881 N.W.2d 339
Wis. Ct. App.2016Background
- New Richmond News requested two accident reports and two incident reports from the New Richmond Police Department under Wisconsin's Public Records Law; the department provided redacted copies of both accident reports and one incident report, citing the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
- The police chief explained officers use DMV-populated software (Traes) that pulls personal data into reports; some incident-report data was said to be "obtained and verified" using DMV records.
- The Newspaper sued, alleging the redactions violated Wisconsin's public records law; the circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Newspaper, holding DPPA exceptions permitted disclosure.
- On appeal, the court analyzed two DPPA exceptions: (b)(14) (state-law-authorized uses related to motor vehicles or public safety) and (b)(1) (use by government agencies in carrying out functions).
- The court affirmed that (b)(14) permitted release of the accident reports because Wis. Stat. § 346.70(4)(f) specifically authorizes disclosure of uniform traffic accident reports.
- The court reversed as to the incident report: responding to a public-records request alone is not a ‘‘function’’ under § 2721(b)(1) that authorizes redisclosure, but remanded to determine (1) whether disclosure of the incident report furthers any other police function and (2) whether the redacted information was actually obtained from DMV records (as opposed to merely verified), which affects DPPA applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA § 2721(b)(14) permits release of accident reports | New Richmond: Wisconsin law (Wis. Stat. § 346.70(4)(f)) specifically authorizes disclosure; thus (b)(14) applies | City: Custodian can impose regulations; but did not dispute (b)(14) applicability | Held: § 2721(b)(14) permits unredacted release of accident reports because state statute specifically authorizes disclosure related to vehicle operation/public safety |
| Whether DPPA § 2721(b)(1) (agency functions) permits release of incident report in response to public-records request | New Richmond: Responding to public records requests is an essential statutory function of government and thus a "function" under (b)(1) | City: (b)(1) should be applied by examining actual departmental functions; public-records compliance alone cannot swallow DPPA protections | Held: Reversed — complying with a public-records request alone is not a "function" under (b)(1); remanded to determine if disclosure served another police function |
| Whose conduct controls § 2721(b)(1) analysis (requester vs. agency) | New Richmond: Focus on agency functions (police duties) | City: Focus on the requester’s intended use (as in Maracich) | Held: Court examines whether the agency’s disclosure would serve the agency’s functions (agency-focused), but disclosure must actually further that function |
| Whether information in incident report is subject to DPPA (obtained from DMV vs. merely verified) | New Richmond and amici: Information merely verified from DMV is not DPPA-protected if originally obtained elsewhere | City: Asserts redacted info came from DMV, so DPPA applies | Held: Remanded — factual determination required whether redacted info was obtained from DMV (DPPA applies) or only verified (not covered) |
Key Cases Cited
- Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2012) (analyzed DPPA agency‑functions exception; disclosure must actually further the identified purpose)
- Senne v. Village of Palatine, 784 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2015) (on remand, court held personal information on parking tickets served permissible purposes)
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191 (2013) (DPPA limits uses of DMV data; evaluating requesters’ conduct under certain exceptions)
- Dahlstrom v. Sun‑Times Media, LLC, 777 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2015) (information obtained from non‑DMV sources may be published even if identical to DMV data)
- Kehoe v. Fidelity Fed. Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2005) (discusses DPPA purpose to limit release of DMV personal information)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (DPPA regulates resale and redisclosure of DMV information and addresses state practices in sharing DMV data)