## Facts

- Jane Doe sued on her own behalf and as guardian for her minor children, alleging constitutional privacy violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after disclosure of her husband’s HIV-related medical information.
- During John Doe’s arrest and search by Barrington police, he told officers he had tested HIV positive and warned them to be careful because he had “weeping lesions.”
- Later the same day in Runnemede, a minor incident occurred when a friend’s idling car rolled into a fence owned by Rita DiAngelo.
- Runnemede officers responded; a Barrington detective arrived and privately told a Runnemede officer that John Doe had disclosed he had AIDS/HIV.
- The information was relayed to Officer Russell Smith, who told DiAngelo about John Doe’s condition and suggested she wash her hands to avoid infection.
- DiAngelo shared the information with other parents and contacted the media; news outlets reported the story, and at least one identified the Does by name.
- The Does alleged resulting discrimination, harassment, humiliation, and disruption to the children’s school environment.

## Issues

1. Whether an arrestee’s HIV/AIDS status, disclosed to police during a custodial search for safety reasons, is protected confidential medical information under the Fourteenth Amendment informational privacy doctrine.
2. Whether police disclosure of that information to a private citizen, absent a sufficient governmental interest, violates the constitutional right to privacy.
3. Whether the spouse and children of the identified individual possess protectable privacy interests in the nondisclosure of the HIV/AIDS information.
4. Whether the Borough of Runnemede and Officer Smith were liable under § 1983 on the undisputed facts at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against the Borough of Runnemede and Officer Russell Smith.
- The court denied Runnemede and Smith’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that disclosure of John Doe’s HIV/AIDS information to DiAngelo violated constitutional informational privacy rights.
- The court held that the privacy protection extended to the family members whose association made them identifiable and foreseeably harmed by the disclosure.
- The court found no sufficient governmental interest justifying the disclosure under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Highly sensitive medical information, including HIV/AIDS status, falls within constitutionally protected interests in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
- When such information is provided to government officials in a custodial, nonpublic context for a limited purpose (e.g., search safety), the individual has a strong expectation of confidentiality.
- State officials may not disclose confidential medical information to private citizens without an adequate governmental justification; any disclosure must be closely tied to a legitimate need.
- Family members may have their own protectable privacy interests when disclosure of stigmatizing medical information predictably identifies them and causes serious harm due to intimate association.
- Municipal and individual liability under § 1983 may be established at summary judgment where the material facts of disclosure and lack of justification are undisputed.

## Conclusion

The court held that a police officer’s disclosure of an arrestee’s HIV-related medical information to a neighbor, without sufficient governmental justification, violated Fourteenth Amendment informational privacy, and that the resulting harm to the arrestee’s spouse and children implicated their own privacy interests; partial summary judgment was entered against the officer and the municipality on that claim.


Doe v. Borough of Barrington, 729 F. Supp. 376 (D.N.J. 1990)