Opinion ID: 1992508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: quinn family's constitutional rights to privacy

Text: As a reference point, we also look to constitutional notions of privacy in formulating the scope of personal information protected under  13(1)(a). Defendant and the intervenor assert that the family's constitutional right of privacy would be implicated if the autopsy report and test results were released. In Whalen v Roe, 429 US 589, 599-600; 97 S Ct 869; 51 L Ed 2d 64 (1977), the United States Supreme Court described two kinds of privacy interests: One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions. Defendant asserts that the family has an interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters contained in the autopsy report and toxicology results. Similar to the common-law right of privacy, the constitutional right of privacy is a personal right to be asserted only by the person whose right has been violated. [11] In Hubenschmidt v Shears, 403 Mich 486; 270 NW2d 2 (1978), the plaintiffs challenged admission into evidence of blood-alcohol test results removed from the bodies of the plaintiffs' decedents in consolidated wrongful death actions. The Court found the results could properly be admitted into evidence, stating: We are not concerned in these cases with issues of search and seizure/right to privacy, security of person or statutory construction which were raised in Lebel v Swincicki [354 Mich 427; 93 NW2d 281 (1958)], and McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 397 Mich 384; 245 NW2d 18 (1976). Both of those cases dealt with extraction of a blood sample from a person still alive. Indeed, in Lebel, it is noted that: the right to privacy is a personal one which ends with the death of the person to whom it is of value, and it may not be claimed by his estate or by his next of kin. 354 Mich 440. [ Id. at 489. See also McLean v Rogers, 100 Mich App 734; 300 NW2d 389 (1980).] In evaluating the constitutional right of privacy claims, the court in Smith v City of Artesia, supra at 342 stated: Indeed, both a common sense understanding of privacy and precedent of the United States Supreme Court argue against recognition of a privacy interest in another person. Privacy is inherently personal. The right to privacy recognizes the sovereignty of the individual. The notion of privacy as an expression of individual sovereignty underlies the proposition that the constitutional right to privacy finds support in the ninth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that [t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [Emphasis in original.] The court in Smith held that the parents had no constitutional privacy claim against the defendants who circulated a photograph of their deceased daughter. Although Hubenschmidt and McLean deal with the right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, [12] we believe that the rulings are equally applicable to the right of privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional rights of privacy are personal. A deceased person loses the right of privacy, and the right cannot be asserted by the next of kin. It is against this backdrop that we assess defendant's claim that  13(1)(a) exempts matters contained in the autopsy report from disclosure.