The note traces the development of the commercial speech doctrine, analyzing U.S. Supreme Court case law up to Central Hudson and subsequent cases refining the Central Hudson framework. In the Central Hudson case, the Supreme Court articulated a four-part test to determine whether government restrictions on commercial speech violate the first amendment. The note goes on to examine recent decisions on the constitutionality of case law under the first amendment. In addition, the note analyzes whether laws restricting the use of police records fall under the commercial speech doctrine; whether they are constitutional under Central Hudson; and whether they are constitutional under a traditional time, place, and manner analysis. The author suggests the problem can be solved by either eliminating public access to sensitive information through temporary limits on commercial access or by restricting the undesirable activities themselves, rather than indirectly regulating such activities by restricting commercial use of information in public law enforcement records. 189 footnotes