Paige v. Drug Enforcement Administration
398 U.S. App. D.C. 492
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Paige, a DEA special agent, was presenting gun-safety information at a public event when his firearm discharged, injuring him.
- A parent filmed the accidental discharge on a Mini-DV; the DEA later copied it to VHS and circulated copies to several individuals.
- DEA officials created and maintained an IN file (Office of Inspections) for Paige's shooting investigation after notification of the incident, with initial handling occurring between April 12 and April 16, 2004.
- Copies of the video (CDs/DVDs) were disseminated to multiple DEA personnel and units prior to formal IN file creation and retrieval as a system of records.
- The 4:09 version (derived from the Mini-DV) circulated on the internet and within DEA systems, raising Privacy Act disclosure concerns once it was associated with Paige.
- Paige sued the DEA in 2006 alleging Privacy Act violations and FTCA claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the DEA, and Paige appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 4:09 video was a record in a system of records | Paige argues the 4:09 video was contained in a system of records. | DEA contends the 4:09 video was not retrievable by Paige's personal identifier when copied, so it was not a system of records. | No; the 4:09 video was not contained in a system of records. |
| Whether the Privacy Act violation was intentional or willful and had an adverse effect | Paige contends the disclosure was intentional or willful and caused an adverse effect. | DEA argues no system-of-record disclosure occurred and/or no adverse effect established. | No Privacy Act violation found; no evidence of intentional retrieval from a system of records. |
| Whether Paige's FTCA claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure succeeds under Florida law | Paige asserts dissemination of the 4:09 video constitutes invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. | DEA argues the video disclosed public information; no private facts or lack of public concern. | FTCA claim fails; the video involved public facts and public concern, not private facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maydak v. United States, 630 F.3d 166 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (retrieval-based system-of-record analysis within Privacy Act)
- Armstrong v. Geithner, 608 F.3d 854 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (retrieval requirement for system of records; not satisfied here)
- Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (narrow Bartel exception to retrieval requirement rejected here)
- Henke v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1453 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (retrieval requirement clarification for system of records)
- Spilfogel v. Fox Broad. Co., 433 Fed.Appx. 724 (11th Cir. 2011) (publicity/public concern aspects of publication; privacy focus)
- Cape Publ'ns, Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1989) (private facts and public concern under Florida law)
- Heath v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 732 F.Supp. 1145 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (publication of public facts; lack of private facts)
- Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781 (Ariz. 1989) (public interest in law-enforcement matters; public concern)