Court Opinion

ID: 9550913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:44:48.901405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:41.926049
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.
I join in the Chief Justice’s dissent, except that I would not rely on the federal Constitution. What the majority of my colleagues condone here is action that appears to me to constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. (Cf. dis. opn. in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 131, 151, fn. 1 [151 Cal.Rptr. 653, 588 P.2d 793], See too Rosenblatt, Health Care Reform and Administrative Law: A Structural Approach (1978) 88 Yale L.J. 243, 247 [“The Legal Structure of Health Care Reform: Creating the Appearance of Public Control”].)
*741By selective quotation the majority opinion downgrades the right of privacy in California, which “relates, of course, to an enormously broad and diverse field of personal action and belief . . . .” (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774 [120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222].) What the California Constitution in article I, section 1, guarantees is an inalienable right of “pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” By no means do those words merely mirror United States Supreme Court opinions. In White v. Davis, supra, Justice Tobriner’s opinion for a unanimous court noted approvingly these statements from the official election brochure that help illuminate privacy’s full scope: “ ‘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. . . .’ ” (Id., at p. 774.) “ ‘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. . . .’” (Id., at p. 775.) In this case I detect no such need.
Appellants’ petitions for a rehearing were denied April 12, 1979. Bird, C. J., and Newman, J., were of the opinion that the petitions should be granted.