## Facts

- Melvin Davis, president of a convenience-store chain, held a retail wine license for a store in Peachtree City, Georgia.
- On a Sunday in August 1981, an employee sold wine to a minor at the licensed store.
- It was undisputed Davis did not know of, authorize, or direct the sale, and there was no showing of negligence by Davis.
- The City charged Davis with (1) sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor and (2) sale of wine on Sunday under city ordinances.
- The City sought to impose liability on Davis through an ordinance stating that a licensee is responsible for employees’ conduct while employed.
- Davis was convicted in municipal court and sentenced to a fine and a suspended jail term conditioned on no further violations of Georgia law.
- The superior court affirmed on certiorari; the Supreme Court of Georgia granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantive due process permits a municipality to impose automatic vicarious criminal liability on an alcohol licensee for an employee’s illegal sale, without proof of the licensee’s knowledge, authorization, consent, or negligence.
2. Whether a criminal ordinance that authorizes incarceration may constitutionally punish a licensee based solely on employee misconduct occurring in the scope of employment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia held the ordinances were unconstitutional to the extent they imposed automatic vicarious criminal liability on a licensee without proof of knowledge, authorization, consent, or negligence.
- The court concluded that imposing criminal punishment, including potential incarceration, on a faultless licensee violated substantive due process under the Georgia and United States Constitutions.
- Davis’s conviction could not stand and was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process limits municipal police-power regulation even in heavily regulated fields such as alcohol sales.
- Criminal responsibility generally must be connected to personal fault; automatic vicarious criminal liability for an employee’s unauthorized acts is unconstitutional absent proof of the licensee’s knowledge, authorization, consent, or negligence.
- When incarceration is a possible penalty, due process scrutiny is heightened, and less burdensome alternatives (e.g., negligence-based liability or civil/administrative sanctions) weigh against faultless criminal punishment.

## Conclusion

A city may regulate alcohol sales, but it may not, consistent with substantive due process, impose criminal punishment on a licensee solely because an employee commits an illegal sale without the licensee’s fault; Davis’s conviction under such an ordinance was reversed.


Davis v. City of Peachtree City, 251 Ga. 219, 304 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. 1983)