Doe v. Luzerne County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that an individual has “a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body” and that this “reasonable expectation of privacy” exists “particularly while in the presence of members of the opposite sex”
• recognizing that an individual has “a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body” and that this “reasonable expectation of privacy” exists “particularly while in the presence of members of the opposite sex”
• concluding no search occurred when a male police officer filmed a female police officer in the shower
• finding that “the contours of the right [to privacy] appear to be the same” in both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
• explaining that “[p]rivacy claims under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily require fact-intensive and context-specific analyses”
• recognizing individuals have “a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body” and this “reasonable expectation of privacy” exists “particularly while in the presence of members of the opposite sex”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).