by the First Amendment. Ex parte Dave, 220 S.W.3d at 156, citing Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 69, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 2641, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973). The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that the constitutionally-protected right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home creates a correlative right to receive it, transport it, or distribute it. U.S. v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 141, 93 S.Ct. 2674, 2677, 37 L.Ed.2d 513 (1973); United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 128, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 2669, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 376, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1408, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971); see also, United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. 351, 356, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1412-13, 28 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971)(<HOLDING>). Appellant argues that the United States
holding that while an individual has a right to possess obscene material in the privacy of his home there is no corresponding privacy right to purchase such material holding that constitutionallyprotected right to possess obscene material in the privacy of the home does not require that the court fashion or recognize a constitutional right for commercial purveyors of obscene material to distribute or sell it holding that a waiver of right occurs only when one in possession of a right with full knowledge of the material facts does or forebears the doing of something inconsistent with the exercise of the right holding that for purposes of federal constitutional law a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to trash discarded outside the home holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records