''Griswold v. Connecticut'' ('''381 U.S. 479''') was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case involving the constitutionality of a Connecticut statute (law) prohibiting the use of [[contraception]] by
any means other than the [[rhythm method]] or [[abstinence]]. ''Griswold'' is considered an important [[precedent]] in United States [[constitutional law]] and is considered to have created a "right to privacy" not present in the constitution. This precedent has been used as the foundation for the highly controversial ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' line of decisions which declared state laws prohibiting [[abortion]] to be [[unconstitutional]], and the [[Lawrence v. Texas]] decision which decriminalized [[homosexual behavior]].
[[Appellant]] Griswold was the Executive Director of the [[Planned Parenthood]] League of Connecticut. [[Appellant]] Buxton was a licensed physician and a professor at the [[Yale]] Medical School who served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven. Both had been arrested for violating a Connecticut law which made it a crime punishable by a $50.00 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment to use "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" <ref> 381 U.S. 479, 480 </ref>
and which extended the same penalty to anyone "who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" <ref> ibid </ref> to do so. Griswold and Buxton had been convicted of prescribing contraceptives to married couples in violation of the Connecticut law.
The [[opinion of the court]] was delivered by [[Justice]] [[Douglas]], and, after finding that the appellants had [[standing]] to invoke the [[constitutional rights]] of the married people they had provided contraception to, went on to find that the Connecticut law violated the [[penumbra]] (shadow) emanating from the [[First Amendment]], [[Third Amendment]], [[Fourth Amendment]] and [[Fifth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which created a "[[zone of privacy]]" around the married couples Griswold and Buxton had assisted. This reasoning explicitly relied in part on the Supreme Court's previous decision in [[Mapp v. Ohio]] ('''367 U.S. 643'''), a case involving [[search warrant]] issues, and ''Griswold'' is often considered by lawyers to be a [[legal progeny]] of ''Mapp'', in the same way that ''Roe'' is a progeny of ''Griswold''.
All information from the official reports of ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' ('''381 U.S. 479''') and ''Mapp v. Ohio'' ('''367 U.S. 643''').
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]