Scott Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC
777 F.3d 937
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Five Chicago police officers (plaintiffs) served as lineup “fillers” in a high‑profile homicide investigation; the Chicago Sun‑Times (defendant) published an article criticizing the lineup.
- Sun‑Times obtained lineup photos and names via FOIA, but (according to plaintiffs) separately obtained and published each officer’s birth month/year, height, weight, hair color, and eye color from Illinois motor vehicle records.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., alleging Sun‑Times knowingly obtained and disclosed “personal information” from motor vehicle records in violation of § 2722(a).
- Sun‑Times moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the published details are not “personal information” under the DPPA and (2) application of the DPPA to bar acquisition/publication violates the First Amendment.
- The district court denied dismissal; on interlocutory appeal the Seventh Circuit (en banc decisions and the United States intervening to defend the statute) affirmed—holding the listed details are “personal information” under the DPPA and that the statute, as applied here, does not violate the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA’s definition of “personal information” includes birth date (month/year), height, weight, hair color, eye color | These physical/biographical details are identifying and thus fall within § 2725(3) | These traits are merely descriptive and not listed in § 2725(3), so they fall outside the statute (expressio unius) | Held: such details fall within “personal information” — “including” is illustrative; statute’s purpose and precedent support an expansive reading |
| Whether DPPA’s ban on obtaining personal info from DMV records violates the First Amendment (news gathering) | DPPA limits press newsgathering and thus burdens speech/press rights | No special constitutional right to access government records; statute is a content‑neutral restriction on access justified by public safety | Held: no cognizable First Amendment injury; only rational‑basis review applies and DPPA survives (deterring misuse of DMV data) |
| Whether DPPA’s ban on publishing personal info obtained from DMV records infringes the First Amendment | Publication of truthful, newsworthy information is protected—press should be able to publish even if source was DMV | Publication by a party who knowingly and unlawfully obtained DMV info is regulable; ban is content‑neutral, advances important privacy/deterrence interests, and is narrowly tailored | Held: as‑applied, prohibition on disclosure does not violate the First Amendment (intermediate scrutiny); here privacy and deterrence outweigh the marginal public value of the published details |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (statutory interpretation of DPPA and federalism/Commerce Clause context)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (publication of unlawfully obtained information and First Amendment balancing)
- Smith v. Daily Mail Publ’g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (protection for lawfully obtained truthful information about matters of public concern)
- Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (First Amendment limits on punishing lawful receipt/publication of truthful information)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (intermediate scrutiny for content‑neutral speech regulations)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (narrow tailoring standard for content‑neutral regulations)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (no special First Amendment right of access to information)
- Senne v. Vill. of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. en banc; DPPA context and permissible‑use discussion)
- American Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir.; recording statute and heightened scrutiny discussion)