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
- 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.
- 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.