Constitution states as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Nowhere in this amendment does there state that the people of the U.S.A. have a "Right to Privacy". But in several Supreme Court Cases, the judges have ruled in favor of a certain decision by stating that people of the United States have a "Right to Privacy." How do these judges make the conclusion that there is a right to privacy guaranteed in the constitution, when it is not specifically written? The answer is that they imply the power based on several of the already predefined amendments. .
In the Supreme Court Case, Gideons vs. Connecticut (1965), the Court ruled that the Connecticut law stating that no contraceptive may be used against them. The plaintiff argued that they should not be penalized for something they do in there own home. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that there was a right to privacy in a man's home. In Mapp vs. Ohio, Police received an anonymous tip that there was a bomber inside Mrs. Mapp's home. They came to her house, and she refused them in without a search warrant. The police came back later, handcuffed Mapp, and found several items of obscene material throughout her house. The supreme court ruled in favor the Mapp, stating the right to privacy in ones home, and the guarantees that the fourth and fourteenth amendments have. .
Another reason why the right to privacy is implied is the fourth and fifth amendments. In Boyd vs. US, they are used as protection against invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." In Mapp vs.
