Angela Kay Shambour v. Carver County
709 F. App'x 837
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Angela Shambour, a former law-enforcement officer, discovered in a 2013 audit that her DVS (driver records) had been accessed 59 times between 2003–2011. She alleged accesses were for improper purposes (curiosity/romantic interest) after her appearance changed.
- Shambour sued unknown individual officers (Individual Defendants), their supervisors, employing cities/counties (Entity Defendants), two DPS commissioners, and unnamed DPS personnel, alleging violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), constitutional and common-law privacy claims.
- The district court dismissed DPPA claims predating Feb 28, 2010 as time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 1658, but initially allowed some post-2010 claims against Individual Defendants; Shambour later settled/dismissed those post-2010 claims.
- The district court dismissed all remaining non‑time‑barred claims against the Supervisors, Entity Defendants, Commissioners, and DPS Does for failure to plead that those defendants provided access for any purpose other than law‑enforcement functions.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit addressed (1) Article III standing after Spokeo and (2) whether the §1658 limitations period accrues at discovery or at the date of the violation; it applied controlling Eighth Circuit precedent and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for DPPA claim | Shambour argued a DPPA violation itself causes a concrete privacy injury sufficient for standing | Defendants argued the complaint alleged only a bare procedural violation (no concrete injury) per Spokeo | Court held Shambour has standing; DPPA violations harm privacy and align with traditional invasion‑of‑privacy harms (following Heglund) |
| Accrual of the 4‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. §1658) | Shambour argued the limitations period begins when unlawful access is discovered (discovery rule) | Defendants argued accrual occurs when the violation occurs, per Eighth Circuit precedent | Court held the limitations period begins when the violation occurs; McDonough/Tichich control, so claims predating Feb 28, 2010 are time‑barred |
| Secondary/ supervisory/ municipal liability under DPPA | Shambour alleged supervisors and entities were liable for allowing access to records | Defendants argued no facts alleged showing they provided access for non‑law‑enforcement purposes, so no liability | Court affirmed dismissal: no factual allegations that Defendants granted access for unpermitted (non‑enumerated) purposes |
| Whether panel could overturn prior Eighth Circuit precedent | Shambour urged departure to allow discovery/relief | Defendants relied on binding Eighth Circuit decisions (McDonough, Tichich) | Court declined to overrule prior panel decisions citing precedent that one panel is bound by earlier panels; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015) (held DPPA §1658 limitations period begins when violation occurs)
- Tichich v. City of Bloomington, 835 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2016) (applies McDonough; confirms accrual at violation)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III requires concrete injury beyond a bare procedural statutory violation)
- Heglund v. City of Grand Rapids, 2017 WL 3910116 (8th Cir.) (applied Spokeo to hold DPPA violations confer Article III standing)
- Braden v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Cook v. ACS State & Local Sols., Inc., 663 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal)
- Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2016) (one‑panel rule: panels bound by prior panel decisions)
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191 (2013) (Congress recognized privacy harm from improper access to drivers’ records)