couple
using
contraceptives
privacy
home
although
broad
language
opinion
includes
discussion
privacy
see
constitutional
protection
discovered
also
related
marriage
see
goldberg
concurring
harlan
concurring
judgment
citing
poe
ullman
harlan
dissenting
white
concurring
judgment
privacy
home
see
majority
opinion
goldberg
concurring
harlan
concurring
judgment
citing
poe
ullman
supra
harlan
dissenting
right
use
contraceptives
see
white
concurring
judgment
see
also
roe
wade
stewart
concurring
whatever
ratio
decidendi
griswold
recognize
general
interest
freedom
disclosure
private
information
case
referred
stanley
georgia
held
individual
constitutionally
prosecuted
possession
obscene
materials
home
although
stanley
makes
reference
privacy
rights
holding
simply
first
amendment
made
applicable
fourteenth
protects
person
right
read
chooses
circumstances
choice
poses
threat
sensibilities
welfare
others
upon
understanding
nothing
says
today
contrary
views
join
opinion
judgment
see
first
amendment
example
imposes
limitations
upon
governmental
abridgment
freedom
associate
privacy
one
association
naacp
alabama
third
amendment
prohibition
unconsented
peacetime
quartering
soldiers
protects
another
aspect
privacy
governmental
intrusion
extent
fifth
amendment
reflects
constitution
concern
right
individual
private
enclave
may
lead
private
life
tehan
shott
virtually
every
governmental
action
interferes
personal
privacy
degree
question
case
whether
interference
violates
command
constitution