Or. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp.
364 Or. 210
Or.2019Background
- ORS 802.179(13) permits disclosure of DMV personal driver-record information to commercial "disseminators" subject to contract terms and limits (no bulk reproduction, subscriber controls, delay option). Plaintiffs argued that statute requires ODOT to provide electronic access to disseminators.
- ODOT sold an exclusive license to DAS (which subcontracted with NICUSA) allowing electronic access via the state portal; DAS permitted NICUSA to charge a convenience fee to users. Plaintiffs challenged that transaction.
- Plaintiffs sued, claiming (a) ORS 802.179(13) implicitly requires electronic access so ODOT could not license electronic access away; (b) under ORS 366.395(1) ODOT may not treat inability to profit as evidence that an asset is not "useful" for department purposes; (c) the license remained a highway-fund trust asset and DAS (as alleged trustee) engaged in self-dealing and violated Article IX, § 3a; and (d) ODOT/DAS failed to obtain fair market value for the license.
- The court considered statutory text, legislative history (HB 2096, enacted after DPPA and a DMV data breach), and trust/constitutional provisions governing highway fund disposition.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals: ODOT did not have to provide electronic access; ODOT lawfully judged the license not "useful" for its purposes; the license passed out of the highway fund when sold and DAS is not a highway-fund trustee; and the sale satisfied constitutional requirements (including fair market value).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 802.179(13) requires ODOT to provide electronic access to disseminators | Statute's references to "bulk" and "subscriber" imply electronic access is required | Statute's text contains no "electronic access" requirement; bulk transfer can be non-electronic; legislative history restricts access rather than mandate electronic delivery | No—statute does not require ODOT to provide electronic access to disseminators |
| Whether ODOT may treat inability to profit as evidence an asset is not "needed, required, or useful" under ORS 366.395(1) | Usefulness should be judged by agency mission/service, not profitability; ODOT still serves disseminators even if it cannot profit | Inability to profit is a valid factor; statute gives ODOT deferential, broad discretion to judge usefulness | Yes—ODOT acted within statutory authority to consider inability to profit when deeming the license not useful |
| Whether ODOT's disposal of the license complied with ORS 366.395(2) ("most adequately conserve highway funds") | "Conserve" means preserve, not increase; selling the license that increased per-record revenue violates the conservation requirement | Conserving can include preserving fund health by increasing it; improving and conserving are not mutually exclusive | Yes—court cannot say as a matter of law that ODOT violated the statutory conservation standard |
| Whether DAS's use of the license violated trust duties or Article IX, § 3a (self-dealing/fair market value) | DAS is (implicitly) a trustee of the highway fund and used the license for its own purposes (self-dealing); also ODOT/DAS did not obtain fair market value because NICUSA charges more per record | Highway fund statute does not name DAS as trustee; once ODOT sold the license and paid proceeds into the fund the license left the fund for the license term; expert valuation supports fair market value; sale increased the fund | No—DAS is not a highway-fund trustee by implication, the license was no longer fund property after sale, and there is no basis to find lack of fair market value or constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (discussing statutory interpretation and text as best evidence of legislative intent)
- White v. Public Employees Retirement Board, 351 Or. 426 (defining statutory trusts and default trust-law rules)
- Stephan v. Equitable S. & L. Ass'n, 268 Or. 544 (trustee may not use trust property for personal purposes)
- Rogers v. Lane County, 307 Or. 534 (Article IX, § 3a aimed to prevent raiding the highway fund)
- AAA Oregon/Idaho Auto Source v. Dept. of Rev., 363 Or. 411 (context on Article IX, § 3a amendments and restrictions)
- SAIF v. Shipley, 326 Or. 557 (agencies have only powers granted by legislature)
- Jimenez v. Lee, 274 Or. 457 (consequences when trustee converts trust assets not solely for beneficiary's interest)
- Oregon Trucking Ass'ns v. ???, 288 Or. App. (Court of Appeals decision addressing license transfer and trustee questions)