| 词条 | Doe v. Borough of Barrington |
| 释义 |
}} Doe v. Borough of Barrington was a legal case in the US. In the case, it was decided that a family's privacy rights were violated when a police officer told their neighbors that the husband had AIDS after he had relayed that information to the police during a search. Because the information was given to a state employee in confidence, and because there was no compelling government interest in giving that information to the neighbors, the police violated the family's privacy rights by telling the neighbors of the husband's condition. It also caused substantial harm to the family due to the stigma that was attached to the wife and children after this information was revealed. Some of the names were changed to protect their identities. Facts of the CaseOn March 25, 1987, Jane Doe, her husband, and their friend James Tarvis were driving in the Doe's pickup truck through the Borough of Barrington when they were stopped by police and, after some questioning, Jane Doe's husband was arrested. They were all escorted to the police station and the pickup truck was impounded. Jane Doe and James Tarvis were released, but Jane's husband was kept in custody. He warned the police officers that he was HIV positive and that they should be careful while searching him because he had "weeping lesions". Jane Doe and James Tarvis returned to Jane's home, in Runnemede, in Tarvis' car. While at the home, the car (which was left running) slipped into gear and slid into the neighbors' fence. The neighbors, Rita and Michael DiAngelo, were speaking to Runnemede officers who were informed by a Barrington officer of Jane Doe's husband's AIDS. After Jane Doe and Tarvis left the immediate vicinity, one of the Runnemede officers, Officer Smith, informed the DiAngelos of Jane's husband's condition, telling them that they should wash with disinfectant just to be on the safe side. Rita, who worked for the Runnemede school district and who had a child in the same school as the four Doe children, called other parents with children in the same school and called the media. Eleven parents pulled nineteen children out of the school and the media covered the story. At least one reporter mentioned the Does' name. The Does claimed that, after this happened they suffered from discrimination, harassment and humiliation. RulingThere were a few reasons why the court decided in favor of the Does.{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}} The court stated that the Does' right to privacy was violated because the information that Jane Doe's husband gave the police officers (being HIV positive) was confidential information.{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}} Even though the information was given willingly and without prompting, Jane Doe's husband offered that information in a private setting to government officials who are expected to keep that kind of information secret. While the Barrington officers may have only told Runnemede officers, it was a Runnemede officer, Officer Smith, who broke this confidence. Furthermore, the fact that there was absolutely no reason for Officer Smith to give that information to the DiAngelos plays a part in this ruling. Enough information was available at the time to support the conclusion that mere physical contact would not spread the disease. Telling the DiAngelos to wash with disinfectant in order to prevent the spread of the disease to them was not a compelling government interest in breaking the confidence for two reasons: First, there's no way the DiAngelos could get the disease from mere physical contact, and this was known at the time of the incident; Second, because they could not contract the disease from this physical contact, there was no need to tell them to wash with disinfectant, because it was unnecessary. Something else that played a part in the court's decision was the stigma attached to AIDS.{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}} While enough scientific research was known at the time about AIDS, people still attached negative stigmas to those who were infected. Usually, people associated AIDS with homosexuals and drug users. Because of this stigma, the court in this case found that the stigma attached to Jane Doe and her children, coupled with the fact that there was no compelling interest in revealing Jane Doe's husband's condition to Jane Doe's neighbors, constituted a breach of privacy that should have been extended not only to Jane Doe's husband but to the entire family. Also, this type of information being of the most personal kind weighted greatly in favor of Jane Doe's husband. PrecedenceCases that helped the court reach this decision were:{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}} Whalen v. Roe (In this case, it was determined that the government has a duty not to disclose private information. Because police officers are considered government employees, this duty applies to them). United States v. Westinghouse (This is the case where the standard of weighing societal interests in disclosure against the privacy interest involved). Carter v. Broadlawns Medical Center (Here, the medical center released medical records to the center's chaplain. The court decided this was a breach of privacy, even though the chaplain could have been considered a person in a confidence-keeping position, because it was unnecessary to release the records to this chaplain for the purposes of his employment). Woods v. White (A person's right to privacy does not vanish simply because they're incarcerated. Here, an inmate's medical history – and the fact that he had AIDS – was revealed to prison personnel who didn't need to know about his medical history to fulfill their employment duties). ConstitutionThe 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is a lot of debate in many cases over what this actually means. The part that keeps the state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property has been interpreted, in this case, to allow a right to privacy. The police officers being considered government employees makes them representatives of the state. Since the state cannot deprive a person of their liberty, and part of that liberty is a right to privacy, the police here had no reason to break Jane Doe's husband's confidence and reveal to the DiAngelos his AIDS diagnosis. References
1 : United States privacy case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。