Senne v. Village of Palatine, Ill.
645 F.3d 919
7th Cir.2011Background
- Senne received a $20 parking citation for overnight parking violation, which included his personal information from Illinois DMV records.
- The citation was placed on Senne's windshield and later mailed with the citation serving as an envelope.
- Senne alleged the Village violated the DPPA by disclosing personal information on the ticket.
- The district court dismissed, ruling the disclosure was permissible under DPPA §2721(b)(4) but not that disclosure occurred; the district court’s basis for dismissal was on the permissible-use argument.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on the permissible-use ground but rejected the broader “disclosure” interpretation, and noted the case turns on the meaning of DPPA §2721(a) and (b).
- There is a concurring/dissenting opinion by Judge Ripple (not in full agreement with the majority on the scope of the DPPA exemptions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing a parking ticket on a windshield discloses personal information under the DPPA | Senne contends disclosure occurs when personal data is on the ticket. | Village argues no disclosure because §2721(a) is not violated and the action is a permissible use. | Yes, it discloses personal information. |
| Whether §2721(b)(4) permits disclosure in connection with service of process | Disclosures for service do not authorize broad publication. | Disclosures for service of process fall within permissible uses. | §2721(b)(4) permits the disclosure in service of process, so no DPPA violation. |
| Whether Senne can pursue redisclosure liability under §2721(c) | Redisclosure by mail could violate DPPA. | Redisclosure liability targets the rediscloser, not the original discloser; action not actionable here. | Redisclosure liability does not apply to Senne; no action against original disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 481 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1987) (plain-language interpretive presumption; general interpretive approach to statutory text)
- Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1985) (plain-language rule; holistic statutory interpretation)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (textual interpretation governs; no surplusage absent ambiguity)
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2008) (holistic interpretation; plain meaning controls)
- Saukstelis v. City of Chicago, 932 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1991) (parking-ticket data sufficiency and identification issues)