## Facts

- Police chiefs in the Louisville, Kentucky area distributed a flyer to roughly 800 merchants captioned “ACTIVE SHOPLIFTERS,” containing names and mug shots of persons previously arrested for shoplifting.
- Edward Charles Davis III’s name and photograph appeared on the flyer while his shoplifting charge was pending.
- Davis had been arrested and arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the charge was later dismissed.
- Davis alleged the flyer harmed his reputation and would impair employment prospects, subject him to public ridicule, and lead merchants to deny him credit or the ability to buy goods.
- Davis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment liberty and property interests without due process and violation of a constitutional right to privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether distribution of the “active shoplifters” flyer, allegedly defaming Davis and causing collateral economic harms, deprived him of a Fourteenth Amendment liberty or property interest requiring procedural due process.
2. Whether publicizing Davis’s arrest on the flyer violated a constitutional right to privacy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and reinstated dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Reputational injury alone, even when caused by state officials and followed by adverse reactions from private parties, is not a deprivation of “liberty” or “property” under the Due Process Clause.
- The flyer did not alter any state-recognized legal right or status (e.g., no revocation of a license, no statutory bar to purchasing goods), distinguishing cases where government action imposed a legal disability.
- Publication of information concerning an arrest did not fall within the limited constitutional privacy interests previously recognized and therefore did not state a privacy-based § 1983 claim.
- Justice Brennan dissented, arguing government “branding” with serious practical consequences should trigger due process protections; Justice Marshall joined, and Justice White joined in part.

## Legal Principles

- The Due Process Clause does not convert state-law defamation into a federal constitutional claim; § 1983 requires deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.
- Injury to reputation, by itself, is neither a protected “liberty” nor “property” interest for procedural due process purposes.
- A due process claim based on stigma requires an additional state-imposed change in legal status or deprivation of a tangible, state-recognized right, not merely adverse private responses.
- Constitutional privacy protections are limited to certain autonomy interests (e.g., marriage, procreation, family relationships) and do not generally bar government dissemination of truthful information about official acts such as arrests.

## Conclusion

The Court held that police dissemination of a flyer labeling an arrestee an “active shoplifter” alleged only reputational harm and related fallout, which, without a state-imposed alteration of legal status or rights, does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation, and that publication of arrest information does not violate a constitutionally protected privacy right.


Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)