Privacy Laws City of Ontario, California, Et Al. V Quon, Et Al. 560 U.S. (2010)

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

Privacy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, and the state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion. Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not expressly protect a person 's right to privacy; there are however some provisions to privacy within the Bill of Right and the Amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the first amendment, that ensures the privacy or belief, the third amendment, that ensures the privacy of home, and the fourth amendment, that ensures the privacy of person and possession.

43.The Supreme Court decision of Schenck v. United States established the precedent for the idea that

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion on seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and the harm it caused. These factors should be balanced against any steps taken by the defendant to rectify the breach. Ultimately, this assessment should be

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

Which of the following is an opinion issued when a Supreme Court justice agrees with the outcomes reached by the majority but not with the legal reasoning behind the decision?

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

1. This story is about the Supreme Court’s decision. What process did this case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court?

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

HOLDING: The court actually abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test two-pronged test and held that When a court is making a decision to issue a search warrant, the question as to weather a person is “credibility/reliable” and where their “basis of knowledge” may have come from are to be used as guides when considering the “totality of the circumstances”and are and not requirements in every

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?