In their famous article on the right of privacy, Warren and Brandeis noted that the common law protection of the right of privacy in the home was far more highly developed than the protection given to individual privacy in other respects. "The common law has always recognized a man's house as his castle, impregnable, often, even to its own officers engaged in the execution of its commands." The common law impregnability has met perhaps its stiffest test when those attacking it have sought constitutional protection. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Breard v. City of Alexandria, La., represents a victory for the forces of impregnability. Breard, a regional representative of a large inter-state magazine subscription agency was convicted of violating an ordinance which prohibited "the going in and upon private residences in the City of Alexandria, Louisiana by solicitors, peddlers, hawkers . . . not having been requested or invited so to do by the owner . . . of said private residences." Breard attacked the ordinance on the grounds that it was contrary to the commerce clause, and that it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirming Breard's conviction. Justice Reed delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice Vinson dissented on the commerce clause question, and Justice Black dissented on the ground that the due process clause was violated by denial of freedom of expression. Justice Douglas joined in both dissents. This comment will examine the grounds of attack.
C. E. Lombardi, Jr. S.Ed.,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION- COMMERCE CLAUSE-CLAUSE-"GREEN RIVER" ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO DOOR TO DOOR SOLICITATION FOR MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss4/6