Roe v. Ingraham, 403 F. Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) prob. juris. noted sub nom., Whalen v. Roe, 44 U.S.L.W. 3471 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1976).
In Roe v. Ingraham, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that sections of the New York Public Health Law requiring reporting of names and addresses of persons receiving prescriptions for specific drugs to a central data bank were unconstitutional in that they intruded upon and interfered with the constitutional right of privacy inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. The decision extends the constitutional right of privacy beyond the range thus far established by the United States Supreme Court and appears to protect a different kind of privacy from that which the Court has found protected under the Constitution.3 While the Court has protected a right of privacy in a line of cases beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut, this kind of privacy, perhaps better termed "personal autonomy," can be distinguished from the right of privacy protected in the instant case, which might better be termed "the right of selective disclosure."
Brown, Dennis C.
"Privacy: Drug Use Reporting Requirements Unconstitutional,"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 2:
1, Article 12.
Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol2/iss1/12