Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LL
875 F.3d 243
| 5th Cir. | 2017

Background

  • In August 2014 a house fire with victims inside led police to suspect Matthew Alexander; the homeowner gave Detective Gary Gilley Alexander’s phone number and other identifying information.
  • Detective Gilley contacted Verizon’s Law Enforcement Resource Team; after a call, Verizon sent an "Emergency Situation Disclosure" form that Gilley completed, certified, and returned indicating danger of death or serious injury and describing an arson with victims inside.
  • Verizon, relying on the form, provided non-content subscriber and location-related records covering three days before the incident through the time of disclosure; those records helped lead to Alexander’s arrest and criminal charges.
  • A state trial judge later suppressed the Verizon records in the criminal case, finding no exigency for a warrantless disclosure; Alexander filed a pro se civil suit under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) against Verizon seeking damages.
  • The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s report recommending dismissal on grounds that Verizon was immune under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(e) and entitled to a § 2707(e) good-faith-reliance defense; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Verizon is immune under § 2703(e) for disclosing non-content records under the SCA emergency exception Alexander contended the officer’s representations lacked sufficient specificity and Verizon should not have relied on them Verizon argued it complied with the SCA emergency exception after receiving a certified disclosure form and thus is immune Court held Verizon is immune under § 2703(e) because its disclosure followed a statutory authorization (the emergency exception)
Whether Verizon is protected by § 2707(e) good-faith-reliance defense Alexander argued Verizon acted without adequate inquiry and therefore not in good faith Verizon argued its reliance on the officer’s certified form was objectively reasonable Court held Verizon established an objective good-faith reliance defense under § 2707(e)
Standard for "good faith" under §§ 2702(c)(4) and 2707(e) — objective or subjective Alexander urged that Verizon’s subjective state or motive should matter Verizon urged courts should apply an objective-reasonableness test Court adopted an objective standard: whether provider’s reliance was objectively reasonable
What constitutes the knowing/intentional mental state for a § 2707(a) SCA claim Alexander alleged Verizon knowingly violated the SCA by disclosing records Verizon argued plaintiff failed to plead facts showing Verizon knew the disclosure was unauthorized Court held "knowingly" refers to knowledge of the factual circumstances of disclosure and "intentionally" means not inadvertent; plaintiff’s complaint did not plausibly allege lack of authorization or bad faith

Key Cases Cited

  • Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard for objections to magistrate judge reports and plain-error review)
  • Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2005) (district-court independent-review language supports de novo appellate review)
  • In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (SCA governs disclosure of stored electronic communications; cell-site data is non-content)
  • McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2006) (endorses objective good-faith test in related SCA contexts)
  • Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopts an objective-plus-subjective approach to § 2707(e) good-faith test; discussed and contrasted)
  • Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1997) (uses objective-reasonableness for good-faith determinations)
  • Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967) (historical discussion of good-faith defense in civil-rights context)
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (objective standard for qualified immunity)
  • Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (subjective beliefs irrelevant; focus on objective reasonableness)
  • United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule uses objective test)
  • Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith reliance on statute is objectively assessed)
  • TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (textualist canon against rendering statutory language superfluous)
  • Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (statutory interpretation principle to give effect to all provisions)
Read the full case