Court Opinion

ID: 9423259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:06:46.491141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.355723
License: Public Domain

*778Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I adhere to the views of The Chief Justice in his dissent in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 440, and to the views I stated in my dissent in that case (id., 442) and add only a word.
We are dealing with the right of privacy which, since the Breithaupt case, we have held to be within the penumbra of some specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479. Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks “a zone of privacy” which the Government may not force a person to surrender. Id., 484. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the right of the people to be *779secure “in their persons.” Ibid. No clearer invasion of this right of privacy can be imagined than forcible bloodletting of the kind involved here.