Arkansas State Police v. Wren
2016 Ark. 188
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Daniel Wren (attorney) requested inspection of Arkansas State Police (ASP) accident reports from May 1–21, 2015 to solicit potential clients; parties agreed reports are public records under FOIA and minor names/addresses must be redacted by statute.
- ASP adopted a January 1, 2015 policy auto-redacting personal identifying information from accident reports unless a DPPA exception applied; reports were available for purchase individually but not for bulk inspection.
- ASP troopers generally auto-populate reports using data pulled from the Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV) database (often by swiping a driver’s license magnetic strip).
- Circuit court enjoined the ASP redaction policy and ordered release of unredacted accident reports; ASP appealed arguing the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) bars disclosure of the personal information in those reports.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed statutory construction de novo and interpreted interaction between FOIA, state accident-reporting statutes, and the federal DPPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wren) | Defendant's Argument (ASP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DPPA prohibits disclosure of personal information contained in ASP accident reports (FOIA public records) | DPPA excludes "information on vehicular accidents," so entire accident reports fall outside DPPA and are disclosable under FOIA (aside from minors) | DPPA protects personal information drawn from OMV records; ASP must redact unless a DPPA exception applies | Court held DPPA does not prohibit disclosure of information in accident reports; affirmed circuit court order for disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435 (Ark. 2007) (standard for FOIA statutory construction review)
- Nabholz Constr. Corp. v. Contractors For Pub. Prot. Ass’n, 371 Ark. 411 (Ark. 2007) (FOIA construed broadly in favor of disclosure)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (explains DPPA scheme restricting state DMV disclosure of "personal information")
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191 (2013) (limits DPPA exceptions for solicitation and addresses permitted uses)
- Camara v. Metro-N. R.R. Co., 596 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D. Conn. 2009) (held certain driving-history information was not protected personal information under the DPPA)
- Pavone v. Law Offices of Anthony Mancini, Ltd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (held personal information in crash reports can be protected by DPPA; relied on by ASP but not controlling here)