Paul v. Davis

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
74-891
Petitioner: 
Paul
Respondent: 
Davis
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1975-1981)
Opinion: 
424 U.S. 693 (1976)
Categories: 
privacy, property, fourteenth amendment, due process

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Paul v. Davis , 424 U.S. 693 (1976)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_891)
Facts of the Case: 

A flyer identifying "active shoplifters" was distributed to merchants in the Louisville, Kentucky area. The flyer included a photograph of Edward C. Davis III, who had been arrestedon a shoplifting charge. When the charge was dismissed, Davis brought an action against Edgar Paul, the Louisville chief of police. Davis alleged that the distribution of the flyer had stigmatized him and deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Question: 

Did the distribution of the flyer violate Davis's right to privacy and liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Davis had not been deprived of any constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court also emphasized that constitutional privacy interests did not cover Davis's claims. The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education." The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Paul, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983)

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Burger
Wrote a dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
White
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Did not participate
Stevens

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist