FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12614

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 1 3 5 1 - CV- J EM M A R Y A N N C O L L I E R , A R T H U R L . W A L L A C E , R O Y M C G O L D R I C K , R O B E R T P I N O , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s F R E D O . D I C K I N S O N , I I I , C A R L A . F O R D , S A N D R A L A M B E R T , M I C H A E L D . M C C A S K I L L , B O Y D W A L D E N , P H I L L I P S H E L T O N , D A V I D M . P E R R Y M A N , L A W R E N C E J . B I L B O , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S , D e f e n d a n t.2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 12, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: M ary A nn C ol l i er , A rthu r L . W al l ac e, R oy M cG ol dri ck, and R ob ertP i no , as w e ll a s th e p u ta tiv e c la s s o f a ll o th e rs im ila r ly s itu a te d in d iv id u a ls ( c o lle c tiv e ly

“ P l ai n t i ffs”), ap p eal th e d i sm i ssal o f th ei r S eco n d A m en d ed C o m p l ai n tag ai n st F r e d O . D ic k in s o n I I I , C a r l A . F o r d , a n d S a n d r a L a m b e r t ( c o lle c tiv e ly

“ D e f e nda nt s ” ) . D e f

e nda nt s , w ho a r e e xe c ut i ve - l e ve l of f i c i a l s a tthe F l or i da D e p a r tm e n t o f

H ig h w a y S a f

e ty & M o to rV e h ic le s ( “D H S M V ” ) , w e r e s u e d in th e ir in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity f

o rs e llin g th e p e r s o n a l in f o r m a tio n th a t P la in tif

f s p r o v id e d to th e D H S M V in o r d e rto o b ta in th e ird r iv e r s ’ lic e n s e s a n d /o rv e h ic le r e g is tr a tio n s to m a s s m a r ke t e r s , i n vi ol a t i on of the D r i ve rP r i va c y P r ot e c t i on A c t( “ D P P A ” ) , 18 U . S . C . § 2721- 2725. In addi t i on t o a di re ctcl ai m un der the D P P A , P l ai nt i ff s a l so sued for r el i ef unde r42 U . S . C . § 1983, w hi c h i m pos e s l i abi l i ty on a ny one w ho, unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w , de pr i ve s a pe r s on “ of a ny r i ght s , pr i vi l e ge s , ori m m uni t i e s s e c ur e d by theTo ac t within the scope of discretionary authority means that “the ac tions were ( 1) 1 un dert aken p ur su ant to th eperf or manc eof [theof fi c ial’ s] dutie s a

nd (2 ) within t

hesc op eof

[his ] authority .” L enz v. Wi nburn, 51 F .3d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks a nd citations omitted). We find no error in the district court’s determination that Def endants were acting wi thin th e ir

dis c retio na

ry dutie s when th e y

so ld m oto r v e hic lere c ord in fo rm atio n toma ss marke ters. Theparties agreethat Def endants a re high level executive of ficials who a

re require d to exercise discretionary

authority to develop and implement policy decisions re gulating the dissemination of the DHSMV’s motor vehic le re cords. They areessentially

responsible for

the distribution of mot or vehic le re cord infor mation. Accordingly, the ac ts complained of—the improper relea se of the inf ormation—were “within, or reasona bly related to, the outer perimeter of [De fendants ’] discretio na ry dutie s. ”Ha

rb e rt Int’ l Inc . v . Jam e s, 15 7 F .3 d 1 27 1, 12 82 (1 1th Cir. 1998). 3 C on st i tut i on and l aw s. ” S peci fi ca l l y, P l ai nt i ff s a l l eged thatthe sa l e of per sonal in f o r m a tio n v io la te d th e irc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to p r iv a c y , in a d d itio n to th e irr ig h ts p ro t ect ed b y th e D P P A . T h e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed D efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss a ll c la im s in th e c o m p la in t o n th e g r o u n d s th a t D e f e n d a n ts w e r e e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity o f

f e r s p r o te c tio n f

o rg o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls , a c tin g w ith in thei r di sc re t i on ary autho ri ty, w ho ar e s ued i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es as l on g as 1 “th e irc o n d u c t d o e s n o t v io la te c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to ry o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f w h i c h a r e a s o n ab l e p e r s o n w o u l d h a v e k n o w n . ” H a r l o w v . Fi t z g e r a l d , 4 5 7 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss base d o n q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty de nov o and ac ce ptw el l -pl ea ded al l eg at i o n s as tru e, co n stru i n g fact s i n th e l i g h tm o stfav o rab l e t o th e p l ai n t i ffs. M aggi o v . S i pp l e, 21 1 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 50 (11th C i r. 20 00 ).4

T o ascert ai n w h eth er an o ffi ci al i s en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty w e m u st fi rs teval uat e w hether P l ai nt i ff s’ al l egat i on s, i f true, es t abl i sh a vi ol at i on of a const i tut i on al or st atut ory r i gh t . S auci erv. K at z, 53 3 U . S . 19 4, 20 1 (20 01 ). S ec on d, i f P l ai nt i ff

s’ al l egat i on s, ac ce pt ed as true, es t abl i sh a vi ol at i on of a const i tut i on al or st atut ory r i gh t , w e m ustas k w hether “ the [f eder al ] ri gh t[thatw as vi ol a t e d] w a s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d” a tthe t i m e of the a l l e ge d c onduc t . I d. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e c o n d u c tth i s tw o p a r ti n q u i ry a s t o e a c h o f th e tw o c l a i ms p r e s e n te d b y th e p la in tif f: th o s e f ile d p u r s u a n t to S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 a n d th e d ir e c t c la im f o rth e v i o l a t i o n o f

th e DP P A. I. C on st i tu ti on al R i gh t T o P ri va cy P l a i nt i f f s f i r s ta l l e ge tha tthe y a r e e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f unde rS e c t i on 1983 because D ef

endant s vi ol at ed thei r c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o p ri vacy w hen they r e le a s e d th e irp e r s o n a l in f o r m a tio n to m a s s m a r k e te r s w ith o u t th e irc o n s e n t. W e fi n d th at , u n d er o u r p reced en t , th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n an sw eri n g th e fi rst S a uc i e rque s t i on— w he the ra c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtha d be e n vi ol a t e d— i n the ne ga t i ve . S e e P ry orv. R e no, 171 F . 3d 1281, 1288 n. 10 ( 11th C i r . 1999) , r e v’ d on o th er g ro u n d s, 5 2 8 U . S . 1 1 1 1 (2 0 0 0 ). W e are b o u n d b y P ryo r an d can n o t , as a p a n e l, r e v is it th is is s u e . S e e M o rr is o n v . A m w a y C o rp ., 3 2 3 F .3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “A p r io rp a n e l d e c is io n o f th is C o u r t is b in d in g o n s u b s e q u e n t p a n e ls5

a n d c a n b e o v e r tu rn e d o n ly b y th e C o u r t s ittin g e n b a n c .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A cc ordi ng l y, because P l ai nt i ff s’ al l egat i on s do n otes t abl i sh a c on st i tut i on al vi ol a t i on unde rourpr e c e de nt , the r e i s no ne e d t o r e a c h the s e c ond S a uc i e rque s t i on of w he the rthe l a w w a s c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d a tthe t i m e of the a l l e ge d c onduc t . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m unde rS e c t i on 1983 as b arred b y q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty. II . S tatu tory R i gh t T o P ri va cy P l ai nt i ff s m ake tw o cl ai m s a ss ert i ng thatthei r s t atut ory r i gh tt o p ri vacy w as vi ol a t e d by D e f

e nda nt s ’ c onduc t . O ne i s a di r e c tc l a i m pur s ua ntt o the D P P A . T he othe ri s a c l a i m pur s ua ntt o S e c t i on 1983, w hi c h i m pos e s l i abi l i ty on a ny one w ho, unde rc ol orof

s t a t e l a w , de pr i ve s a pe r s on of a ny r i ght s s e c ur e d by e i the rthe C o n st i tu t i o n o r fed eral l aw s. 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . A cco rd i n g l y, w e m u stfi rst de t e r m i ne w he the rthe D P P A di r e c t l y f urni s he s P l a i nt i f

f s w i th a c a us e of

a c t i on. W e m u s t a ls o d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e r ig h ts p r o v id e d b y th e D P P A a r e s e p a r a te ly e nf or c e abl e unde rS e c t i on 1983. 1. D oes T he D P P A C re at e A S t atut ory R i gh tT o P ri vacy In M ot or V ehi cl e R ec ord I n f o r ma t i o n Th a tI s En f

o r c e ab l e Di r e c t l y Un d e rTh e St a tu t e ? C ountI I of

the c om pl a i nta s s e r t s a c l a i m di r e c t l y unde rthe D P P A , a nd al l eges thatD ef

endant s vi ol at ed the st atut e w hen they s ol d m ot or vehi cl e r ec ord18 U. S.C. § 2 72 1( a) s tate s: 2 In g eneral.–A State depa rtment of motor vehic les, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereo f, shall not knowingly disclose or other

wise make available to any person or entity : (1) personal information, as defined in 18 U. S.C. 27 25 (3 ), a

bo ut a ny indivi du al ob tained b y th edepa rtment in connec tion with a motor vehicle rec ord, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; or (2) highly restric ted personal information, as defined in 18 U. S . C . 2 7 2 5 ( 4 ) , a

b o ut any i n di v i d

u al o b t ai n e d b y th e d ep artme nt i n connec tion with a m o t o r v eh icle re cord, without the express c onsent of the pers on to who m suc h in fo rm atio n a pp lie s, e xcept u se s p e rmitt e d in subsections (b)( 1), (b) (4), (b)(6) , and (b)(9): P rovided, That subsection (a) (2) sh all not in any

way aff ect the useof org an donation information on an individual’s driver’ s license or affec t the administration of org an donation initiativ e s in

theState s. Un der 18 U. S.C. § 27 21 (b ), pers on al inf or matio n may be dis c los e d un der c ertain ci rc um s t an ce s , i n cl u din g:

(1 1) F or any oth e r u sein re sp on seto re qu e stsfo r indivi du al mo tor vehic le rec ords i f the S tate has obtained the express consent of the person to whom su c h p e rs on al in fo rm atio n p e rt ains . (1 2) F or bulk dis tributio n fo r surv e ys, marke ting or so lic itatio ns if

theState has obtained theexpress consent of theperso nto whom such personal inf or matio n p e rt ains . (13) F or use by

any reque ster, if the requester demonstrates it has obtained thewritt e n c on sent o f t

heindivi du al towh om t

heinf or matio n p e rt ains . 6 i nf or m a t i on t o m a s s m a r ke t e r s w i thoutP l a i nt i f f s ’ c ons e nt . T he D P P A pr ohi bi t s the r e l e a s e of

pe r s ona l i nf

or m a t i on c ont a i ne d i n i ndi vi dua l m ot orve hi c l e r e c or ds un l es s the S t at e has ob t ai ned the express consentof the pers on t o w ho m such pe r s ona l i nf

or m a t i on pe r t a i ns . T he s t a tut e pr ovi de s a tw o pa r tr e m e dy . F i r s t , the 2 st atu t e p ro v i d es en fo rcem en tag ai n stth e st at es: A ny S t a t e de pa r tm e ntof m ot orve hi c l e s tha tha s a pol i c y orpr a c t i c e of s u b s ta n tia l n o n c o m p lia n c e w ith t h i s c h ap te rs h a ll b e s u b je c t to a c iv il pe na l t y i m pos e d by the A tt orne y G e ne r a l of notm or e tha n $5, 000 a da y f or e a c h d a y o f

s u b s ta n tia l n o n c o m p lia n c e .7

18 U . S . C . § 2 72 3(b). I n a d d itio n , 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 4 p r o v id e s a c a u s e o f a c tio n a g a in s t in d iv id u a ls a s f o llo w s : (a ) C ause of ac ti o n .– A pers on w ho kn ow i ng l y obt ai ns, di sc l oses or uses pe r s ona l i nf

or m a t i on, f

r om a m ot orve hi c l e r e c or d, f ora purpos e not pe r m i tt e d unde rth i s ch ap t e rs ha l l be l i abl e t o the i ndi vi dua l t o w hom the i nform at io n p ert ai ns, w ho m ay bri ng a c i vi l ac t i on i n a U ni t ed S t at es di stri ct c o u r t. (b) R em edi es –T he courtm ay aw ar d– (1) a ctual dam ag es , butno tl es s than l i qui da t e d da m a ge s i n the a m ountof $2, 500; ( 2) puni t i ve da m a ge s upon p ro o f o f w i l l fu l o r reck l ess d i sreg ard o f th e l aw ; (3 ) reaso n ab l e a tto r n e ys’ fe es and o ther l i t i gat i on cost s r ea sonabl y i ncurred; and (4) such ot her prel i m i nary and equ i t abl e r el i ef as the courtdet erm i nes t o b e app ropri at e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 7 2 4 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e f i nd tha tthe pl a i n l a ngua ge of the D P P A c l e a r l y , una m bi guous l y , a nd expres sl y c re at es a s t atut ory r i gh tw hi ch m ay be enforce d b y e nabl i ng aggri eved i ndi vi dua l s t o s ue pe r s ons w ho di s c l os e the i rpe r s ona l i nf or m a t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the D P P A . A cc ordi ng l y, i f the ac t s a l l eged by P l ai nt i ff s a re t aken t o b e true— that D e f e nda nt s s ol d pe r s ona l i nf or m a t i on w i thoutthe i rc ons e nt

— the n C ountI I of the c o m p l a i n ts t a t e s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n u n d e rth e DP P A. 2 . I s T h e S ta tu to ry R ig h t T o P r iv a c y C r e a te d B y T h e D P P A E n f o r c e ab le S e pa r a t e l y U nde rS e c t i on 1983? P l a i nt i f f s a l s o a l l e ge tha tthe y a r e e nt i t l e d t o the r e l i e f pr ovi de d by S e c t i on8

1983 be c a us e , by r e l e a s i ng the i rpe r s ona l i nf or m a t i on t o m a s s m a r ke t e r s w i thout the i rc ons e nt , D e f

e nda nt s vi ol a t e d the s t a tut ory r i ghtt o pr i va c y gr a nt e d t o the m by th e D P P A . D e f

e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t, e v e n if th e p la in la n g u a g e o f

th e s ta tu te g r a n ts i nd i vi du al s ari gh tt o sue pers on s w ho vi ol at e i t , the D P P A do es no tal so cr ea t e a n e nf or c e abl e r i ghtunde rS e c t i on 1983 be c a us e the r e m e di a l s c he m e s e tf or th i n the s t a tut e i s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th a ddi t i ona l r e l i e f unde rS e c t i on 1983. I ti s s e tt l e d tha t“ the § 1983 r e m e dy br oa dl y e nc om pa s s e s vi ol a t i ons of f e d e r a l s ta tu to ry a s w e ll a s c o n s titu tio n a l la w .” M a in e v . T h ib o u to t, 4 4 8 U .S . 1 , 4 ( 1980) . F ora f

e de r a l s t a tut e t o be e nf

or c e abl e unde rS e c t i on 1983, thr e e c ondi t i ons m us tbe s a t i s f

i e d. F i r s t , C ongr e s s m us tha ve i nt e nde d tha tthe e nf or c e m e nt prov i si on s of the st atut e f ocus on benefi t i ng the pl ai nt i ff i nd i vi du al l y, ra ther than f oc us i ng on be ne f

i t i ng a gr oup orm a ki ng s y s t e m - w i de c ha nge s . G onz a ga U ni v. v. D oe, 53 6 U . S . 27 3, 28 3 (20 02 ); B l es si ng v. F re es t on e, 52 0 U . S . 32 9, 34 0 (19 97 ). S e c ond, the r i ght“ pr ot e c t e d by the s t a tut e [ m us tnotbe ] s o va gue a nd a m orphous tha ti t s e nf

or c e m e ntw oul d s tr a i n j udi c i a l c om pe t e nc e . ” B l e s s i ng, 520 U . S . a t340- 41 ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T hi r d, the pr ovi s i on gi vi ng r i s e t o the r i ght “m u s t u n a m b ig u o u s ly im p o s e a b in d in g o b lig a tio n o n th e S ta te s ” in th a t it is

“ couched i n m andat ory, ra ther than p re ca t ory, t erm s. ” I d. at34 1 (ci t at i on om i tt ed). I f a l l thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e s a t i s f i e d, the r e e xi s t s a r e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on tha tthe9

s ta tu te is e n f

o r c e ab le u n d e rS e c tio n 1 9 8 3 . T h is p r e s u m p tio n c a n o n ly b e r e f u te d if C o n g r e s s e x p r e s s ly o rim p lie d ly c r e a te d “a c o m p r e h e n s iv e e n f o r c e m e n t s c h e m e [ in the st atut e i n q uest i on ] thati s i ncom pat i bl e w i th i nd i vi du al enforce m entun der § 1983. ” I d. We h a v e n o h e s i t a n c y i n f i n d i n g th a tth e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f th e DP P A c l e a r l y s a t i s f

i e s a l l thr e e c ondi t i ons t o m a ke i te nf or c e abl e unde rS e c t i on 1983. F i r s t , the e nf

or c e m e ntpr ovi s i ons of

the s t a tut e una m bi guous l y f oc us on be ne f

i t i ng i ndi vi dua l s , r a the rtha n f oc us i ng on be ne f

i t i ng a gr oup orm a ki ng s y s t e m - w i de c ha nge s . T he s t a tut e m a ke s the of f i c i a l w ho di s obe y s the l a w “ l i abl e t o the i ndi vi dua l t o w hom the i nf or m a t i on pe r t a i ns , w ho m a y br i ng a c i vi l a c t i on i n a U n ite d S ta te s d is tr ic t c o u r t.” 1 8 U .S .C .A . § 2 7 2 4 ( a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S e c o n d , it c a n ha r dl y be s a i d tha tthe pr ot e c t i ons of f e r e d by the s t a tut e a r e “ s o va gue a nd a m orphous tha ti t s e nf

or c e m e ntw oul d s tr a i n j udi c i a l c om pe t e nc e . ” B l e s s i ng, 520 U . S . a t340- 341 ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . R a the r , the pr ot e c t i ons of f e r e d by the s t a tut e a r e c l e a ra nd s pe c i f i c . T he l a ngua ge of

S e c t i ons 2721( b) ( 11) - ( 13) u n a m b ig u o u s ly r e q u ir e s th e c o n s e n t o f in d iv id u a ls b e f

o r e th e irm o to rv e h ic le re cord i nform at i on m ay be re l ea se d, and S ec t i on 27 24 (a ) unam bi gu ou sl y s t at es that a n in d iv id u a l w h o k n o w in g ly v io la te s th e s ta tu te s h a ll b e liab le to th e in d iv id u a ls t o w hom the i nf

or m a t i on pe r t a i ns i n a n a c t i on i n f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t . T he10

la n g u a g e s e ts f

o r th th e c o n to u r s a n d lim its o f th e r ig h t c le a r ly , a n d th e r ig h t is e a s ily e n f

o r c e ab le b y c o u r ts . T h ir d , th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e is m a n d a to ry in th a t it r e qui r e s tha tthe s t a t e s obt a i n the c ons e ntof the pe r s ons w hos e i nf

or m a t i on i s t o be d is s e m in a te d . N otw i ths t a ndi ng the c l a r i ty of the s t a tut e , D e f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tS e c t i on 1983 r e l i e f

i s pr e c l ude d be c a us e C ongr e s s i nt e nde d t o c r e a t e “ a c om pr e he ns i ve enforce m entsc hem e thati s i ncom pat i bl e w i th i nd i vi du al enforce m entun der § 19 83 , ” B l es si ng , 52 0 U . S . at34 1 (ci t at i on om i tt ed), w hen i tautho ri ze d the U ni t ed S t a t e s A tt orne y G e ne r a l t o e nf or c e the s t a tut ory r i ght s a ga i ns tthe s t a t e s a nd pr ovi de d a n i ndi vi dua l r i ghtof a c t i on unde rthe D P P A a ga i ns tpe r s ons vi ol a t i ng th e s ta tu te . W e f

a il to s e e s u c h in c o m p a tib ility . R a r e ly is a “r e m e d ia l s c h e m e s u f f ic ie n tly c o m p r e h e n s iv e to s u p p la n t § 1 9 8 3 .” I d . a t 3 4 7 . I n d e e d , to s u p p o r t th e c o n c lu s io n th a t S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 r e lie f is pr e c l ude d, the s c he m e s e tf or th by C ongr e s s m us tbe s o de t a i l e d, c om pl e x, or c om pr e he ns i ve , s uc h tha ti ti s nons e ns i c a l t o hol d tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d S e c t i on 1 9 8 3 r e l i e f

t o b e a v a i l ab l e . Se e i d . ( d i s c u s s i n g tw o c a s e s i n w h i c h th e Su p r e me C ou rthel d thatre m edi al prov i si on s pre cl ud ed S ec t i on 19 83 re l i ef , on e of w hi ch i n cl u d ed so m an y o p t i o n s fo r rel i ef th ati tw as “ h ard t o b el i ev e” th atC o n g ress i nt ended t o p re se rve S ec t i on 19 83 re l i ef , and the other provi ded such d et ai l ed11

pr oc e dur e s f

ora dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e vi e w tha ti tw oul d ha ve de f e a t e d the purpos e of

the st atut e t o enabl e pl ai nt i ff s t o b ypas s the adm i ni stra t i ve process ). R a the rtha n c onf

l i c t i ng, w e f

i nd the r e l i e f

of f e r e d by the D P P A a nd S e c t i on 19 83 t o b e c om pl em ent ary. T he D P P A di d n otcr ea t e “ so m any s peci fi c s t atut ory rem ed i es” fo r i n d i v i d u al en fo rcem en tth ati ti s “ h ard t o b el i ev e th atC o n g ress i n t e n d e d t o p r e s e rv e th e § 1 9 8 3 r i g h to f a c t i o n . ” Bl e s s i n g , 5 2 0 U. S. a t3 4 7 . To e n s u r e c o m p lia n c e w ith th e s ta tu te , th e D P P A p r o v id e s a r e m e d y a g a in s t th e s ta te a nd a r e m e dy a ga i ns ti ndi vi dua l s w ho di s r e ga r d the l a w . T he r e i s nothi ng i n the s t a tu t e t o s u g g e s tth a tC o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o e x c l u d e S e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 r e l i e f . T h u s , we f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e r e w a s n o s ta tu to ry r ig h t to pr i va c y e nf

or c e abl e unde rS e c t i on 1983. 3 . W a s T h e L a w C le a r ly E s tab lis h e d A t T h e T im e O f T h e A lle g e d C o n d u c t? H a v in g f

o u n d th a t th e s ta tu to ry r ig h ts c r e a te d b y th e D P P A a r e e n f o r c e ab le bo th d i re ct l y a nd un der S ec t i on 19 83 , w e m ustno w as k w hether the l aw w as suff i ci ent l y e st abl i shed t o h ave provi ded fai r w arni ng t o D ef endant s thatthey w er e vi ol a t i ng the l a w . H ope v. P e l z e r , 536 U . S . 730, 731 ( 2002) ; B r os s e a u v. H a uge n, 54 3 U . S . 19 4, 19 8-19 9 (20 04 ). T hi s i nq ui ry i nv ol ves e val uat i ng w hether a re as on abl y c om pet entpu bl i c off i ci al w ou l d h ave kno w n thathi s a ct i on s w er e proh i bi t ed by the l aw atthe t i m e he e ng aged i n the cond ucti n q uest i on . S auci er ,12

5 3 3 U . S . at2 0 2 . T h e st an d ard i s o n e o f o b j ect i v e reaso n ab l en ess. W e f i nd thatthe pl ai n l angu age of the st atut e a nd the ca se l aw gave cl ea r n o t i c e t o De f

e n d a n t s th a tr e l e a s i n g th e i n f o r m a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n v i o l a t e d f e d e r a l l a w. T he w ords of the D P P A al on e a re “ spec i fi c e no ug h t o est abl i sh cl ea rl y the l aw appl i cabl e t o p art i cul arcond uctand ci rc um st ance s a nd t o o verc om e qual i fi ed i m m un i ty. ” V i nyar d v . W i l son, 31 1 F . 3d 13 40 , 13 50 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ho l di ng that s t a tut ory l a ngua ge a l one , e ve n i n the “ t ot a l abs e nc e of c a s e l a w ” c a n be s uf

f i c i e nt t o p rovi de fa i r not i ce ). M o r e o v e r , th e c a s e la w d e f in in g th e r e a c h o f

th e D P P A g a v e f

a irn o tic e to D e f e n d a n t s . I n e v a l u a t i n g th e D PPA , i n b o th i t s p r e - a n d p o s t - a me n d me n tf o r m, th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t s ta te d th a t:

[ P r io rto O c to b e r9 , 1 9 9 9 ,] th e D P P A p r o v id e d th a t a D M V c o u ld o b ta in th a t c o n s e n t e ith e ro n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s is o rc o u ld im p ly consenti f the S t at e provi ded d ri vers w i th an o pp ortun i ty t o b l ock di s c l os ur e of

the i rpe r s ona l i nf

or m a t i on w he n the y r e c e i ve d or re new ed thei r l i ce nses and d ri vers di d n otavai l them se l ves of that op po rtun i ty. § 2 72 1(b)(11), (13), and (d). H ow ever , P ub l i c L aw 106- 69, 113 S t a t . 986, w hi c h w a s s i gne d i nt o l a w on O c t obe r9, 1999, changed t hi s “ op t -out ” a l t ernat i ve t o an “ op t -i n” re qu i re m ent . U nd er th e a m en d ed D P P A , S tates m ay n o t i m p ly co n se n t fro m a d riv er ’s fa i l ure t o t ake a dv ant age of a s t at e- af forded op po rtun i ty t o b l ock d is c lo s u r e , b u t m u s t r a th e ro b ta in a d r iv e r ’s a f f ir m a tiv e c o n s e n t to d i scl o se th e d ri v er’ s p erso n al i n fo rm at i o n fo r u se i n su rv eys, m a r k e tin g , s o lic ita tio n s , a n d o th e rr e s tr ic te d p u rp o s e s . R e no v. C ondon, 528 U . S . 141, 144- 145 ( 2000) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( c i t a t i onsDef endants’ a

rgument that therewas c onflictingstate law is unavailing. Thelaw wa s 3 clea r at the releva

nt time that the DPPA preempted a ny conflictingstate law that regulates the dissemination of motor vehicle record information. Condon, 528 U.S. at 151 (holding that “[t] he DPPA regulates the States as theowner s of data ba ses” a nd “re gulates the univer se of entities th atp art i c ip at ea s s u

p p l i e r s t o th em ar

k e tf o r m o t o r v e h i c l ei n f

o r m at i o n . ” ) . A c c o rdi n g ly, Def endants were bound to follow the ma ndates of theDPPA, even though a conf licting statelaw may have e x isted. 13 om i tt e d) . T he c a s e l a w de f i ni ng the s t a tut e ’ s s c ope c oul d be no c l e a r e r . W e f i nd 3 th e s ta tu to ry r ig h t to p r iv a c y in m o to rv e h ic le r e c o r d in f o r m a tio n w a s c le a r ly es t abl i shed atthe t i m e of D ef endant s’ al l eged cond uct , gi vi ng them fa i r not i ce that th e i ra l l e g e d c o n d u c tv i o l a t e d f e d e r a l l a w. I I I . C on c l u s i on In l i gh tof the foregoi ng anal ys i s, D ef endant s a re no tent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m uni ty on the por t i on of C ountI tha ta s s e r t s a vi ol a t i on of the D P P A , noron C ountI I i n i t s e nt i r e ty , a nd r e m a nd f orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.