What idea was the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut based upon? If the Constitution forbids self-incrimination, husbands and wives should not be forced to testify against each other.
The Constitution cannot possibly include all rights, so judges can create new ones based on what the founders must have been thinking.
If the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches, there must be a reasonable right to privacy.
The Constitution does not meet everyone’s needs, so citizens can disregard laws when they think the government is violating their rights.

The decision in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut was reached when the Supreme Court claimed that If the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches, there must be a reasonable right to privacy.

Even though the Constitution does not talk about privacy, it talks bout how the police cannot conduct unreasonable searches. The Justices seized upon this to declare that it would then make no sense not to have privacy if unreasonable searches were prohibited.

In conclusion, option D is correct.

Find out more about Griswold v. Connecticut at link.

we need the map to answer the question

`stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the us supreme court. simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

stare decisis is a latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".