known in late 1993 that the disclosure of a proba tioner’s HIV status to his employer, sister, and roommate was an unconstitutional infringement of the right [to privacy].” The district court, after construing the same cases, concluded that “the contours of the constitutional right to privacy as it relates to dissemination of one’s actual or potential HIV status were clearly established in 1993.” The plaintiff asserts that no less than seven federal courts outside of the Tenth Circuit have “recognized the existence of a constitutionally protected privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of an individual’s HIV status.” None of these cases, however, address the question we must decide. See Glover v. Eastern Nebr. Com. Office of Retardation, 686 F.Supp. 243, 250-51 (D.Neb.1988) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, Glover v. Eastern Nebr. Com. Office of
holding that a policy requiring employees to submit to mandatory aids testing can be enjoined as violative of the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights holding that impoundment of a vehicle can be a seizure under the fourth amendment