Opinion ID: 2632428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hill Decision and Its Balancing Test

Text: Notwithstanding the broad descriptions of the privacy right in the ballot arguments and legislative findings relied on by the Court; of Appeal, we have explained that the right of privacy protects the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 36-37, 26 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Hill observed that whether a legally recognized privacy interest exists is a question of law, and whether the circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and a serious invasion thereof are mixed questions of law and fact. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 40, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) If the undisputed material facts show no reasonable expectation of privacy or an insubstantial impact on privacy interests, the question of invasion may be adjudicated as a matter of law. ( Ibid. ) Hill sets forth in detail the analytical framework for assessing claims of invasion of privacy under the state Constitution. First, the claimant must possess a legally protected privacy interest. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 35, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) An apt example from Hill is an interest in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (`informational privacy'). ... ( Id. at p. 35, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Under Hill, this class of information is deemed private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or rindignity. ( Ibid. ) Additionally, Hill recognized the interest in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (`autonomy privacy'). ( Ibid. ) As with claims of informational privacy, we must examine whether established social norms protect a person's private decisions or activities from public or private intervention. ( Id. at p. 36, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Second, Hill teaches that the privacy claimant must possess a reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances, including customs, practices, and physical settings surrounding particular activities.... ( Id. at p. 36, 26 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) As Hill explains, A `reasonable' expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) [Opportunities to consent voluntarily to activities impacting privacy interests obviously affect[] the expectations of the participant. ( Ibid. ) Third, Hill explains that the invasion of privacy complained of must be serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of social norms, for trivial invasions afford no cause of action. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Assuming that a claimant has met the foregoing Hill criteria for invasion of a privacy interest, that interest must be measured against other competing or countervailing interests in a balancing test. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633; see Parris v. Superior Court, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 300-301, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 90 [balancing privacy rights of putative class members against discovery rights of civil litigants]; see also Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856, 143 Cal. Rptr. 695, 574 P.2d 766 [balancing right of associational privacy with discovery rights of litigants]; Valley Bank, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 657, 125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977 [balancing test in bank customer privacy case]; Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court, supra, 83 Cal. App.4th at pp. 358-369, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 627 [balancing associational privacy rights].) 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. ( Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 38, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) Protective measures, safeguards and other alternatives may minimize the privacy intrusion. 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. ( Ibid. )