Opinion ID: 1235436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Defenses to a State Constitutional Privacy Cause of Action

Text: (12) Privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be balanced against other important interests. ( Doyle v. State Bar, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 20; Wilkinson, supra, 215 Cal. App.3d at p. 1046.) [N]ot every act which has some impact on personal privacy invokes the protections of [our Constitution].... [A] court should not play the trump card of unconstitutionality to protect absolutely every assertion of individual privacy. (215 Cal. App.3d at p. 1046.) The diverse and somewhat amorphous character of the privacy right necessarily requires that privacy interests be specifically identified and carefully compared with competing or countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a balancing test. The comparison and balancing of diverse interests is central to the privacy jurisprudence of both common and constitutional law. Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally authorized and socially beneficial activities of government and private entities. Their relative importance is determined by their proximity to the central functions of a particular public or private enterprise. Conduct alleged to be an invasion of privacy is to be evaluated based on the extent to which it furthers legitimate and important competing interests. (See pt. 2(a), ante ; Ballot Argument, supra, at pp. 26-27.) Confronted with a defense based on countervailing interests, the plaintiff may undertake the burden of demonstrating the availability and use of protective measures, safeguards, and alternatives to the defendant's conduct that would minimize the intrusion on privacy interests. ( Whalen, supra, 429 U.S. at pp. 600-602 [106 L.Ed.2d at pp. 498-500]; Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., supra, 489 U.S. at p. 626, fn. 7 [103 L.Ed.2d at pp. 665-666].) For example, if intrusion is limited and confidential information is carefully shielded from disclosure except to those who have a legitimate need to know, privacy concerns are assuaged. On the other hand, if sensitive information is gathered and feasible safeguards are slipshod or nonexistent, or if defendant's legitimate objectives can be readily accomplished by alternative means having little or no impact on privacy interests, the prospect of actionable invasion of privacy is enhanced. (9b) The NCAA is a private organization, not a government agency. Judicial assessment of the relative strength and importance of privacy norms and countervailing interests may differ in cases of private, as opposed to government, action. First, the pervasive presence of coercive government power in basic areas of human life typically poses greater dangers to the freedoms of the citizenry than actions by private persons. The government not only has the ability to affect more than a limited sector of the populace through its actions, it has both economic power, in the form of taxes, grants, and control over social welfare programs, and physical power, through law enforcement agencies, which are capable of coercion far beyond that of the most powerful private actors. (Sundby, Is Abandoning State Action Asking Too Much of the Constitution? (1989) 17 Hastings Const.L.Q. 139, 142-143 [hereafter Sundby].) Second, an individual generally has greater choice and alternatives in dealing with private actors than when dealing with the government. (Sundby, supra, 17 Hastings Const.L.Q. at p. 143.) Initially, individuals usually have a range of choice among landlords, employers, vendors and others with whom they deal. To be sure, varying degrees of competition in the marketplace may broaden or narrow the range. But even in cases of limited or no competition, individuals and groups may turn to the Legislature to seek a statutory remedy against a specific business practice regarded as undesirable. State and federal governments routinely engage in extensive regulation of all aspects of business. Neither our Legislature nor Congress has been unresponsive to concerns based on activities of nongovernment entities that are perceived to affect the right of privacy. (See, e.g., Lab. Code, § 432.2, subd. (a) [No employer shall demand or require any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee to submit to or take a polygraph, lie detector or similar test or examination as a condition of employment or continued employment]; 29 U.S.C. § 2001 [regulating private employer use of polygraph examination].) Third, private conduct, particularly the activities of voluntary associations of persons, carries its own mantle of constitutional protection in the form of freedom of association. Private citizens have a right, not secured to government, to communicate and associate with one another on mutually negotiated terms and conditions. The ballot argument recognizes that state constitutional privacy protects in part our freedom of communion and our freedom to associate with the people we choose. (Ballot Argument, supra, at p. 27.) Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment and extends to all legitimate organizations, whether popular or unpopular. ( Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 854 [143 Cal. Rptr. 695, 574 P.2d 766]; see also Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988) § 18-2, p. 1691 [noting rationale of federal constitutional requirement of state action protects the freedom to make certain choices, such as choices of the persons with whom [one associates] which is basic under any conception of liberty].) These generalized differences between public and private action may affect privacy rights differently in different contexts. If, for example, a plaintiff claiming a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy was able to choose freely among competing public or private entities in obtaining access to some opportunity, commodity, or service, his or her privacy interest may weigh less in the balance. In contrast, if a public or private entity controls access to a vitally necessary item, it may have a correspondingly greater impact on the privacy rights of those with whom it deals.