## Facts

- Brian King owned a washateria in Alexandria, Louisiana, where Michael G. Norris stole money from a Coke machine; a hidden camera photographed Norris and a companion during the theft.
- Norris pled guilty to theft in city court and received a fine, a suspended jail sentence, and one year of probation.
- After the conviction, King displayed a bulletin board in the washateria with the photographs under a heading indicating the thief was “caught in the act,” and included captions identifying Norris by name and address and describing the theft.
- The display remained in place for about nine months.
- Norris alleged the posting (and alleged harassing phone calls) caused embarrassment and humiliation and sued for invasion of privacy and misuse of his name and photograph.
- King asserted the display was intended to protect his property and deter future theft and vandalism by warning that hidden cameras were used and offenders would be prosecuted.

## Issues

1. Whether posting a customer’s photograph, name, address, and truthful information about a theft conviction—derived from public records—on an in-store bulletin board for an extended period constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy under Louisiana law.
2. Whether alleged additional conduct (e.g., harassing calls or threats) was sufficiently proven to support liability independent of the posting.

## Decision

- The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding Norris $500 in damages.
- The court held King’s posting did not amount to an actionable invasion of privacy because the information was truthful, tied to a criminal conviction, and a matter of public record.
- The court found King’s stated objective—deterring theft and protecting his business—legitimate and the publicity limited to the premises.
- The court found insufficient proof of separate wrongful conduct (such as coercion or harassment) that would independently support damages.
- Norris’s request on appeal for increased damages was denied as a result of the reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Privacy tort liability for publicity about a person is limited when the disclosed facts are truthful and part of the public record, including criminal proceedings.
- A claimed invasion of privacy requires unreasonable publicity to private life or comparable actionable conduct; truthful publication of public-record facts is generally not actionable absent additional wrongful behavior.
- Courts balance the individual’s interest in avoiding embarrassment against legitimate interests in disclosure, including a business owner’s interest in protecting property and deterring crime.
- Confining disclosure to a business setting for deterrence purposes weighs against finding unreasonable publicity, particularly where there is no false statement or proven independent tort.

## Conclusion

The court of appeal concluded that a business owner’s in-store display identifying a convicted thief using accurate, public-record information to deter future crime did not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy, and it reversed the damages judgment for the plaintiff.


Norris v. King, 355 So. 2d 21 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978)