Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 83-84, 662 A.2d 367 (1995), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the disclosure of an offender’s home address, when coupled with the other information included in the notification statute, implicates a privacy interest. The court, however, determined that an offender can only claim a limited expectation of privacy in the information. 142 N.J. at 88. Noting that the degree and scope of disclosure was “carefully calibrated” to the need for public disclosure, the court upheld the statute based on a prevailing state interest in protecting the public from the substantial danger of recidivism by sex offenders. 142 N.J. at 89-90. Some states have refused to find a privacy interest on behalf of the offender. Patterson v. State, 985 P.2d 1007 (Alaska App. July 23, 1999) (<HOLDING>); People v. Logan, 302 Ill. App. 3d 319, 334, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where some radio scripts from aradio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license (B) recognizing a right to privacy in avoiding disclosure of personal matters (C) holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records (D) recognizing as a privacy right the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters (E) holding that the right of privacy does not attach to matters already within the public domain
Output (English): (E)