of new rales of constitutional law on habeas corpus ... generally far outweigh the benefits of this application,”). Based on the foregoing principles, the general rale for retroactivity on collateral review is that “new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060. However, there are two exceptions. First, “a new rule should be applied retroactively if it places ‘certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe[.]’ ” Id. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (quoting Mackey, 401 U.S. at 692, 91 S.Ct. 1160); see, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Second, a new rule should be applied
holding that  1324 preempted georgia law criminalizing harboring of aliens recognizing a privacy interest in the intimacies of the marital relationship holding that statute outlawing use of contraceptive devices was an unlawful invasion of the privacy of marital relationship holding that new york law has no common law right of privacy embracmg such claims as false light as any such privacy right is purely statutory holding that a connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy