Jason Senne v. Village of Palatine, Illinois
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16328
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jason Senne’s vehicle was parked overnight in Palatine, Illinois, violating a local parking ordinance, and a citation was issued with printed personal MV records data on the form.
- The citation displayed Senne’s name, address, driver’s license number, date of birth, sex, height, and weight, alongside vehicle details, on a paper ticket that also functioned as a payment envelope.
- Senne sued the Village of Palatine under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), alleging the disclosure of protected personal information on the ticket violated the statute.
- The district court dismissed, agreeing the ticket did not constitute a DPPA disclosure and that any disclosure fell within statutory exceptions; the Seventh Circuit initially affirmed then reheard en banc.
- The en banc Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the ticket’s publication of Senne’s information was a DPPA disclosure and the complaint plausibly alleges a violation, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ticket issuance constitutes a DPPA disclosure | Senne asserts the ticket disclosure falls within DPPA’s scope. | Village argues no disclosure occurred or it falls within exceptions. | Yes; the ticket’s public display of personal information is a disclosure. |
| Whether any DPPA exception justifies the disclosure | Disclosures must be evaluated under the exception framework; not all info may be covered. | Disclosures can be within § 2721(b)(1) or (b)(4) without narrow use limitations. | Not determined at this stage; factual development is needed to see if the info was used for the permitted purposes. |
| How to interpret the 'for use' limitation in § 2721(b) | Disclosures must be connected to a stated purpose of the exception; broad reading allowed. | Disclosures must be used for the enumerated purpose but the standard should be limited; overbreadth risks liability. | The panel adopts a narrow reading that disclosures must be used for the specified purpose; ex ante determinations may be difficult, but the statute requires alignment with the exception’s purpose. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint plausibly alleges a DPPA violation; dismissal was premature. | The ticket falls within DPPA exceptions or is not a disclosure. | Reversed; the complaint states a plausible claim and warrants further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1999) (statutory interpretation governs DPPA context)
- Smith v. Zachary, 255 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2001) (read statute in context to define 'disclose')
- Graczyk v. West Pub’g Co., 660 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizes DPPA structure and purpose in disclosures)
- Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 672 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes damages requirement under DPPA/PPV act)
- Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2008) (discusses knowledge as element of 'knowingly' under DPPA)