State Ex Rel. Motor Carrier Service, Inc. v. Rankin
135 Ohio St. 3d 395
| Ohio | 2013Background
- MCS seeks unredacted driving records of its employees at cost under Ohio Public Records Act, challenging DPPA limitations.
- BMV and DPS deny unredacted copies unless the requester follows DPPA-rule 4501:1-12-02(D)(2) via form BMV1173 and a $5 fee.
- Case No. 2012-1264 involved a redacted record obtained without form BMV1173 or fee; MCS argued entitlements under the Public Records Act.
- Case No. 2012-1394 involved a July 3, 2012 request for an unredacted record; DPS again provided redacted copy.
- Ohio Supreme Court held DPPA and R.C. 4501.27/E authorize specific disclosure and authorize BMV rulemaking to require a form and fee.
- Rule 4501:1-12-02(D)(2) creates an option for unredacted records with verification, form BMV1173, and $5 fee; general “at cost” disclosure under 149.43(B)(1) is overridden for DPPA-protected material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA governs disclosure of personal information in driving records | MCS argues public records require at-cost disclosure without DPPA constraints. | DPPA restrictions apply; BMV rule implements permissible disclosures. | DPPA governs; specific rule required for unredacted disclosure. |
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1-12-02(D)(2) validly provides an unredacted-record process | Rule imposes unnecessary steps and fees beyond Public Records Act. | Rule is a valid exercise of DPPA-related rulemaking authority. | Rule valid; requires form BMV1173 and $5 fee for unredacted records. |
| Whether the at-cost provision of the Public Records Act is displaced by DPPA-specific fees | Public Records Act mandates disclosure at cost and should override DPPA fees. | Specific fee provision under Slagle and related cases supersedes general at-cost rule. | DPPA-specific fee provisions override at-cost requirement. |
| Whether MCS is estopped by Roth v. Guzman from arguing DPPA rule validity | Roth supports broader disclosure arguments; estoppel should apply. | Roth is distinguishable; rule changed since Roth; no estoppel. | No estoppel; Roth distinguishable; rule now controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mancini v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 69 Ohio St.3d 486 (1994) (BMV is a public office for records disclosure)
- State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 103 Ohio St.3d 89 (2004) (special-fee provisions trump general at-cost rule)
- Hutson, 1989 Ohio Atty.Gen. Ops. No. 89-073 (1989) (fee method can override at-cost rule)
- Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603 (6th Cir.2011) (fact-specific federal DPPA immunity; not controlling here)
- Dublin Securities, Inc. v. Ohio Div. of Securities, 68 Ohio St.3d 426 (1994) (special/local provision prevailing when conflict with general statute)
- Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (2011) (mandamus standard in Public Records Act cases)