"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This amendment is curious for the exact text that is presented in bold.  For this text clearly states that property can be held privately or without the public influence in its management as it were.  Thus property held privately (again without public interference) also implies that actions that take part on such property must also be protected by some sort of privacy provision.  For without such privacy for the actions taking place on private property then we have already negated the effect and essence of private property.

I do not believe that simply because a something is not enumerated in our founding documents explicitly as a right does not mean that we do not have such a right.  There has to be a level of common sense applied.  And once the actions taken on private property are no longer subjected to an implied right to privacy, the property itself can no longer be considered private.

We also have Amendment IV to the Constitution which states:

"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."

This also bolsters the implied right to a degree of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.  For, for the founding fathers to place this wording in the Bill of Rights shows that they desired the right of people to be secure in their belongings (privacy) except in the case where laws where reasonably certain to be being broken.

This is the simple part of the problem.

There is, however a more complex conundrum that we have the potential to enter here.  And that complexity is when people equate a right to privacy to a right to do anything they choose upon that private property.  A right to privacy is by far and away not a right to do whatever you choose within the confines or protection of that privacy.  It can not be.  Thus the right to privacy does not protect the individual from legal issues that may arise from the actions they choose to take under the veil of  privacy (see amendment IV).

This argument that private property equates to areas completely free from prying eyes and legal authority comes from people reading the fifth amendment while ignoring the fourth and its provisions for reasonable intrusions into "private" property.

A right to privacy simply means that the public has no general right to stick their noses into your actions under normal circumstances.  The public can't tell you what color or length of curtains to buy.  The public can't tell you where to put that picture on the wall.  The public can't tell you how, in general, to run your household.  However, the laws of this nation must still be applied to the acts of that household (i.e. private property).  And if your actions in private violate the laws of this nation then you are still culpable under those laws.

You have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (again see amendment IV to the Constitution).  You of course do not have the right to be free from reasonable searches and seizures.  Even under the auspices of privacy.

And this must be true in order to maintain a society.  Why?  Because if we do not hold actions taken in privacy to legal standards, then we have essentially created a loophole which allows the violation of  laws.  Thus if privacy negates legal culpability then laws become pointless because they are no longer a standard.

Whether or not a law is constitutional or correct is not an issue for debate in this argument.  Whether or not a law is discriminatory against a certain group is not for debate in this argument.  What is the debate is that laws must be equally applied at all times and in all places or they cease to be effective.  And laws must be effective or they are pointless.  And to be effective they must not be given such simple loopholes to get around their authority such as being done in private.

Remember that the ultimate constitutionality of a law is another subject for debate.

If we allow a right to privacy to supersede law then we are raising the argument that a murder committed in one's home is free of legal prosecution because it was committed in private.  We are raising the argument that child abuse committed in the privacy of one's home is free of legal prosecution because it was committed in private.  We are raising the argument that two consenting adults possessing and partaking in the sale and use of a controlled substance would be free from legal prosecution because it was committed in private.  We are raising the argument that any action taken, which is against the law, is legal as long as done in private.

Again, the ultimate constitutionality of the law is a subject of another debate.  And I keep saying that and drilling the point home because it is 100% correct and very important to understand.  I am not against removing unconstitutional laws on the books.  However I am also not for giving people passes on laws or providing loopholes to get around laws just because certain segments of a society don't agree with laws.

Thus we have now established that a right to privacy can not and does not alleviate legal responsibility for those actions.  But again, the question of the legality of the laws is the topic of another debate.