937 N.W.2d 97
Iowa2020Background
- Ottumwa used an automated traffic enforcement (ATE) camera program operated by contractor RedSpeed; RedSpeed photographed license plates, queried NLETS to obtain registered-owner names, and uploaded results for city review.
- On May 24, 2016 an off-duty Ottumwa police sergeant (Mark Milligan) was photographed by the ATE system; the City treated the citation as issued to the City (registered owner).
- Milligan, acting as a private citizen, requested under Iowa’s Open Records Act the names of all persons who were and were not issued ATE citations after being detected by the camera.
- The City withheld the names, citing the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and Iowa Code §321.11 (which incorporates DPPA limits); Milligan sued and the district court ordered disclosure and awarded attorney fees.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed: it held the requested names were personal information derived from motor-vehicle records protected by the DPPA and §321.11, and none of the DPPA exceptions justified redisclosure; the fee award was also reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Milligan | Ottumwa | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA/§321.11 prohibit release of owner names obtained via NLETS/RedSpeed | Chapter 22 requires disclosure; DPPA/§321.11 do not block release here | DPPA/§321.11 bar redisclosure of personal information obtained from motor-vehicle records | DPPA and §321.11 bar disclosure; names from DMV/registration queries are presumptively confidential |
| Whether ATE camera citations qualify as “driving violations” (so names are not “personal information”) | ATE records are driving-violation information and thus excluded from DPPA’s definition of personal information | ATE data originates from DMV records; owner names are personal information | ATE citations are not “driving violations” under DPPA (issued to vehicle owner, not driver; not reported to IDOT); names remain protected |
| Whether DPPA exceptions (§2721(b)(1),(4),(14)) permit redisclosure to Milligan | Exceptions apply: government function/administrative proceeding/state-authorized public-safety use | Exceptions do not apply to a private citizen’s chapter 22 request absent a qualifying governmental function, proceeding, or state law authorization | Exceptions do not apply; DPPA exceptions construed narrowly (Maracich); Milligan did not show a permissible redisclosure use |
| Whether district court’s attorney-fee award was proper | Entitled to fees under chapter 22; award appropriate | Fees unreasonable and are dependent on prevailing on disclosure claim | Fee award reversed because there was no open-records violation requiring disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (federal DPPA governs disclosure of DMV records)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (DPPA exceptions construed narrowly)
- Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2002) (IDOT maintains motor-vehicle records; DPPA principles in Iowa law)
- City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008) (ATE citations issued to vehicle owners and differ from traditional moving violations)
- Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (DPPA can preempt conflicting state disclosure rules)
- New Richmond News v. City of New Richmond, 881 N.W.2d 339 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016) (police redisclosure of DMV-derived personal info disallowed absent a DPPA exception)