Federal Court OKs Personal Information on Parking Tickets

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The Village of Palatine, Illinois prints the personal information of vehicle owners — including their address, driver’s license number, date-of-birth and weight — on parking tickets left under the windshield wipers of their automobiles. In a ruling handed down last month, the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals found no problem with this procedure.

Motorist Jason Senne had filed suit against what he saw as an outrageous violation of privacy after he received a $20 parking ticket in August 2010. The information printed on the citation, and left open to anyone walking past his vehicle, could be used by an identity thief. Senne argued this was a violation of the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act which prohibits disclosure or otherwise making available the information found in motor vehicle records.

“It’s printed by a computer,” Senne’s attorney, Mark Murphy, argued before the court. “They just have software and a printer and this is how they issue their tickets. The secretary of state when a person applies for a driver’s license has an obligation and a duty under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act to keep that personal information that you tender over to the secretary of state private. They’re not supposed to disclose it. They’re not supposed to give it away…. It’s just being printed on a ticket for no apparent reason.”

Palatine argued that its use of the information falls within a law enforcement exemption and that the printing of the information does not constitute disclosure. The three-judge panel disagreed strongly with the latter claim.

“In the village’s view, a plaintiff must show that personal information was actually handed over to a specific someone, or at least that a specific someone observed the information,” Judge Joel M. Flaum wrote for the majority. “The village’s argument, however, puts shackles on the ordinary meaning of the word disclose… Imagine if a DMV employee placed a stack of driver records on a city sidewalk. Under the village’s reading, only the person whose information was at the top of the stack would have his information disclosed.”

The court majority agreed with Palatine that the village had a valid exemption for disclosure in the “service of process.” Senne countered that the over-disclosure of information such as the driver’s height and weight had absolutely no law enforcement or service purpose, but the majority said Congress did not address that possibility.

“Senne argues variously that the village’s practice is unnecessary, foolish, and a ‘poor security practice,'” Flaum wrote. “That may be, but Congress is free to use language broad enough to permit all those things. The statute does not ask whether the service of process reveals no more information than necessary to effect service, and so neither do we.”

Judge Kenneth F. Ripple dissented on this point, citing statements from the Congressional Record explaining the intent of the privacy law.

“The exceptions must be interpreted in a manner that is compatible with Congress’s careful attempt to balance individual privacy/security needs and the legitimate operational and administrative needs of the government,” Ripple wrote. “We should not ascribe to Congress the intent to sanction the publication of any and all personal information through the invocation of an exception… We should interpret the statute as permitting the release, through the exceptions, of only the personal information reasonably necessary to effectuate the governmental purpose set forth in the exception.”

Ripple cited the example of actress Rebecca Schaeffer who was murdered by a man who had copied down her license plate number and then looked up her home address in Department of Motor Vehicle records. In this case, Ripple noted a stalker would not even need to go to the DMV since the address is available on the ticket itself.

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Senne v. Village of Palatine (US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 7/11/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 12 comments
  • Tced2 Tced2 on Aug 01, 2011

    Maybe federal judges should be required to include their address, drivers license number, birth date, height and weight on their published rulings.

    • Russycle Russycle on Aug 01, 2011

      Amen. I work in IT for a government entity, and we're constantly being hammered about securing personal data, and I'm very glad of that. For these yahoos to just say, "Well, there's no law against it, so suck it!" is appalling, regardless of what the court says.

  • Lumbergh21 Lumbergh21 on Aug 01, 2011

    I work for a state government and our legal counsel has decided that we can not release locational information regarding public works to the utility contractors nor discuss the features of public works projects with the contractors who drew up the plans. Presumably, such information is confidential and can only be shared/discussed with the public utility itself and then only face to face so that we can verify who it is we are talking to. We don't want some terrorist discovering that the building behind the fence labeled Hill Street Well is a well. I don't know if I have ever met a crazier sillier group of people than lawyers, unless it is the judges that spring from their ranks.

  • Lorenzo People don't want EVs, they want inexpensive vehicles. EVs are not that. To paraphrase the philosopher Yogi Berra: If people don't wanna buy 'em, how you gonna stop 'em?
  • Ras815 Ok, you weren't kidding. That rear pillar window trick is freakin' awesome. Even in 2024.
  • Probert Captions, pleeeeeeze.
  • ToolGuy Companies that don't have plans in place for significant EV capacity by this timeframe (2028) are going to be left behind.
  • Tassos Isn't this just a Golf Wagon with better styling and interior?I still cannot get used to the fact how worthless the $ has become compared to even 8 years ago, when I was able to buy far superior and more powerful cars than this little POS for.... 1/3rd less, both from a dealer, as good as new, and with free warranties. Oh, and they were not 15 year olds like this geezer, but 8 and 9 year olds instead.
Next