State Charter Protects Privacy Right

Most Americans know about basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, I think it's accurate to say that not as many Californians know about the rights provided under our state constitution.

Article I of the California Constitution specifically provides that "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

The interpretation of that Article 1 language, however, has been left up to the courts, which have gone on to define, under a number of different areas, exactly what the legal "right of privacy" means in certain circumstances.

Many of the cases, which have created the body of law in dealing with the right of privacy, have examined the scope or limitations of governmental intrusion into the privacy rights of individual citizens. For example, state courts have determined that it is a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy for the government to engage in the following activities:

The areas that I have listed above are obviously only a partial list of ways the right to privacy in California is protected.

The point is that this right is one that is constitutionally guaranteed and is quite dynamic — it is one of the so-called guaranteed rights of all Californians and is constantly evolving. That guarantee is generally going to be liberally applied in favor of an individual citizen, particularly where some type of state action is seen as intruding upon an individual's right to privacy.

The right to privacy takes on a different character in a criminal case than a civil case. In the typical criminal case, the action is brought against someone accused of committing a crime by the people of the state of California. The right to privacy in criminal actions generally acts as a restriction on the ability of government to either obtain or introduce certain kinds of evidence against a criminal defendant.

Often I am asked by people who have become involved in civil litigation why they are required to answer questions or give out information that, on the surface, does not appear to have any bearing on the civil case. My short answer: If certain information may lead to other information that ultimately becomes legally relevant to the case at hand, then the plaintiff or defendant may be required to provide that type of foundational information. However, there are limitations to the information that a person is required to disclose as part of a lawsuit. The best example is the right to maintain your personal financial condition from being disclosed.

Jim Testa is senior partner for the San Marcos-based law firm of Testa & Associates, LLP and may be reached at 760-891-0490