## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3765 J OS EP HL AKE, in d ivid u ally an d onbe h alf o fa l l p e r s o ns s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. L A NG DO N D . N EA L, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C2742

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 6, 2009

B efor e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . The D uc k Testh old s t h at if it w al k s l i k e a du c k, s wi ms l i k e a du c k, a nd qu a c k s l i ke a du ck, i t’ s a duck. J ose ph L ake , t he pl ai nti ffi n thi s s uit, fl unks the D uc kTest
. H e s ays , i n effec t, th at i fi t wal ks l i ke a duck, swim s l i ke a duck, and quacks l i ke a du ck, i t s ure as heck i sn’ t a duck.

### 2 N o. 08

- 3765

18 U.S. C. §§ 2721- 25. 1 42 U.S. C. § 1973. 2 The crux o fLake’ s a rgum ent in this appeali s that a voterr egi str ati on f or m i s a ctual l y a m oto r vehi cl e r eco r d
. H e a r g u e s th a tth e C h i c a g o B o a r d o fE l e c t i o n C o mm i ssi oner s ( Board) vi ol ate d the Driver ’ s Pr i vacyPro tect i o n Ac t( DP P A)

— w h ich reg u lat es m ot or ve h icle 1 r e c o r ds

—bydi sc l o singpe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n i t o bt ains f ro m vo terr egi str ati on r eco rds that were com plete d at an o ffi ce o fthe Ill i noi s Depart m ent o fM oto r Vehic l es ( DM V). A ftera paral l elcla i m in stat e courtw as dism i sse d w it h p rej u d ice , L ak e in st itu te d th is c las s a c tio n su it agains t th e B oard
. R ecogn izi ng a fatal fl aw in L a k e ’s ar gum ent, the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the defendants’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. Because this c as e com es to us on an appealfro m an or der g ra nti ng a m oti on to di sm i ss f orf ai l ure to sta te a c l a i m, we accepta s t r ue a l l we l l

- pl e a de d f a c t s a l l e g e d, d raw ing allpos sible inferenc es in the plaintiff’s f a v o r. La ch m un d v . AD M Inv estor S ervs., Inc., 19 1 F .3d 7 77, 78 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. H er e a re the f acts
. I n 199 8, Lake appli ed f ora dri ver ’ s l i cence at an o ffi ce ofthe I llin oi s DM V. Pursuant to the Nati onalVote r Regi str ati on Act ( N VRA ) , he e xerci sed an o pti on t o 2 re gi ste r to vot e a t the sam e t i m e. H e fi l l ed out and subm i tte d a vo terr egi str at ion for m , wh i ch w as att ached to the dr i ver ’ s l i cense appli cati on. The co m ple ted vo ter re gi strat i on f or m was tr ansm i tte d to the Boa rd. In 200 7, a fel l ow nam ed Pete r Zel chenko acqui re d Lake’ s per sonalN o. 08

- 3765 

### 3

Al tho ug h we a r e r e q ui r e d t o a c c e pta s tr ue the f a c t s a s pl e d, 3 we ha ve a h ar d t i m e bel i evi ng thatth e B oa rd, i n thi s day and age, w ould intent ion a ll y rel eas e a r egis ter ed v oter ’ s soc ial se curi ty num ber. i nfo rm ati on

— he s ay s i t was hi s na m e, da te of bir th, s ex , addr e s s , f o r me r a d d r e s s , p h o n e n u mb e r, a n d s o c i a l s e curi ty num ber

—by si m ply ask i ng the Boa rd f ori t. Zel chenko 3 i nfo rm ed Lake that he acqui re d his per sonali nfo rm ati on f r o m t he Bo a r d. L ak e ra ise s t w o iss u es on ap p e a l , b u t w e n ee d on ly disc uss one: Did hi s com pla i nt sta te a cause of a cti on u n d e r th e D P P A? T he district cou rt dism issed the com p lai nt f or f ail ure to sta te a cl ai m afteri t dete rm in ed t h at a vot err egi str ati on f or m fi l l ed out at the DM V und erthe N V R A i s no t a m oto r vehi cl e r eco rd under th e D PPA
. W e r evi ew g r a n t s o fmo t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m deno vo . H i ckey v . O ’ Bannon , 287 F.3d 656 , 657 (7th C ir. 2002). A bi t o fbac kgr ound on the tw o sta tutes i s nec ess ar y. T he DPPA r egul at es the way s a DM V c andi sc l o se i nform ati on. Congr ess passed the DPPA i n re sponse to s a fe t y a nd p r i v a c y c o nc e r ns s t e mm i ngfr o m t he r e a dy avai l abi l i ty ofper sonali nfo rm ati on c ontained i n sta te m oto r vehi cl e r eco rds. The m ostp ro m i nent e xam ple o f the r eal i zati on o fthes e co ncerns w as the 1 989 m urder of actr ess Rebec ca S chaeffer, st aro fthe tel evi sio n ser i es “M y Si ste r Sam
. ” See 1 3 7C o n g . R e c . 2 7, 3 2 7( 1 9 9 3 )
. An o b s e s s e d f a n s t a l k e d a nd k i l l e d th e a c t r e s s , i n h e r o wn apart m ent, afterhe obtained her unli ste d ad dress fro m

### 4 N o. 08

- 3765

M er ri a m -W eb ste r’s C o lle g ia te D ic tio n a ry (11 th ed . 20 0 4 ). 4 th e C a l i f o r n i a DMV
. T h e s e c o n d s t a t u t e , t he NVR A, al l o ws e l i g ibl e ci ti zens to r eg i st ert o v o te whi l e appl y i ng f ora dri ver ’ s l i cense. Congr ess p as se d the N VRA to (1) m ak e itea sie r to reg ist er to vo te a n d ( 2 ) t o h elp prot ect the in te gr ity ofthe proce ss by ensuring tha t a c c ur a t e v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n r o l l s a r e ma i nt a i ne d. T h e b a s i s f o r p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m i s § 2 7 2 4 o ft he D P P A, w hi ch cr eat es a pri vate cause of acti on aga i nst “ [ a] per son w h o kn ow ingly obtains, discloses or uses pers ona l inform ati on, fr o m a mo t o r v e hi c l e r e c o r d, f o r a p ur po s e n ot perm i tte d und erthi s c h ap ter
. . . . ” The DPPA defi nes a m oto r v e hi c l e r e c o r d a s “ a ny r e c o r d tha t pe r t a i ns to a m oto r vehi cl e o perat or ’ s per m i t, m oto r vehi cl e t i tl e, m oto r veh icle re gi str ati on, o r i denti fi cati on ca rd i ssued bya de par tmento fmot o r v eh i cl es [
. ] ” The i ss ue f or us i s whether the v ote r re gi str ati on f or m thatLake fi l l ed o uta t th e D M V i s a “mot o r v eh i cl e r ec o r d” unde r the DP PA
. I t qual i fi es as such onl y i fi t “p er ta in s” to one of the docum ents m enti oned i n the sta tute. T h e p lai n l anguage o fbo th st atute s m ake s i t cl earthat a vot err eg i st r at i o n f o r m fi l l ed o utpur su an t to the N VRA doe s no t “pe r ta i n” t o a ny of the l i st ed DM V do cum en ts. The di cti onar y t el l s us that “pert ai n” m eans “to be l o nga s a par t, m em ber, a cc es so r y, o r pr o duct
. ” The 4 vo te r re gis tr at ion for m , w h ich is fi lled o u t se p ar at ely an d at the ap p lic an t’s option, i s not a p art, m em ber, acc essory, or p rod uc t o f a m otor veh icl e op erator’s pe rm it. O th er th an t h e fac t th at itis filled ou t s im u lta n eo u slyN o. 08

- 3765 

### 5

w i th a dri ver ’ s l i cense appli cati on , t h e vote r f or m has nothingt o do wi th, n o r do e s i t“ pe r t a i n” t o , a mo tor vehi cl e o perat or ’ s per m i t. Finally, w e w ou ld n ot acc ep t L ake’s a rgum en t even i f a l i ter ali nter preta ti on o fthe DP PA wou ld see m to c o m p e l it becau se th at w ou ld “lead to an abs urd re su lt . .
. . ” C a s t e l l o n - C o n t r e r a s v . INS , 45 F. 3d 149, 153 ( 7th Cir
. 19 95) ( ci ti ng B o rn v . U nited Sta tes , 498 U
. S. 1126 (1991)). T h e B o a r d r e c e i v e s v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r ms fr o m a va r i ety o fs o ur ce s. The Il li noi s DM V, pur su an t to the NV R A, i s o n e s u c h s o u r c e . A l l v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r ms con tain th e sam e basic in form ation, w hich the B oard m ust

— acco rdi ng to I l l i noi s s tat e l aw

— m ak e a va ilab le to th e p u b lic. See 10 I ll
. C om p . Stat. A nn . 5/6-35 (2 0 09). A cce p ting L ake’s argu m en t w ou ld lead to a n ab su rd sit u at ion : th e B oa rd v i o l at es fed er al la w w h en it di sc l o se s t he pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n i t r ec ei ve s f r o m the DM V pu rs uant to the N VRA but does not vi ol ate federa l l aw wh en i t di scl ose s the sa m e per sonali nfo rm ati on i t re cei ves f ro m othe r sour ces. This resu lt a l so l i kel y c ontr avene s the purpose ofthe N VRA , wh i ch i s t o in c re as e v ot er reg ist ra tio n in fe d er al e lec tio n s. If i t is aga i nst federa l law f orthe Board t o disc l ose the vot er i nfo rm ati on i t r ecei ves f ro m the D M V , but aga i nst s tat e l a w to n otm ak e itp u b licly av aila b le, th e B oa rd w ill l i kel y b e for ced to st op acc epti ng vo terr egi str ati on f or m s r ecei ved fro m the DM V. That would nul lify an i mpo r t a n tp u r p o s e o fth e NV R A. Sin c e a v ot er reg ist ra tio n form filled ou t a t t h e D M V is not a m otor veh icl e record u n d e r t he DP PA , the B oard

### 6 N o. 08

- 3765

cou ld n ot ha ve violated the D PP A by d isclosi ng La ke’s pe r s o na l i nfo r mat i o n t o the e xt e nttha ti tdi d. A ccor dingly, the j ud gm ent o fthe distri ct c ourti s A FFIRMED .

11- 6- 09