A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT A . M c RE Y N O LD S,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. K E N N E T H F. W Y N N , D i r ect or , U t ah D epart m entof A l cohol i c B ever age C ontr ol ; L A R R Y V . L U N T , C hai r m an; T E D D . L E W I S, V i ce Chai r m an; N I C H O L A S E . H A L E S ; F R A N K W. BU D D ; M A RY A N N M A N TES, M ember s , U t ah A l cohol i c B ever age C o n tr o l C o m m issi o n ; K E V IN HANS E N, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4077 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CV - 1 2 2 - DAK)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.Pl ai nt i ff’ s appea l w as pr ematur e i n l i ghtof the cl ai m s pendi ng agai ns tt he 1 re s t o f th e d e fe n d a n ts . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( b) . I n the meant i m e, how ever , t he di s tr i ctcourtent er ed j udgm entfordefe ndant s on al l r emai ni ng cl ai m s , t her eby r i peni ng pl ai nt i ff’ s appea l . W e not e that , gi ven pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o appea l fr om the l at erentr yof fi nal j udgm ent , t hi s appea l m aybe l i m i t ed t o the j udgm ent g ra n te d fo r d e fe n d a n t H a n s e n . See Nol an v. U. S. D ep’ tof Jus t i ce , 973 F. 2d 843, 846 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( expl ai ni ng Lew is v. B . F. G oodr i ch C o. , 8 5 0 F .2 d 6 4 1 (1 0 th C i r . 1988) ) . I n anyevent , ourdi s pos i t i on of the appe al i nvol vi ng the H ans en ju d g m e n t is c o n c lu s iv e a s to th e e n tir e c a s e . -2- Pl ai nt i ff M cR eynol ds br oughts ui tunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng thathe w as depr i ved of a l i bertyi nt er es tw i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw w hen he w as not al l ow ed t o pur chas e l i quorfr om a s t at e- run l i quors t or e. Pl ai nt i ff ha d pr ovi ded pr oof of hi s l egal age ( tw enty - one) forthe pur chas e, butw as r efus ed s ervi ce beca us e a c om pani on l acke d pr oof thathe al s o w as nota mi nor . T he di s tr i ct courtgr ant ed j udgm enton the pl eadi ngs fordefe ndantH ans en, the s t or e cl erk, on s ever al al t ernat i ve gr ounds : ( 1) ther e i s no s t at e- cr eat ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n the pur chas e of l i quoron w hi ch t o pr emi s e a due pr oces s cl ai m ; ( 2) even i f s uch an interest ex ist s, it s isolated an d tem p o raryd ep ri v ati o n h ere (th e m o m en tary i nabi l i tyt o pur chas e l i quorfr om a part i cul ars t or e) w as t oo m i ni m al t o w arr ant cons t i tut i onal r edr es s ; and ( 3) even i f a c ogni zabl e depr i vat i on occurr ed, the r el evantl egal pr i nci pl es w er e notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed and, ther efor e, defe ndant H ans en w as ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi n anyevent . Pl ai nt i ff then c o m m e n c e d th is a p p e a l. O n d e n o v o re v ie w , Fer nandezv. Mor a- San Miguel 1 E l ec. C o- op. , Inc. , 462 F. 3d 1244, 1250 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , w e affi r m fort he re a s o n s e x p la in e d b e lo w .-3-

I n U t ah, “21 . . . i s the l egal age forpur chas i ng al cohol i c beve r ages or pr oduct s . ” U t ah C ode A nn. § 53- 3- 806( 3) ( ci t i ng i d. § 3 2 A -1 2 -2 0 3 ); see also i d. § 3 2 A -2 -1 0 3 (a ). A n a d u lt m a yp u rc h a se liq u o r a t a s tate sto re u n les s h e is “ac tual l y , appar ent l y , orobvi ous l yi nt oxi cat ed”; a “know n habi tual drunkar d”; or a “know n i nt er di ct ed per s on. ” Id. § 32A - 2- 103( 5) ( b) - ( d) . Pl ai nt i ff c ont ends that th ro u g h a ss u m in g c o n tro l o v e r th e sa le o f a lco h o l an d sp e c if

y in g b ysta tu te w h o is leg a llye n tit led to p u rc h a se it, th e S tate h a s c re a ted a c o n stitu tio n a llyc o g n iza b le i nt er es t , s uffi ci entt o tr i ggerdue pr oces s pr ot ect i on, i n favorof anym emberof th e p u b lic w h o m e e ts th e sta tu to ryq u a lific a tio n s. H e c laim s h e w a s s u m m a rily depr i ved of thi s i nt er es t , i n a manneract i onabl e under§ 1983, w hen defendant H ans en r efus ed t o s el l hi m l i quoron the gr ound thathi s compani on l acke d pr oof of age . T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed thi s cl ai m , agr eei ng w i th defe ndantthatthe iss u e w a s n o t w h e th e r p lain tiff h a d a p ro tec ted in ter e st i n the pur chas e of l i quor ( al l egedl ydeni ed w i thoutadequa t e pr oces s w hen hi s compani on di d notpr oduce p ro o f o f a g e ), b u t w h e th e r p lain tiff h a d a p ro tec ted in ter e st i n the pur chas e of l i quorw hi l e i n the company of a pers on w i thoutpr oof of age . T h e d istri ct co u rt h e ld th a t s u c h a n in te re s t d id n o t e x is t. I n fr ami ng the due pr oces s i s s ue, the di s tr i ctcourtl ooked t o r egul at i ons a n d p o licie s, re fe rre d to in th e p lea d in g s, re latin g to th e p re se n c e o f m in o rs in li q u o r st o res. B yreg u lat ion , “[ n ]o p erso n u n d er the ag e o f 2 1 y ea rs m ayen ter a sta te liq u o r sto re u n les s a c c o m p a n ied b ya p a re n t, l e g a l g u a rd ian , o r sp o u se th a t is-4-

21 y ear s of age orol der . ” U t ah A dm i n. C ode R 81- 2- 7. T hi s pr ohi bi t i on i s now in c lu d e d in th e s ta tu to ry sc h e m e . See U t ah C ode A nn. § 32A - 2- 103( 8) ( a) ( added b y2 0 0 5 U tah L a w s, c h . 1 5 2 , § 2 , effe c tiv e M a y2 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e sta te a lco h o lic b ev era g e c o n tr o l m an u al fu rth er p rov ides that all p erso n s w h o en ter a li q u o r st o re w i thouta par ent , guar di an ors pous e musthave a dul ti dent i fi cat i on, and s peci fi cal l ydi r ect s s t or e cl erks t o confi r m thatal l per s ons have i dent i fi cat i on w h e n a m e m b e r o f

a g ro u p a tte m p ts to p u rc h a s e a lc o h o l. A p lt. A p p . a t 5 1 . A cl erk m ayr efus e t o s el l l i quort o any one w hom he has r eas on t o bel i eve maybe a tte m p tin g to p u rc h a s e a lc o h o l ille g a lly fo r a m in o r. U ta h A d m in . C o d e R 8 1 -2 -6 . T he l i nk betw een the gr oup- i dent i fi cat i on rul e and the St at e’ s effor tt o pr event m i nor s fr om obt ai ni ng al cohol thr ough adul t s i s obvi ous , and has now been made expl i ci ti n t he s t atut orys cheme: i f a pa tr on orhi s compani on l acks i dent i fi cat i on, the s t or e cl erk “s hal l r efus e t o s el l l i quor. . . t o the per s on w ho acc om pani ed the su sp e c ted m in o r in to th e sta te s to re ,” a n d “ sh a ll req u ire [ th e m ] . . . to im m e d iate ly l eave the pr emi s es . ” U t ah C ode A nn. § 32A - 2- 103( 8) ( b) - ( d) ( added by2005 a m e n d m e n t) . D ue p rocess cl ai m s ent ai l a t w o-st ep inquiry : “(1) did the [p l ai nti ff] possess a pr ot ect ed i nt er es ts uch thatdue pr oces s pr ot ect i ons w er e appl i cabl e; and i f s o, then ( 2) w as the [pl ai nt i ff] affor ded an appr opr i at e l evel of pr oces s . ” Vei l e v. Mar t i ns on , 258 F. 3d 1180, 1184- 85 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he r egul at i ons and pol i ci es ( now codi fi ed) r el at i ng t o per s ons acc om pany i ng a l i quorT hi s i s the thrus tof defendant ’ s pos i t i on, adopt ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt , t hat 2 p lain tiff ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim fa ils b e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e a p ro tec ted in ter e st in pur chas i ng al coholw hen acc ompani ed by a pe rs on w i thoutpr oof of age . Pl ai nt i ff obj ect s t o thi s char act er i zat i on of the i nt er es t , ar gui ng thatt he fa ct - s peci fi c l evel of des cr i pt i on us ed bydefe ndantt o qual i fyt he i nt er es tundul yr es tr i ct s i t s s cope fo r pu rpo ses o f d u e p roc ess a n aly sis. T h at i s, p lai n ti ff arg u es th at de fe n d an t’ s form ul at i on cons tr i ct s the under l y i ng i nt er es tby , i n the t erm s us ed above , t r eat i ng g ro u n d s fo r d e n y in g a p ro tec ted in ter e st (w h ich m u st b e p ro v e d in c o n stitu tio n a lly adequa t e pr oces s ) as condi t i ons pr ece dentt o the exi s t ence of the i nt er es t( w hi ch n e g a te th e rig h t to p ro c e ss f ro m th e o u tse t). W e n e e d n o t re so lv e th is l evel - of- des cr i pt i on conundrum , beca us e pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m fai l s i n anyevent , as e x p la in e d in th e n e x t p a ra g ra p h a b o v e . -5- pu rchaserun dercutplai nti ff’s due process cl ai m aton e or the o ther of these s t eps, dependi ng on w hethert he pr ovi s i ons ar e vi ew ed as condi t i ons pr ece dentt o the ex ist en ce o f a ri g h t t o p u rch ase li q u o r or a s g rou n d s fo r de n y ing su ch a righ t. If anyr i ghtof an a dul tt o pur chas e l i quori s i nchoat e unl es s and unt i l the addi t i onal re q u ire m e n ts c ited a b o v e a re m e t, pla in tiff ’s fa ilu re to sa tisf yth e re q u ire m e n ts defe at s hi s cl ai m atthe fi r s ts t ep i n a di r ectand obvi ous w ay , becaus e i tnegat es th e re q u isite p ro tec ted in ter e st ab in iti o . 2 O n t he otherhand, i f a s t at e’ s as s um pt i on of contr ol overt he s al e of l i quor cr eat es a cons t i tut i onal l ycogni zabl e r i ghtof ac ces s i n m ember s of the publ i c w ho m ee t th e b asic leg al qu ali fica ti o n s fo r pu rch ase (an y o n e a t l ea st tw en ty -on e y ea rs o ld w h o is s o b e r, n o t h a b itu a llyin to x ica ted , an d n o t in ter d icte d ), p lain tiff ’s c laim w oul d s t i l l fai l atthe s econd s t ep of the due pr oces s i nqui ry , s o l ong as gr ounds for den y i ng that r i gh tw ere enforced thr ou gh con st i tuti on al l yperm i ssi ble pr ocess. T he governi ng cons t i tut i onal s t andar d i s fl exi bl e, r equi r i ng onl ys uch pr ocedur al-6-

p ro te c tio n s a s th e p a rt ic u la r s itu a tio n d e m a n d s . G i l ber tv. Hom ar , 520 U . S. 924, 930 ( 1997) ( fol l ow i ng Mor r is s ey v . B r ew er , 4 0 8 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 1 (1 9 7 2 )). T h is s i tuat i onal anal y s i s focus es on t he natur e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es t , the pr act i cal eff i cac yof exi s t i ng pr ocedur es t o pr ot ectthati nt er es tand the bene fi taddi t i onal p ro c e d u re s w o u ld a ffo rd , a n d th e in te re s ts o f th e S ta te . Id. at931- 32 ( fol l ow i ng Mathew s v. E ldr i dge , 4 2 4 U. S . 3 1 9 , 3 3 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . Ap p l y i n g th e s e fa c t o r s , we con cl ud e t hat pl ai nti ff recei ved suffici ent pr ocess t o u nd ercutanydu e process c la im h e re . I n as s es s i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es t , “ac countm us tbe t aken of ‘ the len g th ’ and

‘ fin a lit y of the depr i vat i on. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng Logan v. Zi m m er m an B r us h C o. , 455 U . S. 422, 434 ( 1982) ) . A s t he di s tr i ctcour temphasi zed, the depr i vat i on at i s s ue her e w as qui t e mi nori n thes e r es pect s . Pl ai nt i ff w as m er el yr efus ed l i quor atone s t or e on one oc cas i on, fora r eas on thatw oul d notext end bey ond the uni que–and a voi dabl e–combi nat i on of ci r cumst ance s thi s one occ as i on pr es ent ed (en tryw ith a c o m p an ion lack ing p roo f o f a g e). T h e m inim al na ture o f p lai n ti ff ’s depr i vat i on s tr ongl ys ugges t s t hata corr es pondi ngl ym i ni m al l evel of pr oces s w as d u e . In d e e d , the d istric t co u rt m a yh a v e b e e n c o rre c t in rejec tin g p lain tiff ’s c laim o u t o f h a n d o n th e b a s is th a t th e d e p ri v a tio n w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly d e m in im u s . C f . , e. g. , Wis e v. B r avo , 666 F. 2d 1328, 1333 ( 10th C i r . 1981) ( aff i r m i ng di s m i s s al of due pr oces s cl ai m beca us e s i ngl e i nci denti n w hi ch par ent al vi s i t at i on-7-

had bee n cuts hor tw as “s o i ns ubs t ant i al i n dur at i on and effec t ” thati tdi d not

“ ri s e to a c o n s titu tio n a l le v e l” ). B ol s t er i ng t hatconcl us i on i s the s ubs t ant i al count ervai l i ng w ei ghtof the S tate ’s in ter e st in p ro m p t, pr a c tica l, an d e ffe c tiv e p ro c e d u re s fo r im p lem e n tin g its f r a n c h i s e o v e rt h e d i s tr i b u t i o n o f l i q u o r . Th e c o n tr o l l i n g s t a tu t o rys c h e me expl i ci t l yi nvokes the St at e’ s s i gni fi canti nt er es ti n m i ni m i zi ng the s oci al r i s ks att endantupon t he cons um pt i on of al cohol , es peci al l yw her e mi nor s ar e i nvol ved. See U t ah C ode A nn. § 32A - 1- 104( 4) . W e pr oper l y“ac cor d[] t he s t at es gr eat l eew ayi n adopt i ng s um m arypr ocedur es t o pr ot ectpubl i c hea l th and s afe ty . ” Mackey v. Montr

ym , 4 4 3 U .S . 1 , 1 7 (1 9 7 9 ); s ee, e. g. , C am ugl i a v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 2 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he fa m i l i arpr ocedur e of “ car di ng” l i quors t or e patr ons i s an effec t i ve m e a n s b o th to p ro tec t th e p u b lic in ter e st a n d to a ffo rd p a tro n s (a n d th e ir compani ons ) a fa i rand r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o demonstr at e thatan i nt ended liq u o r p u rc h a se is c o n sis ten t w ith th e law . If a p a tro n o r h is c o m p a n io n is m o m e n tar ilyu n a b le to c o m p ly , the a p p ro p ria te c o rre c tiv e is fo r th a t p e rso n to re triev e h is d o c u m e n tatio n sh o w in g th e re q u isite a g e a n d /o r le g a l re latio n sh ip ( w hi ch, i f notal r eadypos s es s ed, i s eas yt o obt ai n) , notaddi t i onal pr ocedur al m eas ur es of a more compl i cat ed, t i m e cons um i ng, and l es s obj ect i ve natur e. G i ven the pr act i cal r eal i t i es of the s i tuat i on, t hi s t r adi t i onal , conveni ent , and-8-

effect i ve pr ocedur e, acc om m odat es al l i nt er es t s i nvol ved i n a mannerthatcannot b e d e e m e d c o n s titu tio n a lly d e fic ie n t. Fi nal l y , w e not e thatw e have del i ber at el ynoti ncl uded i n ouranal y s i s the al l eged s t i gm a pl ai nt i ff i ns i s t s r es ul t ed fr om defe ndantH ans en’ s r efus al t o s erve hi m . C ontr aryt o pl ai nt i ff’ s hyperbol e, he w as notacc us ed of a cr i m e; he w as m er el yr efus ed s ervi ce be caus e he e nt er ed a l i quors t or e w i th a compani on w ho, l acki ng pr oof of a ge, gave H ans en a r eas on t o bel i eve a n ill e g a l p u rc h a se c o u ld b e in th e o ffing . If d en y ing serv ice fo r l ac k o f re q u ir ed iden ti fica ti o n w ere tan tam o u n t to c rim in a l ac c u sa tio n , the p ro p e r e n fo rc e m e n t o f liq u o r la w s w o u ld gener at e a mount ai n of defamat i on cas es agai ns tcons ci ent i ous l i quors t or e cl erks a ro u n d th e c o u n tr y . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt W ade Brorby C i r cui tJ udge