Paul v. Davis

After the publication of the "Active Shoplifters" pamphlets, the respondent (for whom shoplifting charges were dropped) claimed he was denied protection under the due process of law and his reputation was besmirched. Regardless, the Supreme Court found that it was inappropriate to invoke constitutional rights because state law torts should have been invoked for redress. A "mere defamation" without precise delineation of what rights an individual was deprived could not be recognized as a violation of "liberty" or "property" as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that unless an individual could distinctly identify injury that resulted in diminishment of specific constitutional rights, defamation alone did not sufficiently justify constitutional protection.

The respondent, Edward Davis was arrested in Louisville, Kentucky, during the summer of 1971 for shoplifting. He protested his arrest and, after several months, charges against him were "filed away with leave to reinstate." Final action on his "shoplift" charge was left unsettled for more than one year. Ultimately, in December of 1972, charges relating to the incident were dropped by the Louisville Police Court. However, Davis' troubles, relative to that misadventure, had just started.

Due to heightened risk of shoplifting during the Christmas season, Edgar Paul, Chief of Police of Louisville, Kentucky, in concert with Jefferson County law enforcement officials, initiated action to alert local merchants to thieves. Pamphlets were distributed in the Louisville metropolitan area that identified "active shoplifters." Flyers contained the alphabetically arranged mug shot photos of persons arrested for shoplifting, including the photo of Edward Davis. Flyers included information, compiled by the police departments of the Jefferson County and City of Louisville, about persons arrested for shoplifting during a two-year period, from 1971 to 1972. The flyers suggested that to ensure adequate protection, security personnel should watch for individuals whose pictures were published in the flyers.

Charges against Davis were dismissed just six days after circulation of the flyers had begun. He immediately objected and filed a lawsuit against police authorities in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (under 42 U.S.C 1983 which provides remedy when position was abused by any official). Davis opted to not file suit in the state courts of Kentucky because he contended that government (city and county) law enforcement officials contributed to the loss of his rights. In his lawsuit, Davis sought a court order (injunction) to bar distribution of the pamphlets.

The district court ruled that (under 28 U.S.C. 1343) "the facts alleged in this case do not establish that plaintiff has been deprived of any right secured to him by the Constitution of the United States." On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found merit in the respondent's (Davis) assertion that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. They cited Wisconsin v. Constantineau (1971) as a related case which justified the respondent's claim under another statute, 42 U.S.C 1983 (related to redress in cases when a state's law abridges constitutional rights). The appellate court held the respondent had "alleged fact that constitute(d) a denial of due process of law."