Opinion ID: 1235711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The alleged police surveillance and data gathering activities constitute a prima facie violation of the recently enacted state constitutional right of privacy.

Text: The complaint in the instant case asserts that in addition to infringing the constitutional freedoms of speech and association, the conduct challenged here abridges students' and teachers' constitutional right of privacy. (8) (See fn. 8.) Shortly after the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint, the people of California amended the state Constitution to provide explicit protection to every individual's interest in privacy. Although the full contours of the new constitutional provision have as yet not even tentatively been sketched, we have concluded that the surveillance and data gathering activities challenged in this case do fall within the aegis of that provision. [8] In November 1972, the voters of California specifically amended article I, section 1 of our state Constitution to include among the various inalienable rights of all people the right of privacy. [9] Although the general concept of privacy relates, of course, to an enormously broad and diverse field of personal action and belief, [10] the moving force behind the new constitutional provision was a more focussed privacy concern, relating to the accelerating encroachment on personal freedom and security caused by increased surveillance and data collection activity in contemporary society. The new provision's primary purpose is to afford individuals some measure of protection against this most modern threat to personal privacy. The principal objectives of the newly adopted provision are set out in a statement drafted by the proponents of the provision and included in the state's election brochure. The statement begins: The proliferation of government snooping and data collecting is threatening to destroy our traditional freedoms. Government agencies seem to be competing to compile the most extensive sets of dossiers of American citizens. Computerization of records makes it possible to create cradle-to-grave profiles of every American. [¶] At present there are no effective restraints on the information activities of government and business. This amendment creates a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every Californian.  (Italics in original.) The argument in favor of the amendment then continues: The right of privacy is the right to be left alone. It is a fundamental and compelling interest. It protects our homes, our families, our thoughts, our emotions, our expressions, our personalities, our freedom of communion and our freedom to associate with the people we choose. It prevents government and business interests from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes or to embarass us.  Fundamental to our privacy is the ability to control circulation of personal information. [Italics in original.] This is essential to social relationships and personal freedom. The proliferation of government and business records over which we have no control limits our ability to control our personal lives. Often we do not know that these records even exist and we are certainly unable to determine who has access to them. Even more dangerous is the loss of control over the accuracy of government and business records of individuals. Obviously if the person is unaware of the record, he or she cannot review the file and correct inevitable mistakes.... [¶] The average citizen ... does not have control over what information is collected about him. Much is secretly collected.... The argument concludes: The right of privacy is an important American heritage and essential to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This right should be abridged only when there is a compelling public need.... (9) (See fn. 11.) Several important points emerge from this election brochure argument, a statement which represents, in essence, the only legislative history of the constitutional amendment available to us. [11] First, the statement identifies the principal mischiefs at which the amendment is directed: (1) government snooping and the secret gathering of personal information; (2) the overbroad collection and retention of unnecessary personal information by government and business interests; (3) the improper use of information properly obtained for a specific purpose, for example, the use of it for another purpose or the disclosure of it to some third party; and (4) the lack of a reasonable check on the accuracy of existing records. Second, the statement makes clear that the amendment does not purport to prohibit all incursion into individual privacy but rather that any such intervention must be justified by a compelling interest. Third, the statement indicates that the amendment is intended to be self-executing, i.e., that the constitutional provision, in itself, creates a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every Californian. In several respects, the police surveillance operation challenged in the instant complaint epitomizes the kind of governmental conduct which the new constitutional amendment condemns. In the first place, the routine stationing of covert, undercover police agents in university classrooms and association meetings, both public and private, constitutes government snooping in the extreme. Second, as noted above, the instant complaint alleges that the information gathered by the undercover agents from class discussion and organization meetings pertains to no illegal activity or acts; if this allegation is true, and we must assume it is at this stage of the proceedings, a strong suspicion is raised that the gathered material, preserved in police dossiers, may be largely unnecessary for any legitimate, let alone compelling, governmental interest. (10) In view of these considerations, we believe that the allegations of the present complaint state a prima facie violation of the state constitutional right of privacy. At trial, of course, defendant will be free to contest any of the allegations of the complaint as well as to designate the compelling governmental interests upon which they rely for their intrusive conduct. (See County of Nevada v. MacMillen (1974) 11 Cal.3d 662, 670-672 [114 Cal. Rptr. 345, 522 P.2d 1345]; City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Young, supra, 2 Cal.3d 259, 268; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S. 479, 497 [14 L.Ed.2d 510, 522].) We intimate no opinion as to the resolution of the ultimate constitutional question after trial. We hold only that the demurrer to the complaint was improperly sustained.