chicago police department officers are here because centrally on the invitation of the district court which is asked this court to review its orders considering the driver privacy protection act a call to be a and the first amendment conserves district court was in part motivated by the fact that the line up story at issue in this case is an investigative report a truthful investigative report a matter of heightened public concern political favoritism and a homicide case indeed the line up story eventually led to the appointment of a special prosecutor and the conviction of involuntary homicide for the then mayor's nephew sometimes reporters found out among other things the chicago police department knew in two thousand and four that the marriage chicago's nephew richer than echo through the punch the killed the smaller david cost you understand we've heard breach then i think that the only thing we need to emphasize at this point is that the sun times had to drag the information out concerning the line up fillers that were views by filing for your request with the illinois attorney or filing  the illinois attorney general that provided the photographs and the names and then obtained confirming details from the secretary of state by haski we have in this case one public agency supplying information that another public agency or public officials are trying to suppress and that information was not gratuitous as found by the district court which said this is the rare case where the government officials height and weight relate to whether they should have been used as filler alongside the neck up after the story was published the paternal police immediately sued to censor the story and when the privacy claims were rejected by judge fine in the circuit court they repaired this forum and there had on the word not only doesn't advance the d p p is but is clearly vile of the first and then turning right to the question of statutory construction i think the disproportion put its finger on the distinction that maps it's a question of come that with me but i would say with respect to it middle initials they're not names if middle initial squad a den a fight someone that i think maybe we would get into that discussion but a middle initial isn't going to identify anyone and indeed the middle  on the city's website well they would distinguish say john r jones from john j j o s two so so that the public would have more accurate idea of who who the individual was and we could walk right on to the city chicago website we go into this totality argument and we get to pick and choose mix and match what types of facts will get us to the point where we can identify an individual and i know the government makes that argument but that's  case of where someone reads the statute and says ok i can't publish this so i publish that and then the government comes back and says no no no no that means this too and that kind of put that kind of confusion of does disservice to citizens that's when you have to contours well why and blued weight with height if i stepped over the line that i think is fundamentally a abuse of the statute and i think that brings us right back in to say the mail fr and the district court itself said you know there's a good argument that the d p p a only reaches information of what actually identify rather than merely describe a particular individual and i think that interpretation is consistent with this court's recent  construction start versus red box it's just a commonsense interpretation of the statute so we're really only here because of the dicta or maybe it's not even dick to maybe it's just a recital in the senate case which this court is uniquely see the declare and senate really shouldn't expect expand it because there's no publication of unique identifiers in this case if we're going to enlarge the statute to include descriptions then we're person with a very high degree of particularities whereas facts published by the sun times were merely descriptive and what's more like jumping to the first amendment context this court's recent decision in wisconsin right to life as we're talking about speech the language included in that case was include but not limited to ends with a broad in precise language that risk killing speech and that would be exactly here your honor if we'd say oh wait a minute we throw in this extra word we stepped over the line because that's included by implication in the statute that i think we run right a fall of wisconsin right to life versus borrow and run right up against the doctrine of constitutional avoids so in this case i think maximum clarity should be what would guide this limit itself to the list itself or to very least under principles of statutory construction to like categories of information which commonly share attributes that we're not talking about and the question is really does the first amendment protect newsgathering and i can't think of a more stark contrast where we have a core function of the pre press reporting on police protection being suppressed by the police this is the quintessential first amendment censorship type of case the district court originally was reluctant to see that but in the wake of this court's decision and a c l u illinois versus alvarez which extended protection also holds that it completely rejects plaintiff's notion that the police have a privacy interest in their appearance when performing a public duty something that's been consistent with almost every case that is addressed this question in illinois play and that was a pretty unfortunate statue that was a case of actual government officials trying to censor a story it's already been published and i think on top of that then we add wisconsin right to life which points out that laws affecting contexts which are classic speech cases unlike what we had here i just cited calling versus coakley which is just standing on a public way yet even though the statute said nothing about speech on its face the supreme e this case does not involve access to information this involves a penalty for having published i think it falls right into the part mickey category of cases  the public interest in this case was the fairness of the line up as you say that's the public interest i think europe might be slicing it a little bit to finally judge i think that the this is newsworthy because this line up was i don't want to say too fair but because your position is that there are such similarities if i asked the sun times reporter their position would be to line up with that have been justified in a foil request of the last ninety days hundred eighty days of line ups generally conducted by the chicago police department in support of the position that they believe would indicate the device that uses a distance occurred the sometimes a story i think fairly ask questions doesn't provide answers i don't think at that time the reporters were in a position to provide request of the last ninety days of my notes to just do for comparative purposes and to sustain ga the assumption of the report i would suggest not i can't really go in because it's privilege information as to why the sun times had information line i'm not asking for that was reg there's also the question of just how much resources can a news operation in today's environment address to a story in this case the question should be go get the answers and the public official willingly supply them and just go a step behind your honor's question a ballad ations special prosecutor and suck daniel wet in his report says why was there a line you know who did it out sweeping this would be i appreciate your saying what we can limited for this ride this take it good for this ride only but you're we have issues here that a little broader than that i think that the court has to recognize the limitations on the press wants scription does not have to have names rank serial in the addresses well we didn't put any of the stuff in the would you put it we put in the physical characteristics only we didn't put in home addresses we didn't put names that came from you we only put in the characteristics and name argument arms rings your heart the argument consumes itself your honor because that that information was used precisely because these people look like shoot and i understand that and i think it's a legitimate question to have raised and i think it was seconded by the special prosecutor who want to know why there was a lineup in the first place and i think the fact that we're saying oh but similarity that that that's a that's a goal to be had well yes and that's why you go to the secretary of state you get to confirm a detail that shows there's more than similarity here there's an effect an attempt to defeat the eye witnesses so that we can then lose the passed i mean here we don't have a government address because these police officers privacy is not involved their safety is not jeopardized if anything the in public interest and public safety as we report it and more importantly there is a direct burden on the first amendment with respect to the relief requested censorship is censorship past present or future i don't think there's any distinction you can draw and the recent first circuit billboard case it's not our brief because it was just recently decided i think it's got a complicated name it's in my papers or somewhere basically talk about revoking a billboard permit said this is same thing you were poking speech it's i'm going it's a first states that the fundamental question which is appeal turns is how could a reporter who reads the d p p a have any idea that it covers the type of personal information they publish that it covers heights weights here colors i colors etc it's our position that this sometimes could have figured out in a variety of ways and that it chose not to sometimes could have looked at the x plane language and on its face read that person innovation is defined as information that identifies an individual  and use the commonsense approach that physical characteristics help people identify the people they could have considered b x primary purpose looking at the legislative intent and of the broader context in which the experts experts in information from falling into the hands of would be stockers furthermore it could have read case law while the case was not determinative it certainly instructive in regards to what types of information is protected  dedicated to providing legal advice and though i didn't address it in our brief it didn't come up until the reply brief of the sun times that agency is that it's been around nine hundred seventy and it's designed to instruct reporters on the protected privacy information includes all information attached to a person's driver's license record an application such as their name their address their telephone number their vehicle description their social here number the driver's id number photograph height weight gender age and driving leading medically missions and fingerprints now different states have different things on the driver's license but all the stuff that they cover is things that could potentially allow it would be stocker to identify an  surrender their personal information in exchange for a driver's license we contend that the designed to protect exactly the that circumstance people don't walk in to get a driver's license and this in exchange for the potential th information could be handed over to would be stalkers and that's what this act is designed to protect any reasonable definition of the word identity necessarily encompasses both what makes us unique and what makes us recognizable and we feel as though  the sun times obtained this person information from the d m v and published it to suggest that these particular officers were in this particular line up in order to make it difficult for eyewitnesses to identify the suspect  that the logic behind the d p a is to protect person information that that we are the millions of citizens in america submit to their states the m v s from falling into the wrong hands and it's our position that the sun times by publishing this information in its rush to publish story overlooked the fact that it was putting that that information into the hands of every single individual that reads the sun times the statutory definition of the act itself we contend you can you can begin and the analysis with looking at the plain language the plain language states that twenty seven twenty five three defines personal information as any information that identifies as any as information that identifies an individual the word and he is not in there but we c reading of the act necessarily includes it the reason that information's on a driver's license is that so when someone like a law enforcement agent looks at the driver's license and compares it to the individual they can identify that the person possessing that license is actually the person that's the whole point of that information individuals this tall or this this heavy they have this color hair and these color eyes this is this is it's common sense that the the actual controls and protect this type of information and even if the act by itself is not clear the wording including in the list  of information that does protect we had to kate that this court follow the supreme court's lead in the reno vs condom case which employed the illustrative use of the word including as opposed to limit condon five to eight u s one forty one page one forty four the court said that when noting that the d p a defines personal information and they inject it as any information that identifies an individual they could have simply said that the they could have just statutory definition as information identifies an individual but they chose to inject a language in there that covers whatever someone could pass we use to find some you know the sometimes disregards the fact that they publish the middle names of these these officers we feel like they publish the middle names of these officers so that people could identify these officers and find these officers and you know that israel is recently as monday of this week the sun times ran a story in which it was a kind of this is where we're at with this investigation and listed fifty three individuals that are involved in the investigation and you know whether they were retired or that were they were acting and following the investigation they were simply fillers in a line of line ups oftentimes rely on citizens and in past days they exclusively write in citizens but citizens have become more reluctant to help one hundred rushing through former prosecutors were firmly for men who were good and good so you know so you know it is citizen could have been submitted themselves to this lineup and then they would be the ones who would be the the plaintiff in this case saying you know my information i submitted to the d m v i should be protected by this act  offices but now that it's out there that can't really be achieved well it's on the internet so somebody who has a look at it you know one of the plain of the police may arrest somebody or may stop somebody and that individual is a criminal or someone has nefarious intent and they'd want to  have retribution on these officers they potentially could find this information on the internet and then use that information to find these officers and that's our concern don't don't these officers have to display their information and part of the problem here is that this information potentially was ascertainable for the sometimes other contacts they didn't have to go to the d m v and access this information they chose to do that and they chose to then fall under the subject a if they had found this information if they walked into the office and asked them what their height weight were and they get so they surrendered it and they could have published this information but that's not what happened here they went to the d m v and extracted this information and then publishes it please the court daniel tenney for the united states the driver's privacy protection act was designed to allow citizens to submit information to the state department of book motor vehicles without simultaneously making all of that information available to the public  on the statutory issue presented here that the sometimes his position is that the information has to uniquely or be sort of identifying very specific to a particular person and that can be reconciled with the plain text of the numerate examples in the list of you know following the word including and among the examples are medical in disability information if you know somebody is medical in disability information that doesn't help you find the person that's just information about a person you could describe it as identifying information and congress clearly conceived of it that way and that's why it included in the list but once you once you know that that information is included within the definition of of information of personal information then the theory that the sun times is advancing just doesn't work anymore and then if you just think about the purposes of the statute the idea was if somebody is submitting their information to the d m v that that information should get into the other hand so in the stalker example which has been talked about of oh that's not the only purpose of the statute if you had for example an online stalker who you know had a lot of information about the person but didn't know what the person looked like the idea that congress would have contemplated that this the person could go oh i'm trying to find mary smith you know can you please tell me everything you know about him and that and the d m v says well we can't give you her address because that's identifying information but here is her height weight date of birth i and hair color race it's inconceivable that that is what congress contemplated here congress was clearly talking about if you submit your information to the d m v which you have to do in most states that that information they won't turn around and give that information the same with  gave examples in our brief if someone said i write i want to solicit some people i want people who are a certain way i want people who are a certain age you know i'm going to the d m v to sort of call my list to decide who to solicit it's inconceivable that congress  thought that that information should be available from state departments of motor vehicles that was exactly the point of the statute to say that if you have information personal information that's the term the statutory term where we're applying here the idea that you would say that that information doesn't include basic identifying information descriptive of that of an individual that a person might want to keep private so this is a prosecutable offense right the there's a there's involved in disclosure of the publication is subject to criminal prosecution could be i mean that was that was also the case and that was discussed it wasn't why not if you just could be well i mean there's i'm saying that there would be subject to such a prosecution would be instituted but that's the point was made in the merits case in the supreme court which was discussing someone who thought that they had a protected use and they said all of it you know it could be this is in a criminal case but it could be criminally prosecuted of the rule of limited lenity and the supreme court said in that case that although there was a plausible construction of the statute under which what had been done would be entirely permissible that if you read the act as a whole that the other reading was the better reading and therefore they adopted a reading that would have imposed liability in that in that circumstance and we submit that this case is an easier case than that one because here that there is no plausible reading i don't even know this sometimes has an articulated a definition that holds together that that they say that should apply they say the best that the closest they've come is to say well it has to be something that's sort of really identifying and you know now it's down to a particular person but that doesn't account for the fact that medical and disability eight information is clearly included within the statutory term and and and so that can't be the definition and so we submit that the proper definition is to say that when you're talking about information that people are submitting that's  reading is sufficiently a better reading that any that any sort of scan and construction related to the fact that there could conceivably be a criminal fine wendover come back so sometimes argues a permissible use here as  well they argue that in this court the district court concluded stated in each of its orders that that that no permissible use had been argued and so we have not taken a position on that issue in this court but what why  would the permissible use provision that they cite also get the broad reading that you put into this definitional section well with the permissible you again we're not taking a position on whether this was a permissible use there is citing an illinois statute and saying the illinois statute falls within the definition of a state law authorizing public safety you know how you read that is not something the district court resolved and therefore it is not something i'm in a position to address for the first time from the podium here turning to the first amendment question this court held in travis that the that there is no constitutional right to obtain information from the government and and you know quite rightly and knowledge as to the privacy act which in the federal context when you have when the federal government maintains information about an individual the privacy act restricts the ability of private citizens  indeed of other government agencies to obtain that information and so to the extent that the newspaper is arguing that they have a constitutional right to access this information that's foreclosed by circuit precedent and that circuit precedent was plainly correct  and so then the question here is well how can congress go about good since it has it has authority under the constitution to protect it people from delving into other people's private information how can they enforce that and you know in this case you know just the obtaining of the information is is a violation of the statute and subject to the damages remedy including liquidated damages provision so that alone would suffice it but the motion to dismiss should be  the newspapers argument then to follow up on that is to say ok well as far as i can tell they're saying are right even if you even if we didn't have a right to obtain the information having obtained it can't be the measure of damages for how much damage was caused by in this information can take account of the fact that we then turned around and published it to the world and that is a remarkable proposition in the cases that they're relying on like part nicky in the case of the florida star and the daily mail case those were circumstances in which the information was of teamed lawfully and the supreme court emphasized in each case that it's unfair to say well if you obtain the information lawfully you shouldn't  deterring publication doesn't achieve the goal that the congress or the state statute in the cases in that case we were seeking because what they're trying to deter was unlawful acquisition of information and the supreme court said well you can't go about that by punishing someone down the line who publishes it who wasn't the one who on lawfully obtained it here we're looking at the person who unlawfully obtained the information and the supreme court distinguish that case  and then the supreme court also recognize that there's a separate interest apart from deterrence in protecting the privacy of the information at issue in those cases there were different types of privacy but here congress has a valid interest in saying if you submit information to the department of motor vehicles you don't thereby consent to you know making it available to the world and that's a legitimate in the interest for congress to protect and as supreme court although the issue wasn't in those cases about exactly how you would go about deterring are or protecting that this report said well you know the place to do this is to go after the person who's actually unlawfully obtaining the information and so in these circumstances all we're talking about is saying congress concluded that and that when a person submits information to the department of motor vehicles that other people can't obtain that information unless it's for a permissible use it permissibly concluded that that's the travis case and then the question is just what the remedy is and the idea that the remedy would be the damage caused by the unlawful obtaining of the information in subsequent did dissemination is logical and doesn't present a first amendment problem and that's the court has any questions  it the evil as you suggest may have occurred here was this similarity in the visuals of what what journalistic interest was there in all could have had the same name wouldn't matter right it's just the that the similarity was is is is what you suggested was so i'm i'm just trying to you know we're trying to see the sweep of the statute what it protects and and obviously balance against first amendment interests and i just give me a little help on the first man interest in showing more than that the visuals make the point i guess that's that's my first inquiry i have now the question to ok and you've got to worry about the time i think that the combination of the visuals and the text are self confirming and they drive the point home as my just as power demonstrated that the officials really don't even do the similarities justice but more important from the first amendment sweep if the court gets into asking well why did you put this in and you didn't put this in there's a long long line of supreme court precedent in this court that says courts should not get involved in the editorial decision making in the newspaper it's sufficient  germane i mean if you look at all the things that are protected in the statute that are listed there as a den of fires none of them are included one reason might be there in the statute the other reason though is they're not germane is the district court pointed out the only things in there are to the similarities of lining up to the no reason put social security numbers at no reason for driver's license but means names because use papers publish names every week they get called take my name out of the police blotter no government argument then you do not say that they're waiting for the proposition that an entity that opinions information by breaking the law enjoys a first amendment right to disseminate that information the cases you  e seem to all come from having lawfully obtained information so they make that charge the government that that this is a different case and i just wonder if you might speak to that certainly i thought this was all the keris and vs louisiana it's a truthful report on a matter of public affairs that can't be penalized because what we're really after here is the publication and we don't care if the secretary of state gives us the information they obviously read this very clear statute to allow them to do so but i also think that part nicky is a case where there was no question the reporters violated the statute very they had reason to know that was and legally intercepted cell phone conversation made no difference to the supreme court indeed the supreme court has left it is an open question as to whether they  far so if the reporters knew that this pilot of the act somehow and frankly this is not a clear path we would not be here unless there was a substantial question as to whether this is a clear act the district court if anything found the act was and now i understand the face can be identified but i just wonder if if there's a crossing of the line i understand the interest of of putting a name to a to a photo but yet you have to put this in chronological order sometimes gets the names from the foyer request after appealing to the illinois attorney general sometimes gets the names to the secretary of state they don't get the names from sectors state they give the names of the secretary of state they say give me the stuff not covered by the act it shows that these guys call it and that's the situation again in this case if we had gotten the names and published in the dates of birth and social security numbers  here arguing first amendments all twenty minutes of my time but we did i think also the if we look at the cases none of them parse this question except the connecticut case that came down our way alternative to that is this prosecutorial flexibility that basically allows them to prosecute anybody who you know tries to pick and choose in that act and as a miki brief pointed out this is common reporters often use this information and they break big stories with it though i would suggest i'm bigger than this right thank you so done i thank you for your time and thanks thanks to all counsel of the cases taken