united-states privacy fourth-amendment
Does the United States&#39; Fourth Amendment cover privacy violations by private corporations?
<p>For the sake of contrast, consider the wording of the First Amendment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The First Amendment makes clear that only a legal institution which enacts a law, say, &quot;abridging the freedom of speech,&quot; would be in violation of the US Constitution; if a private corporation does so, it would not be in violation of this law.</p>
<p>Contrast the wording of the Fourth Amendment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This passage does not say &quot;shall not be violated <em>by Congress</em>,&quot; but rather &quot;shall not be violated,&quot; full stop.</p>
<p>Is it a correct inference that the right &quot;to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects&quot; extends to even a private corporation? For example, if a corporation, without disclosing such practices in its Terms of Service or Privacy Policy or whatever, infringes on a client's &quot;security in his person,&quot; would such corporation be in violation of the Fourth Amendment (irrespective of any other potential legal issues)?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is it a correct inference that the right &quot;to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects&quot; extends to even a private corporation?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. It's not even a correct inference that it extends by its own terms to state and local governments. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/" rel="noreferrer"><em>Barron v. Baltimore</em></a> (1833), the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights was enacted as part of the federal constitution and only restricts the exercise of the federal government's authority. State and local governments are instead bound by the <em>Fourteenth</em> Amendment, which says that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Over the years, the courts have held that state action that deprives someone of fundamental rights deprives them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/25/" rel="noreferrer">Wolf v. Colorado</a> (1949), the Supreme Court held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental right, so state action violating it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of the Bill of Rights has been held to be &quot;fundamental,&quot; and people routinely say &quot;the state violated the Fourth Amendment&quot; instead of &quot;the state violated the Fourteenth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable search of the sort that would violate the Fourth Amendment if conducted by the federal government.&quot; Courts will say &quot;the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth.&quot; But the point is that the Fourth Amendment <em>itself</em> is not applicable to anyone except the federal government.</p>
<p>The Fourteenth Amendment, by its terms, only restricts the states. The Fourth Amendment only restricts the federal government. With rare exceptions, neither applies to private entities.</p>

<h2>No, it does not</h2>
<p>The terms  &quot;<strong>searches</strong>&quot; and &quot;<strong>seizures</strong>&quot;, as used here, are terms of art, and refer to governmental actions, primarily to the actions of law enforcement (police, customs officials, etc). When the US Constitution was written, the memory of &quot;general searches&quot; by British customs officials was still strong, and one of the motives of this amendment was to prohibit any such action on the part of the new government.</p>
<p>Originally the 4th, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the US Federal government, but since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the doctrine of &quot;incorporation&quot; it has been applied to the actions of state and local governments.</p>
<p>The only way in which this would apply to a private entity such as a corporation would be if the government were somehow using its powers to assist the private entity, making this &quot;state action&quot;.</p>
<p>However, many US states have laws protecting a &quot;right to privacy&quot; in some degree, which might restrict the actions of a private company in such a case, or allow a person to sue and get damages for an improper private search. Such laws do not exist in all US states, and do not have the same coverage in all states where they exist.</p>
<p>Other laws, such as assault and false imprisonment, would apply in some fact patterns.</p>
<p>By the way, although the text of the Fist Amendment starts with &quot;<strong>Congress</strong> shall make no law&quot; this has been interpreted from a very early date to also prevent administrative action, or other governmental action that infringes the protected rights, not just laws as such.</p>
