Melvin v. Reid
297 P. 91, 112 Cal. App. 285, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 981 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The unauthorized use of a person's true name in a publication that discloses embarrassing facts from their past, after they have rehabilitated and resumed a private life, constitutes an actionable invasion of the right to privacy grounded in the state constitutional right to pursue and obtain happiness.
Facts:
- Appellant's maiden name was Gabrielle Darley, and years prior, she had been a prostitute and was tried and acquitted of murder.
- In 1918, after her acquittal, she abandoned her former life and became entirely rehabilitated.
- In 1919, she married Bernard Melvin and thereafter lived an exemplary and righteous life, establishing a place in respectable society among friends who were unaware of her past.
- In 1925, the defendants, without her knowledge or consent, produced and exhibited a motion picture titled 'The Red Kimono' based on the true story of her past life.
- The film used her maiden name, Gabrielle Darley, and was advertised as the true story of the incidents in her life.
- As a result of the film's exhibition, her friends learned of her past, causing them to scorn and abandon her, which resulted in her grievous mental and physical suffering.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant, Gabrielle Melvin, filed a complaint against the respondent filmmakers in the trial court.
- The complaint alleged four causes of action, including one for violation of the right of privacy.
- Respondents filed general and special demurrers to each count of the complaint, effectively moving to dismiss the case for failure to state a valid legal claim.
- The trial court sustained the respondents' demurrers.
- Appellant refused to amend her complaint, leading the trial court to enter a final judgment against her.
- Appellant then appealed this judgment to the District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the publication of a film that accurately depicts the unsavory past of a rehabilitated private citizen, using her real name without her consent and for commercial gain, constitute an actionable invasion of her constitutional right to privacy and to pursue happiness?
Opinions:
Majority - Marks, J.
Yes. The publication of a film that accurately depicts the unsavory past of a rehabilitated private citizen, using her real name without consent for commercial gain, constitutes an actionable invasion of her constitutional right to privacy and to pursue happiness. The court recognized that while the facts of a public trial are in the public domain, the use of appellant's true name after she had rehabilitated herself was an unnecessary and willful disregard for her rights. The court grounded this right not in the common law, which did not recognize a right to privacy, but in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which guarantees the inalienable right to 'pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.' The court reasoned this constitutional provision protects an individual's character and reputation from unwarranted attacks. Public policy favors the rehabilitation of individuals, and allowing such a publication would undermine this goal by throwing a reformed person back into a life of shame for another's private gain.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in the development of the 'public disclosure of private facts' tort, a key branch of privacy law. It is significant for grounding the right to privacy in a state constitution's 'pursuit of happiness' clause, providing a legal basis where the common law was silent. The decision establishes a crucial precedent that even truthful information from public records can become private again with the passage of time and an individual's rehabilitation. This creates an enduring tension between freedom of the press and an individual's right to be let alone, influencing how courts weigh newsworthiness against the offensiveness of a publication concerning a person's past.
