## 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. 10

- 3243 J A S ON M . S EN NE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . V I LL AGE OF P AL AT I NE, I LLINO IS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

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 . 1:10- cv-05434

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge
.

R EARG U ED E N B A N C F E B RUARY 9, 2012

— D ECI D ED A U G U ST 6, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judge, a nd P OSNER, F LAUM , R IPPLE, K ANN E , R OV NER, W OO D , W I L L I A MS, S YKES, T INDER a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . J aso n Se nne’s ve hi cl e wa s p ar ked ove rni ght o n a publ i c wa y i n the Vil l age o fPal atine, I l l i noi s ( the “ Vil l age ”) , wh er e s uch parking was prohibi te d by o r di na nc e. Vi l l ag e au th o r i ti es pl ac ed a p ar k i ng ci tat i on o n hi s windshi eld

. Vari ous pi eces o fper sonal2 N o. 10

- 3243

Th e di s t r i ct cou rt ’ s j ur i s di c t i onwa s pr e m i s e d o n 2 8 U. S

. C. 1 § 1331 and 18 U

. S. C. § 2724. i nfo rm ati on, o btained b y th e Vi l l age fro m a databas e or i gi nati ng with th e I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fM oto r Vehic l es, wer e p rinted on the ci tat i on. M r. S enne s ubse que nt l y b r o ug htthi s ac ti o n o n b eh al fo fhi m se l fa nd a cl ass of othe rs si m i l ar l y si tuate d a gainst th e V ill age . 1 H e claim ed tha t t h e Vill age’s p ractice of printing p ers on a l i nfo r mat i o n o b t a i ne d fr o m m o t o r v e hi c l e r e c o r ds on p arking tickets w as a viol atio n of the D river’ s Pri vacyPro tection Act ( the “ A ct” orthe “DPP A ”) , 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2721

- 25. U nd erthe DP PA , st ate departm ents of m ot or ve h icle s ( “ D M V s” ) are res tr ict ed in t h eir ab i l i tyt o di sc l o se c er ta i n pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n c o ntained i n m oto r vehi cl e r eco rds; autho ri zed r eci pie nts ar e furtherr est ri cted i n re disc l osing i nfo rm ati on o bta in ed from th os e re c or d s. Se ei d. § 2 72 1. Inj ur ed per so ns ar e p ro vid ed w ith a p riv at e rig h t o f ac tio n . Se ei d. § 2724
. T h e V illag e m ov ed to d i s m iss M r. Sen n e’s cla im f o r f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u po n whi c h r e l i efcan be gr ante d

. See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12 ( b) ( 6)

. I t co ntended that i ssui ng a parking ci tat i on was nota dis c losure und er th e s ta tu te an d th at, ev en if it w er e, it fell w ith ina sp ec ifica l l y pe r m i tt ed pur po se i den ti fi ed in t he s ta tu te
. The d ist ric t c ou rtag re ed an d gra n te d th e V illag e’s m ot ion . A p an el of t h is c ou rtaffirm ed , Sen ne v . Vill. o f P a la tine, Il li nois , 645 F.3d 9 1 9 ( 7 t h Cir. 2011), an d the full cou rtN o. 10

- 3243 3

O ur j uris dicti on is predicat ed on 28 U

. S. C. § 1291. 2 Indep. TrustC orp. v. St ewartInf o. Ser vs. C orp. , 665 F. 3d 930, 934 3 (7 th C ir . 20 1 2 ). gr anted r ehear i ng en banc. M r. Senne’ s a pp ealr equi re s 2 that w e e x am in e the sc ope o fthe DP PA ’ s pro tect i on of p er so n al in for m at ion co n ta in ed in m o t or ve h icle r e c o r d s a n d th e r e a c h o fi t s s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n s . We n o w c on c lu d e t h at th e p ar kin g t ick et atiss u e h er e d id c o n s t i t u t e a d i s c l o s u r e r e g u l a t ed b y th e D P P A, a n d we fur th era g r ee wi thM r . S enne tha t, a t th i s st ag e o fthe l i ti gat i on, the f acts as al l ege d are sufficie n t t o sta te a cl ai m th at th e di sc l o su r e o n hi s par k i ng ti ck et e xc e e d e d th a tp e r mi tt ed byth e s t a t u t e . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we r ev er se the j udg m en t o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t an d r emand f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts M r. S enne’ s co m pla in t, w hi ch w e m ust a ccept for prese nt purpose s a s t rue, al l ege s tha t, on A ugust 2 0, 3 201 0 , h i s v e hi c l e wa s p a r k e d o n a p ub l i c wa y i n v i ol ati on of t h e V illag e’s ov er n igh t p ar kin g b an . A t 1 :35 a.m ., a Pa l a t i ne p o l i c e o ffi c e r p l a c e d a p a r k i ngc i t a t i o n un der a windshi el d w ip er b l ade ofthe vehi cl e. The ci tat i on re m ain ed on th e w in d sh ield , in p u b l i c v i e w on a p u b lic w ay, un tilM r. Senn e retrieved i t som e fi ve h ou rs l ater.4 N o. 10

- 3243 The ti ckethad bee n printed e l ectr oni cal l y o n a pr eexi sting f or m . The pri nted i nfo rm ati on incl ud ed a date and ti m e s tam p, the offi cer ’s nam e a nd badge num ber an d the pa r k i ngo ffen se , whi chwas the b as i s fo r the ci ta ti o n. I t al so i nc l ude d v ar i o us i nf o r m at i o n ab outthe vehi cl e, i ncl ud i ng the m ake , m odel, co l or, ye ar, l i cense n u m b er an d ve h icl e i d en tific at ion n u m b er (“V IN ”). In add i ti on, and m ostr el evantt o th e presentcas e, the ci tati on incl ud ed pers onaldata about M r. S enne, wh om m o to r v eh i cl e recor ds sh o wed t o b e th e o wnero fthe i l l eg al l y pa r k ed ve hi cl e. S pec i fi ca l ly, the c i ta ti o n includ ed his full na m e , ad d ress, driver’s l icens e nu m ber, date o fbi rth, se x, hei ght a nd weight. The c i ta ti o n do ubl ed as a n e nv el o p e t o rem i t pay m en t ofthe fi ne, wh i ch, i fused as i ntended, w ou ld h av e d i spla yed the pri nted pers onali nfo rm at ion on i ts exter i or w h en m aile d

. It in st ru c te d M r. Se n n e th at h e c ou ld ei therpay the $ 20 fi ne i n pers on, m ail a c heck orm oney order usi ng the ti cketas an e nvel ope o r re quest a he ar i ngt o c o nt es t th e ci ta ti o n.

B. Dist r i ctCourtPro ceedi ngs A fte r re c eiv in g th e cita tio n, M r. Se n n e bro u g h t t h is ac ti o n in the di stri ctc o ur t. He a l l eg ed th atthe pa r k i ng ti cketam ounted to a disc l osur e o fpro tect ed pers onal in for m at ion by th e V illag e in vio lat ion of t h e D P P A . H is com pla i nt r eque sted, f orhi m sel fand a putat i ve cl ass , s t a t u t o r y l i q u i d a t e d d a ma g e s a n d i nj u n c t i v e r e l i e f

. He al so re quested l i m i ted, expedit ed dis cove ryr elat i ng to th e to ta l numbe r o fpa r k i ngc i ta ti o ns i ssu ed bytheN o. 10

- 3243 5

R
. 37 at 4. 4 Vi l l ag e i n the r el ev an t p er i o d. S ho r tly the r ea fte r, he m ove d fo r a t em pora ryr est rai ni ng o rderand prel i m i nary i nj u n c tio n p ro hi bi ti ng the Vi l l age f ro m pr i nt i nga ny pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n, a s defi ne d b y the DP PA , o n i ts parking ci tat i ons. I n re sponse, the Vil l age filed a m oti on t o dism i ss f o r f ai l ur e to s tate a c l ai m unde r Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6)

. I t co nten d ed that the p arking tic k e t w as a p erm itted disclosu re und erthr ee separ ate cat egories i n the sta tute: I t was a di scl osur e ( 1) “[ f ] oruse by a[ ] go ver nm ent a gency, i nc l udi nga [ ]
. . . l aw e nf o r ce m en t ag en cy, i n c ar r y i ng out i ts functi ons, ” a s per m i tte d by § 27 21(b) ( 1); (2) “[ f ] or use in connect i on with m atter s ofm oto r vehi cl e o r d riv er sa fety, ” a s per m i tte d by § 27 21(b) ( 2) ; and ( 3) “[ f ] oruse i n connect i on w i th anyci vi l [ ]
. . . [ or ] adm i ni str ati ve[ ]
. . . pro ceedi ng . . ., i ncl ud i ng the se rv i ce o fpro cess , ” a s per m i tte d by § 27 21(b) (4). The Vi l l age l ate r clarified th at it did n ot con ced e tha t a n y disclosu re ha d o cc ur r ed, o th ertha n t o the pl aint i ff, who was the s ubj e c to fthe r e c o r d. I n a b rie fo r alr ul i ng, the di st r i ctc o ur t ag r ee d wi ththe V illag e a n d d ism iss ed th e c a s e . Th e c ou rtsp ec ifica lly he l d tha t th e par k i ngt i ck etdi d no t f al l wi th i n the ambi t o fthe s ta tu te b ec au se i ts i ss ua nc e di d no t co nsti tute a di scl osur e. In the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s view , “what the st a t u t e i s t a l k i n gab o u ti s w h a tp e o p l e w o u l d c o mm onl y c al l a disclos u re , wh i ch i s turni ng so m ethi ng o ver to so m eb od y e lse .” A lth ou gh th e c ou r t f o u n d th is b as is 4 su ffici en t an d con clud ed th at reach ing th e statu tory6 N o. 10

- 3243

A dki ns v. VIM R ecycl i ng, Inc. , 6 4 4 F .3d 48 3 , 49 2 (7t h C ir . 20 1 1 ). 5 Id. at 492- 93. 6 The par t i es r ai s e no i s s ue with r es pec tt o the ade qua c y ofthe 7 all egati ons i n the com plaintund er A shc ro f t v. Iqbal, 556 U

. S. 662 (2 0 0 9 ). ex cep tions w as u nn eces sary, it also he ld th at § 2721 (b)( 1), re l ating to a l aw enf or cem ent a gencycar ry i ng o u t i ts functi ons, would exem pt any d iscl osur e m ade thr ough the p a r k i ngc i t a t i o n. Mr
. S e nn e t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew de n ov o the di str i ct c ourt ’ s e ntryo fj ud gme n to n a m o 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. 5 W e m ust co ns tr u e th e co m pla i nt i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o th e p lain tiff a n d m u s t d r a w all rea so n ab le i nfer en ce s i n h i s f av o r . Ta k i ng the f ac ts o fthe c o m pl aint 6 as tr ue, the Vil l age co ntends thatthe DP PA pro vi des no ba sis for rel ief

. 7 The Vi l l ag e co nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j ud gm en t ought to be a ffirm ed f ortwo r eas ons. Fi rs t, i t s ubm i ts that the pr i nti ng o fM r. S enne’ s per sonali nfo rm ati on o n th e c ita tio n an d th e p lac em en t o f th at c i t at ion on h is wi n d s h i e l d d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a d i s c l o s u r e u n d er t he A ct. S eco nd , i t s ubm i ts th at , in any e vent, the acti on spe c i fi c a l l y wa s p e r mi t t e d b y th e e x c e p t i o n s t o the ge n er al lim ita tio n on d isc los u re in t h e s ta tu te . W e s h all addr es s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.N o. 10

- 3243 7

Sect ion 2725( 3) ofti tl e 18 defines “pers onal i nf orm ati on” as 8 inf orm ati on thatid enti fie s an individual, i ncluding an individu al’ s phot og r a ph, s oc ial s ecuri ty num ber, driver i dent i fi c at i on num ber, na m e, ad dre s s ( butno tthe 5- di gi tzi p c ode) , t el ephone num ber, an d m edi c al or (co n tin u ed ...) A. W he t hert he T i c ke ti s a Di s c l o s ur e Re g ul a t e d b y t he DPPA “A s in a n y c as e o f st at u to ry co n st ru c tio n, ou r an aly sis begins with the l anguage of t h e statute
. ” H ughes A ir craft Co. v. Jac ob s on , 52 5 U.S

. 43 2, 43 8 ( 1999 ) (i nter nal quotati o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. Spec ifi ca l l y, we be g i n b y l o o k i ng br o adl y a t th e stru ctur e o fthe s ta tu te t o a cqui r e anunderst anding ofthe acti vi ty that i t r egul ate s. “Inter preta ti on of a w or d or p h r a s e d e p en d s u p on rea d in g t h e w h ole sta tutory t ext, co nsi deri ng the purpose and context of th e s tatute[ ]
. . . . ” Dol a n v . Un i t e d S t a t e s Po s t a l Se r v. , 546 U

. S. 481, 486 (2006 ). S ec ti o n 2 72 1 co nt ains the s ubs ta nt i ve pr o hibi ti o ns an d rele va n t e x c ep tio n s t h at p rin c ip ally co n c er n u s. It begins w ith a gen eral restriction on the release of in form at i o n b ya s t a t eD MV: (a) In gen eral.

- - A S tat e depar tm ent o fm oto r ve hi cl es , a nd a ny offi ce r, e m pl o y ee , o r c o ntr acto r ther eof, shal l notk n owingl y di scl ose oro ther w i se m ake ava i l abl e t o any per son or enti ty: ( 1) per sonali nfo rm ati on, a s d efi ned i n 18 U. S

. C. 2 7 2 5 ( 3 ) , [ ] ab o uta nyi nd i v i du al 88 N o. 10

- 3243

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 di s a bi l i t y i nfor m a t i on, bu tdo e s n oti nc l ude i nfor m at i on on veh i c ul ar ac ci dent s , dri vi ng vi ol at i ons , an d d riv er’s statu s. “[H ]ighly restricted p erso na l inform atio n,” as d efined in 9 18 U .S. C. § 27 25 ( 4) , “m ea ns ani ndi vi dual ’ s phot ogr aph or im ag e, s ocia l secur ity n u m b er, [ an d ] m ed ical or d isab ility inf orm ati on. ” The partie s are i n a greem ent thatthi s cat egory ofi nf or m at i on, an d the r es t ri c t i ons appl i c abl e t o i t, ar e not at i ss ue in the pres ent cas e. obt ai ned by the depart m ent in connec ti on w i th a m oto r vehi cl e r eco rd, exce pt as provide d i n su bsec tion (b) of this section; or ( 2) hi g hl y r es tr i ct ed per so na l i nf o r m at i o n, as de fi ne d i n 1 8 U. S

. C. 2 72 5( 4) , [ ] abo ut 9 any ind i vidual obt ai ned by the depart

m e n t in co n n ec tio n w ith a m ot or ve h icle rec or d, w i thout the e xpress conse nt o f the perso n to wh om such info rm ati on a pp l i es, exce pt u ses p er m i tte d i n subsect ions (b )( 1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): P rov ided , Th at su b se c tio n (a)(2 ) sh all n otin any way affect the use o fo rg an don at i on inform at ion on an i nd ivi d ua l’ s d river’ s li cen se or affect th e ad m inist ration of or

gan donat i on ini ti ati ves i n the St ate s. 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 2 7 2 1 ( a )

. S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) d e fi n e s v a r i o us e xcepti ons, to wh i ch w e s hal l r etur n in s om e deta i l

. I fan ex c ep ti on in subsec ti on (b) per m i ts disc l osur e bya sta te DM V to a s peci fi c se cond p ar ty , subse cti on ( c) thenN o. 10

- 3243 9

S u b se c t i o n s ( d ) a n d (e ) r e l a t e to w a i v e r s o f t h e st a t u t e ’s 10 r e s t r i c t i on s by the s ub j e c to fthe r e c or d, a nd l i m i t a t i on s by w hich the State m ay ob tai n such waivers; nei ther i s cl aim ed to be i n is sue i n the prese nt c ase . r egul at es the s epa r at e acti vi tytha t o cc ur s when th e r e cipi e nt o f a r ec o r d fr o m th e DM V i s r es po ns ibl e for a seco nd ar y di scl osur e to a thi rd party. S peci fi cal l y, subsect i on ( c) al l ows f orautho ri zed r eci pie nts t o “r ese l l o r re disc l ose the i nfo rm ati on onl y fo r a use p er m i tte d und er subsect i on (b) , ” with furtherexcep tio ns and r equi re m en ts th at ne ed not d etain us. B oth su bsec tion (a) an d ( c), 10 th erefore, regu late a particu lar kind of d isclosure an d direct th e d etails ofthat regulation to su bsec tion (b). Ou r exam i nati on o fthe sta tute’ s s tr ucture brings i nto f ocus the pr eci se conte xt i n wh i ch the prese nt cas e ar i se s. The i ni ti aldi sc l o su r e by th e I l l i no i s DM V t o the pol i ce de partm ent, o r som e o therag ency thro ugh w hi ch the pol i ce depar tm ent ob ta i ned i ts re cor d, i s g over n ed by su b se c tio n s (a ) a n d (b); w e d isc er n n o c laim i n this c ase thatthi s t ra nsacti on vi ol ate d the s tatute. I nste a d, we a r e c o nc e r ne d wi th the s e c o nd a r y a c to f th e Vi l l ag e’ s po l i ce de par tmenti n pl ac i ngthe c i ta ti o n, whi chi nc l ude d M r . S enne ’ s per so na l i nform at i o n, o n the w i nd shi el d. W i th thatcl ar i fi cati on, w e tu rn to the fi rs t q u es tio n p re se n te d : w h et h er th e p ar k i n g c ita tio n co n st ituted a disc l osur e that the st atute r egul ate s. The sta tute does not define a disc l osur e, but i t d oes provi de us, i n co n text, with s uffi ci ent info rm ati on t o d isc er n th e m ea n in g of t h e t er m . Sm ith v . Z a c ha ry, 25 5 F.3d 446 , 448 (7th C ir. 2001) (“[ T ]he m ean ing of statu tory10 N o. 10

- 3243 l ang ua g e , p l a i n o r n o t, de pe nd s o n c o nt e xt
. I ti s a fund am entalcano n ofst atuto ryco nstr ucti on that the word s o f a s tatute m u st be re ad i n thei r conte xt and w i th a vi ew to thei r pla ce in the ove ra l l st atuto rysche m e. ” ( i nter nal qu otation m arks om itted ) (citations om itted ))

. Th e term “di sclose” i s fi r stus ed i n s ubs ec ti o n ( a) , i n the s ta tu
to r y pr o hibi ti on on ini ti aldi sc l o su r es . In tha t se ct i o n, the sta tute f orbi ds a state D M V fro m “know i ngl y di scl os[ i ng] oro th er w i se m ak[ i ng] ava i l abl e t o any per son orenti ty” pr o t e c t e d p e r s o n a l i n f o r ma t i o n . In o u r v i e w, a t t a c h i ng th e term s “or otherw ise m ake ava il able” to the term “di sc l o se ” l ea ve s l i tt l e do ubtabo utthe b r ea dtho fthe tr ansact i ons Congre ss i ntended to re gul ate
. Fur ther m or e, w e be l i eve it appropri ate to r ead the sta tute’ s l ate r use ofthe term “ d i scl ose ” a nd o f“r edi scl ose ” a s s hor thand ed re fer ences backto subse cti on ( a) and the bro ad l angu age empl o y ed th er e. S o r ea d, i t i s cl ea r tha t Con

gr ess i ntended to i ncl ud e withi n t h e statute’ s r each the kin d o fpubli cati on o fi nfo rm ati on that o ccurr ed here , nam el y, the pla cem ent o fthe pri nted ci ta ti on o n M r . S e nn e ’ s wi nd s hi e l d. The Vi l l ag e ne ve r th el es s m aintai ns tha t pl ac i ngthe ti cketo n th e w i nd shi el d did not effect a “ disc l os[ ur] e” w i thi n the m eani ng of the s tatute, pri nci pal l y b ecause M r. Se nne has f ai l ed to al l ege that anyo ne othe r than he, the s ubj ect ofthe re cor d, actual l y s aw i t. W e a re not persuaded by thi s a rgum ent. Firs t, such a n i nter preta
ti on i gnor es the b road l anguage em plo yed byCongr ess to de fi ne a nd r egul at e di sc l o su r es . S ec o nd , suc h a r ea di ngtur ns the s ta tu to r y s tructure on i ts he ad. The def au l t r ul e o fthe s ta tu te i s th atthe DM V , a nd a ny p er so n or en tit y au th or ize d to vie w its re c or d s , isN o. 10

- 3243 11 pro hib ited fro m shar i ng th e inf or m ati on. The st atute th en a u t h o riz es speci fi c di scl osur es

— e a c h o fwh i c h, a s we shor tl y s hal l exam i n e, has a l i m i ted o bj ect and a l i m i ted c las s o f rec ip ien ts
. See 18 U
. S. C. § 27 21 ( b)

. To s ugges t that the mea ning o f the t e r m “ di s c l o s e ” i s s o l i mi t e d as to take th e act of publicat i on o fpro tect ed i nfo rm ati on o ut si de th e st atut e’ s r ea ch b ecaus e no s pec i fi c r ec i pi en t i s p r o v e n s i mp l y mi s u n d e r s t a n d s th e t e x t ua l s c h e me that Congre ss has forg ed

. The acti on a l l ege d here , p lac in g t h e in for m at ion on t h e w in d sh ield of th e v eh icle i n pl ain v i ew o n a pub l i c w ay, is c er ta i nl y s uffi ci en t to com e w i thi n the acti vi ty re gul ate d by the st atute r egar dle ss ofwh et h erano therper son vi ew ed the i nfo rm ati on o r w hetherl aw enf or cem ent intended itto be view ed o nl y b y M r . S enne hi m se l f

. The r ea l e ffec t o fthe p lacem en t of th e ticket w as to m ake avail able M r. Senn e’s m oto r vehi cl e r eco rd to any passer -by. Thi s s or t o fpubl i cati on i s ce rt ai nl y forbi dd en bythe sta tute. The Vil l age al so m ake s a fi na l, re l ate d argum ent that, in orde r to form the ba s is for l iabil ity, any d isclosure m u st h av e be en m ad e k n o w i n gly

. See 18 U
. S. C. § 2 724( a) ( “A per son w ho know i ngl y obtains, di scl os es o r uses perso na l in for m ati on, fro m a m oto r vehi cl e r eco rd, f or a pu rpos e not perm i tte d under thi s chaptersh all be li able to the ind ivi d ua l to w hom the inform ation p ertains[ ]
. . . . ”)

. A ccor ding to the Vil l age , because the o ffi cer w ho pl aced the ti cket on the w i nd shi el d di d no t know that an y o ne o the r tha n M r . S e nn e wo ul d v i e w i t, the r e c a n be n o l i ab i l i ty
. Th i s a r g u me n td o e s n o tp e r s u a d e u s f o r t wo re aso ns. Fi rs t, i t r est s on the Vil l age ’ s e rr oneo us not i on that, i n or der fora disc l osur e t o occur , t here m ust be an iden tified recip ient. Second , i t fun d am en tally m isun d er-12 N o. 10

- 3243
sta nd s the te rm “know i ngl y. ” V ol untaryact i on, not kn ow led ge of illega lity or p ot en tia l co n se q u en c e s, is su fficie n t t o s at isfy th e m en s re a ele m en t of th e D P P A

. See Pi c h l e rv . UNI TE , 542 F. 3d 380, 396- 97 ( 3d C ir. 2008) (disc ussi ng the ter m “kno w i ngl y” as i t i s used i n the civil liab ility p r o v i s i o n s o f th e D P P A an d find in g t h at kn ow led ge of il legali ty is not an elem en t).

B. W hethert he Statute A uthor i zed t he D i scl osur e 1. Ha v i n gd e te r m i n e d th a tth e r e wa s a d i s c l o s u r e , we now turn to w he th er the p olic e de p artm en t’s disclosu re ofM r. S enne’ s m oto r vehi cl e re cor d vi ol ate d the s tatute. Thi s ta ska l so i s ba si ca l l y o ne o fs ta tu to r y c o ns truct i o n. W e f o cus o n the l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te , tur ni ng to § 2721 ( b) , w hi ch conta i ns the unive rs e o f r equi re d and perm i ssibl e di scl osur es: ( b) Perm i ssible uses . - - Pers onali nfo rm ati on r efer re d to i n subsec ti on (a) shal lbe disc l ose d fo r u se in c on n ec ti o n w i th m at te rs of m ot or ve h icle ord ri versa fetyand theft, m oto r vehi cl e e m i ssi ons, m otor vehic l e pr oduct al ter ati ons, r ecal l s, oradvi sor i es, per f or m ance m oni tor i ng o fm oto r veh icl es an d d ealers by m otor veh icl e m an ufac tu rer s, and r em ova l o fnon- own err eco rds fro m th e o r i g i na l o wner r ec o r ds o f m o to r ve hi cl e m an uf ac tu r er s to c ar r y o utthe p urpos es o ft i tl es Ia nd I V ofthe A ntiCar Th eft A ct o f19 92, the A utom ob ile I nfo rm ati on Di scl osur e Act ( 15 U
. S. C. 1231 et seq
. ), the C lean A ir A ct (42 U

. S. C

. 7401 et se q .),N o. 10

- 3243 13 and chapters 30 1, 30 5, and 321

- 331 o f t i tl e 4 9, and, subj ect to subse cti on (a) ( 2) , m ay be di scl ose d as f ol l ows: ( 1) Fo r use byany gov er nm ent a gency, i nc l udi nga ny c o ur t o r l aw e nf o r cem ent ag en cy, i n ca r r y i ng o uti ts func ti o ns , o r a ny p ri v a t e p er so n or en tit y a c tin g on be h alf ofa Feder al, S tat e, or l oca l age ncy i n car ry i ng o ut i ts functi ons. ( 2) Fo r use in connection with m att er s o f mot o r v e hi c l e o r dr i v e r s a fe t y a nd theft; m ot or ve h icle em iss ion s; m ot or ve h icle product al te ra ti ons, r ecal l s, o r advi sor i es; perf or m ance m oni tor i ng o fm oto r vehi cl es, m oto r vehi cl e par ts and deal er s; m oto r v e hi c l e ma r k e tr e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i es, i nc l ud

i ng sur veyr ese ar ch; and re m ov al of non- own er rec or d s fro m th e o rig in al ow ner re cor ds ofm oto r vehi cl e m anufa cture rs . ( 3) Fo r use in the no rm alco urse o fbusi ness b y a l e g i t i ma t e b u s i n e s s o r i t s a g e n t s , e mp loyees, or cont ractors, but only-- ( A) t o verify the accu racy of perso na l i nf o r m at i o n s ubmi t t e d b y the i nd i vi du alto the busi ness ori ts age nts, em p l oy ees , o r contr acto rs ; an d ( B) i fsuch info rm at ion a s s o subm i tte d i s no t cor re ct ori s no l onge r correct, to obta in th e correct infor-14 N o. 10

- 3243

m ati on, but onl y forthe pu rpos es o fpr ev en tingfr au d b y, pur su i ng legal rem ed ies against, orrecoveri ng o n a debto r secur i ty i nter est ag ain st, th e in d ivid u al. ( 4) For u se in c on n ec tio n w ith a n y c ivil, cri m i nal, adm i ni str ati ve, o r arbitralpro ceed ing in an y Fed eral, State, or l ocal cou rt or agen cy or before an y s elf-regulatory b o dy, i nc l ud i ngthe s e r v i c e o fp r o c ess , i nv es ti g at i o n in a nt i ci pat i o n o fl i ti g at i o n, and the e xecuti on o r enf or cem ent ofj ud gm ents and or ders, o r pu rs uant to an o rder ofa Feder al, S tat e, o r l oca l co urt. ( 5) Fo r use in re sea rch acti vi ti es, and f or us e i n pr o ducing st at i st i ca l r epo r ts , s o l o ng as the per sonal i nfo rm ati on i s no t publ i shed, r edi scl ose d, oruse d to co ntact i nd i vi du al s. ( 6) F o r u s e b y a nyi ns ur e r o r i ns ur a nce supp or t organi zati on, o r by a s el f

- i nsured enti ty, o r i ts age nts, em plo yee s, o r contr actor s, i n connect i on with cl ai m s invest i gati on ac tiv itie s, an tifr au d ac tiv itie s, ra ting o r und er w ri ti ng. ( 7) F o r us e i n pr o vi di ngno ti ce t o the o wner s o fto w ed ori m pound ed vehi cl es. ( 8) For u se b y an y l ice n se d p riv at e in ve st igat i ve age ncy o r l i censed s ecuri ty ser vi ce for an y p u rp os e p er m itt ed u n d er th is su bs ec ti o n.N o. 10

- 3243 15 ( 9) Fo r u se b y a n em plo yero r i ts age nt o r i nsurer t o obta i n orve ri fy info rm ati on re l ating to a hol der o fa com m er ci al dri ver ’ s l i cense that i s r equi re d und er chapter31 3 o fti tl e 4 9. ( 10) Fo r use in connect i on with the oper ati on o fp ri vate tol l tr anspor tat i on f aci l i ti es. ( 11) Fo r an y othe r use in re sponse to re qu e s t s f o r i nd i v i du a l mo t o r v e hi c l e r e c o r ds i fthe S ta te ha s o bt aine d the e xpr es s co nsent ofthe perso n to wh om such p er sonal i nfo rm ati on per tains. ( 12) For bul k dist ributi on f orsu rv eys , m a r k e t i ng o r s o l i c i t a t i o ns i f the S t a t e has obt ai ned the e xpress conse nt o fthe perso n to w hom su ch p erson al inform atio n pertains. ( 13) For use by any r equeste r, i fthe re que st erde m o ns tr at es i t ha s o bt aine d the w ri tte n conse nt ofthe i nd i vi du alto wh om the info rm ati on per tains. ( 14) Fo r any o theruse spe ci fi cal l y a uthor i z e d u nd e r the l a w o fthe S t a t e tha th o l ds th e r ec o r d, i fs uch us e i s r el at ed to the o p er at ion of a m ot or ve h icle or p u b lic sa fet y. 18 U

. S. C

. § 2721(b). Agains t the b ac k dr o p o fthe g en er alr ul e pr o hibi ting disc l osur es i n subsec ti on ( a) , subse cti on (b) pro vi des16 N o. 10

- 3243

O n a p p eal, the V illag e no lon g er asserts th a t a n y d is- 11 cl o su re w a s p er m itt ed u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 2 7 2 1 (b )(2). both a c ate gory o fm and ato rydi scl osur es and seve ra l c at eg or ies of p er m iss ive d isc los u re s. See G rac z ykv. West Publ ’g Co. , 6 60 F
. 3d 275, 2 80 (7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( i den ti fy i ng the s tatute’ s “ counter vai l i ng purpose ” a s “al l ow[i ng] l egi ti m ate user s t o acces s the r eco rds”)

. The per m iss ive disc l osur es num berf ourt een in totaland cov era ra nge ofpurposes and re ci pie nts incl ud i ng publ i c ent i ti es, i n s u r e r s , l i c e n s e d p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s an d c e r t a i n c o mm er ci aluser s s uch as bul k m ar ket er s. On app eal, the Vil lag e c ontend s that the pl acem ent o f the c i tat i on o n M r. S enne’ s windshi el d w as perm i tte d und erthe sta tute eit h er bec ause the di scl osur e was “[f] or u se by a[] . .
. law en for c em en t a ge n c y [] in car ry i ng out its fu ncti ons, ” i d. § 2721 ( b) ( 1) , o r “[ f ] oruse inco n n ec tio n w ith an y c ivil[] . . . [or ] ad m in ist ra tiv e[] . .
. proce edi ng . . . , i ncl ud i ng the se rv i ce o fpro cess , ” i d. § 2721 ( b) ( 4)

. The Vi l l ag e do es no t des cr ibe i n a ny 11 l ength how al l the i nfo rm ati on printed o n t h e t i cket ser ved e ith er purpose; i nstea d, i t m ai ntai ns, i n effect, th atthe st atute do es no t r equi r e th ata na l y si s. In the Vil l age ’ s v i ew , as l ong as it can i denti fy a subse cti on o f th e l aw un derwhi ch s o med isc los u re i s p er m itt ed , any di sc l o su r e o fi nf o r m at i o n o th er wi se pr o te ct ed bythe statu te is exem p t, w he th er i t s e r v e s an ide nt ified p urpose ornot
. W e c a nn o ta c c e ptthe V i l l a g e ’ s p o s i t i o n. As we a l r e a dy have expla i ned, i t i s nec ess ar y to vi ew ea ch pro vi si on in c ont ex t, wi tha n e y e to war d i ts c o nt r ibut i o n t o theN o. 10

- 3243 17

“ o v e r a l l s t a t ut o r y s c he me. ” S eeSm ith , 25 5 F
. 3d at 448 (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). H ere, th e stat u t e’s p u rp os e, cle ar fro m i t s la n gu ag e a lon e, is to p re ve n t a ll bu t a l im ited ran ge of au th orized d is closure s of inform ati on co nt ain ed i n i nd i vi du alm oto r vehi cl e r eco rds. It is n ec es sa ry t h a t w e re sp ec t t h is t ex tu ally ex p licit pur p ose as we ev al ua te the c o ve r ag e o fthe e xc ept i o ns w i thi n the sta tute’ s br oad m andate. Bo tho fthe e xc ept i o ns tha t th e Vi l l ag e i dentifi es , a l o ng w ith m os t o f th e o th er ex c ep tio n s i n th e s ta tu te , beg in w i th the phrase “[f]or use. ” In the Vil l age ’ s v i ew , thes e w or ds supp l y no m ea ni ng to the sta tutory t ext o ther th anto l i nkg r amm at i ca l l y the “ m ayb e di sc l o se d” l an guage i n the i ntro du c tory par agr aph of§ 2721 ( b) to the speci fi c pu rpos es and r eci pie nts i denti fi ed in its subsect i ons. W e be l i eve thatthi s ex p lanati on i s unsat i sf acto ry . A bas i c can on o f co nstr ucti on r equi re s us to giv e m e a n i n g to ev er y w or d of a s ta tu te
. Se eD unc an v. Wa lk er, 533 U .S. 16 7, 17 4 (2 00 1). M or eo ve r, an d es p ec i a l ly i n l i ght o fthe parti c u lar st atuto ryst ructur e her e that set s for th such a br oad p ro hibi ti on a gainst di scl osur e, th e ex ce pti o ns s ho ul d no t be r ea d t o e viscer at e th e r u l e th e y mo d i fy . T h e w o r d s “ [ f ] o r u s e ” pe r f o r m a cri ti calfuncti on in the sta tu te and contain the necessa r y l i m i tingpr i nc i pl e th atpr es er ve s th e f o rce o fthe gener alpro hibi ti on wh i l e per m i tting the di scl osur es co m pat ibl e wi ththa t pr o hibi ti o n. Speci fi c all y, wh en the st atuto ryl anguage sa ys that a d isclosure is auth orized “[f]or use b y a[ ]
. . . l aw enf or cemen ta g e nc y [ ] i n c a r r y i ngo uti t s fun c t i o ns , ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2721 (b)( 1) ( emphas i s adde d) , tha t l an g ua g e m ea ns18 N o. 10

- 3243 that the a ctuali nfo rm atio n dis cl ose d

— i
. e. , the discl osur e a s i t e xi ste d i n f act

— m u st be info rm at ion th at is used f orthe i d en tifie d pu rpos e. W hen a parti cul arpi ece ofdi scl ose d i nfo rm ati on i s no t us ed to effectuat e that pu rpos e in an y w ay, the excepti on pro vi des no prot ecti on f orthe disc l osing par ty
. In shor t, an a uthor i zed re ci pie nt, f aced with a g ener alpro hib ition aga i nst fu rt h er d isc los u re , ca n d isc l o s e th e in for m at ion on ly i n a m anner that does not exc e e d thes co pe o ft he au th or ize d st at u to ry ex c ep tio n . Th e d isc l o su re ac tu ally m ade und er the excepti on m ust be com patibl e w ith th e pu rp ose of the ex cep tion. O th erw ise, the s t a t ut e’s pur po se o fs afegua r di ngi nf o r m at i o n f o r s ec ur i tya nd safetyr eas ons, co ntai ned i n the gener alp ro h ibi ti on a g a i ns tdi s c l o s ur e , i s fr us t r a t e d. Anothe r pa r t o fthe s ta tu tor y l an g ua g e su ppo r ts o ur con c l us i o n. As we h a v e n o t e d, the s t a t ut e p r o v i des eve n gr eat erpro tect i on t o a speci alcl ass o fdata re fer re d to as “h igh ly re st ric te d p er so n al in for m at ion .” 18 U. S

. C. § 2 72 1( a) ( 2)

. S uchi nf o r m at i o n inc l ude s ani ndi vi dual ’ s so ci als ec ur i ty number, pho to g r apha nd m edi calo r disabi l i ty i nfo rm ati on. Id. § 2725 ( 4)

. Fo r thi s cl ass o fi nfo rm at ion , the sta tute al l ows f oracc ess und ero nl y four ofthe l i ste d fo urte en exce pti ons, i nc l ud i ngb o ththe g o ve r nm en t func ti o n e xc ept i o n a nd th e c ou rtp ro c es s e x c ep tio n atiss u e in th is c as e. Id. § 2 721( a) ( 2) ( l i sting as per m i ssibl e u se s those descr ibed i n § 2721 ( b) ( 1) and ( 4) )

. Cl ear l y, thi s s ecti on r eco gn ize s the go ver nm ent’ s l egi ti m ate need f orbr oader ac c es s t o p er so n al in for m at ion th an th e s ta tute o the r wi s e p r o v i de s . Ne v e r the l e ss , i tdo e s n o tp r o v i de unli m i ted autho ri ty f orl aw enfo rce m ent t o acces s o rN o. 10

- 3243 19

W e pause t o em phasize thatw e do not read “use” to m ean 12

“ ne c e s s a r y us e , ” n ordo we r e q ui r e the Vi l l a ge t o a do pt som e f orm of“bestpracti ces ” not c om m and ed b y the s tatute. d iss em in at e t h e in for m at ion . In st ea d , th e s ta tu te m er ely a l l o ws tha tc e r t a i n e nt i t i e s , i nc l ud i ngl a w e nfo r c e m ent, m ay both need and use m or e k i n ds of i nfo rm ati on th an oth er au th or ize d u se rs , withi n the lim i t at i ons of the exi s t i ng exc ept i ons . The fact thatthe sta tute m ai ntai ns f orhi ghl y r est ri cted perso nal i nfo rm ati on t h e exi sting exce pti ons f oruse an d di ss emi na ti o n pr o vi des fur th ers uppo r t f o r the view that the ex cep tions m us t be read narrow ly. I f, i nstea d, w e were to re ad t h e e xcepti ons as bro adlyas the Vi l l age as ser ts, t he effect ofthe “hi ghl y r est ri cted perso nal i nfo rm ati on ” se cti on would be thatthe offi cer coul d have prin ted M r. S enne’ s photo gr aph and soci al se c u rit y nu m b er on th e cita tio n an d left it op e n t o p u b lic vie w . W e d ec lin e t o r e a d t h is s ta tu te , w ith a c h ief a im ofpri vacy pro tect i on, to al l ow such a danger ous r esul t. Se eC ity o

f Chi cago v . U ni t e d S t at e s D ep’ tof theTr e as ury, B u r e a u o f A l c o h o l, To b a c c o & F i r e a r ms , 42 3 F
. 3d 77 7, 781 ( 7th Cir

. 2005 ) ( noti ng that w e w i l l not re ad a s ta tute to thw art C ong ress’s m an ifest inten t). W e co nc l ude th atthe t ex t o fthe s ta tu te l i m i ts the conte nt of author i zed disc l osur es of prot ect ed i nfo rm ati on in m oto r vehi cl e r eco rds thro ugh i ts re quir em ent, c l e a r o n i t s f a c e , tha t a ny s uc h di s c l o s ur e be ma de “[ f ] oruse” i n effecting a parti cul arpurpose exem pted by the Act. 1220 N o. 10

- 3243

S ee, e. g. , The Dri ver’s Pri vacy Prot ec t i on A ctof 1993: Hear i ng on 13 H .R . 33 6 5 B efore th e S u b co m m . on C ivil & C on stitution al R igh ts o f t heH. Comm. o n theJudi ci ary (“ H ea ri ng on H.R. 3365 ”) , 103d Cong. , 2d S es s . , 19 94 W L 2 12 69 8 ( Fe b. 4, 19 94 ) ( s t at em en tof R ep . J a m es P . M o ra n ); Hea ri ng on H.R. 3365, 1994 W L 212813 ( Feb . 3, 1994) ( st atem ent ofJ anlori G oldm an, D ir ect or, Privacy a n d T ec h n o lo g y P ro jec t, A m er ic a n C iv il L ib er tie s U n io n ). 2. A l though a n anal ysi s o fthe sta tutory t ext pr ovi des us wi th a cl ea r a ns wert o o uri nqui r y, we no te tha t th e li m ited legisl ative hist o r y prov ides significant sup p ort f o r o ur co nc l us i o n. S pec i fi ca l l y, i t i s cl ea r th atsafety a nd secur i ty co ncer ns as soc i ate d w i th exce ssi ve disc l osur es ofp er sonali nfo rm ati on hel d by the S tat e in m oto r vehi cl e r eco rds were th e pr i m ar y i ssue to be r em edi ed b y t h e le gis lat ion
. Se e, e . g. , 140 C o n g . R ec . H 25 26 (d aily ed. A pr. 20, 1994 ) ( sta tem ent of Rep. Por te r G oss ) (“T h e in te n t o f th is leg isla tio n is sim p le

-- to pr o te ctthe perso nal pri vacyand safetyo fal l A m eri can l i censed dri vers . ”)

. In hear i ngs he l d i n the H ouse Subco m m i tte e on Ci vi l and Consti tuti onal Rights, num er ous witnesse s tes ti fi ed re gar ding the g ra ve conse quences o fo pen a c c e s s t o g o v e r n me n tr e c o r d s o fp e r s o n a l i n f o r ma ti o n. N o t su r pr i sing l y, m an y w itness es m en tio ne d the m ur derof a n a ct r es s, Re be cc a S ch ae ffer, b y a s ta l k erwho ha d o bt aine d he r unl i st ed ho m e addr es s th r o ug h the Cali f or ni a DM V, a cri m e that was view ed a s a cat al yst f o r both st at e l aw pr i va cypr o te ct i o ns a nd the DPPA i ts el f

. Othe r wi tn es se s te st i fi ed ab o utthe i m pac t o fthe

13 av aila b ility of D M V rec or d s o n th e s afe ty of d om es ticN o. 10

- 3243 21

Hea ri ng on H.R. 3365 , 19 94 W L 21 28 22 ( Fe b. 3, 19 94 ) ( s t at em en t 14 of D av id B eatt y , D i recto r of Pu b lic A ff airs, N atio na l V ictim C en te r). Hea ri ng on H
. R
. 3365 , 19 94 W L 21 28 33 ( Fe b. 3, 19 94 ) ( s t at em en t 15 ofD o nald L

. Cahill, Legisl ati ve Ch air m an, Frate rnal O rder o f P o lic e). Hea ri ng on H
. R
. 3365 , 1994 W L 21 26 98 ( Fe b. 4, 1994 ) ( s t at em en t 16 o f R ep . Ja m es P . M o ra n ); se e al so, e . g. , Hea ri ng on H.R. 3365, 1994 W L 212701 ( Feb. 4, 1994 ) ( st atem ent ofD avid F

. Snyd er, Ass i s t antGene ra l Couns el, Am er i c an I ns ur anc e Ass oc i at i on) ( “ We s u p p o r tth i s l e g i s l a t i o n b e c a u s e i tm a y , a tl e a s tt o s o me exten t, p rev e n t v iolen t crim e.”); 139 C on g . R ec. S15,76 2 (d aily ed. N ov. 16, 199 3 ) ( st atem ent ofSen. Barb ara Boxer) (ci tin g sim ila r in ci d en ts). vi o l en ce v i ct i m s a nd l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s an d 14 the i r f am i l i e s t a r g e t e d fo r r e t r ib ut i o n. Al s o me nt i o ne d, 15 ho wev er, wer e m ore random a ct s o fv i o l en ce , i nc l udi ng a c r i me s p r e e o fh o me i n v a s i o n r o b b e r i e s i n I o wa th at bega n w he n tee na gers took d o w n li cen se nu m bers ofexpensi ve vehi cl es an d then ob tained the r egi ste re d ow n er s’ h om e a d d r e s s es from D M V rec or d s. T h e b ill, 16 i t s eem s, was vi ew ed pred om i nantl y a s a publi c sa fety m eas ure. N ot surpri si ngl y, the A ct’ s e xpand ed auth or i ty f or l a w en f o r c e me n tw a s a n i mp o r t a n tp a r to fth e s a me narr ati ve. Pro vi ding l aw enf or cem ent with re cor ds as a t o o l i n c a r r y i ngo utthe i r mi s s i o n wa s v i e we d a s a n a pp ro p ria te p iec e o f th e c r i m e -c on tr ol st ra te gy th e b ill22 N o. 10

- 3243

Lo oking at all of the available his tory, ther e is no quest ion that 17 the exc ep tio n f or l aw enf orcem ent acce ss to rec ords w as v ie w ed as a c ri tic a l e le m en t in th e b ill ’s a tt em p t to “b a la n ce . . . the l eg i t im ate g ove rn m en t al an d bus i ne s s ne eds f or thi s i nform atio n[] an d the fun d am en tal rig ht o f ou r p eo p le to privacy and s afety. ” 139 Cong

. Rec. S 1 5 ,76 3 ( daily ed. N ov. 16, 1993) ( st atem ent ofSen. B a rb a ra Boxer)

. The exi st ence ofan ex c ept i on re l at ed t o l aw en f or c em en tfunc t i ons was m en tio n ed b y n u m er o u s su p p o rt er s o f th e b ill

. See, e . g. , 14 0 Co ng. Re c . H25 2 2 ( da i l y ed. A pr. 2 0 , 1 9 9 4 ) ( s t a t e m e nto fRe p. Ja m es M o ra n ). w ou ld creat e. Spea king on t h e S e na te fl oor i n su p p ort 17 o f the b i l l, S e na t o r Ha r k i n no t e d tha t the b i l l al l owed no to n l y a c c e s s t o i n f o r ma t i o n b y l a w e n f o r c e me nt but, “[ i ] n appropri ate ci rcum sta n c es, ” di scl osur e “ to a ci ti ze n o r g r o up o fc i ti ze ns [ th at ] wi l l a ss i sti n c ar r y i ng ou t the fun ction of the agen cy,” suc h as a n e ig h borh oo d w at c h or ga n iza tio n . 13 9 C on g. R ec . S1 5 ,9 6 2 (d aily ed

. Nov
. 1 7, 1 99 3) ( st at emento fS en . Har k i n)

. However, he qual i fi ed that the excepti on f orl aw enf or cem ent use “i s no t a ga ping l oo phole in thi s l aw . ” Id. The exce pti on “p ro vid es law en for c em en t a ge n c ies w ith la tit u d e in re c eiv in g a n d d iss em i n at in g t h is p er so n al in for m at ion,” when i t i s do ne “f

orthe p urp os eof

de t e r r i ng orpre ve nt i ng cr i m eorothe rl egi t i m at el aw e nf or ce m e ntf

unc t i ons . ” Id. ( em p h as is a d d ed ); s e eal s o 13 9 C on g. R ec . S15 ,76 4 (d aily ed

. N ov. 16, 1993) ( st a t e m e n t of Sen

. J ohn W arn er) ( “There ar e s peci fi c exce pti ons ofcourse f orl aw enf or cem en t i ndi vi dual s an d o th era r eas wher e pr o ve n e xp er ien c e s h ow s t h at th is in for m at ion sh ou ld flow

. B ut i nN o. 10

- 3243 23 tho se insta nc es w e ha ve to presum e it i s so m ew ha t pro tected .” (em p ha sis add ed ))

. The l eg i sl at i ve hi st o r y c o nfirms wha t a ca r efula nd tho r o ugh r e a di ngo fthe s t a t ut e a l r e a dy h a s r e v e a l e d: Con g r es s d i d no t i nt en d tha t th e st atut o r y e xc ept i o ns be di vor ced , l ogi cal l y o r pract i cal l y, fro m the pu rpos e ofthe st atute
. W i th r espectto the l aw enf or cem en t-rel ated exc ep tions in p articu lar, there is su p p ort i n the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y f o r the v i e w tha tthe e xc e ptio n s n oton ly w er e c om p at ible w ith th e o ve r a ll pur po se , b uti nde ed su ppo r te d i t. Co ns i ste ntwi ththe te xtua l i nt er pr et at i o n tha t we a l r ea dy ha ve made, the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryr efl ects the vi ew thatl aw enf or cem ent has a l egi ti m ate need f ori nfo rm ati on co ntai ned i n sta te re cor ds and the autho ri ty to use that info rm at i o n t o e ffe c t ua t e the pu r po s e s i de nt i fi e d i n the A ct w i thout fearo fl i abi l i ty.

C. Th e E f f e c t o f t he DPPA o n t he Vi l l a ge’ s Pa r ki ng Cit at i on W i t h th i s u n d e r s t a n d i n go fth e s t a t u t e fi r ml y i n min d, w e turn to the parti cul ar s of th is case i n i ts curr ent pos
ture
. Cert ai nl y, the com pla i nt be f or e us pla usibl y a l l ege s th atthe i nf o r m at i o n a ctua l l y di sc l o se d b y the pa r k i ng ci ta ti o n was no t “[ f ] o r us e by a[ ]
. . . l aw e nf o r ce m en t age ncy[] in c ar ry i ng o ut i ts functi ons, ” o r “[ f ] or use in co n n ec tio n w i th anyci vi l [ ]
. . . [ or ] adm i ni str ati ve[ ]
. . . pro ceedi ng . . . , i ncl ud i ng the s er vice ofpro cess . ” 18 U

. S. C

. § 2721(b)(1), ( 4).24 N o. 10

- 3243

S ee625 I LC S 5/ 11- 208. 3( b)( 3) ( authorizi ng m unici pal iti es 18 t o e ffec ts ervice fo r par ki ng vi ol at i ons by pl ac i ng n ot i c e on the vehicl e) ; Palat ine, Il li nois , Cod e ofO rdinances § 2-707(b) ( 3) ( all ow ing com plaint s to be affix ed to “the property w here th e v io la tio n is fo u n d ” ). The ci tat i on provi ded to M r. Se nne d id co nsti tute ser vi ce of proce ss i n the adm i ni str ati ve proce ed in g regar ding the par ki ng vi ol ati on. Fur ther, the i ssuance of 18 a p arking citation is part of the fun ction of the V il lage’s p olic e d e p a r t m en t. H ow ev er , th e c om p lain t d oe s p u t in iss u e w h et h er a ll of th e d isc los ed info rm at ion ac tu ally w a s used i n e ffec tu at i nge i th ero fthe se pur po se s. The othe r wi se pr o te ct ed i nf o r m at i o n a ctua l l y di sc l o se d he re includ ed M r. Sen ne ’s full na m e, ad d ress, d r ive r’s lice n se n u m b e r , d at e o f birt h, sex , he igh t a n d w eig h t. It i s no t ata l l c l ea r tha t ei th ero fthe s ta tu to r y e xc ept i o ns ati ss ue i m p li ca te d the r el ea se o fa l l o fthi s i nf o r m at i o n. W i th r espectto so m e o fthati nfo rm ati on, i t i s di ffi c u lt to con ceive, even on a the oretical l evel, how suc h inform ati on co uld pl ay a r ol e in th e ex c ep ted l aw enf or cem ent purpos es. That i ssue cannot be r eso l ved on re vi ew of the entr y of j ud gm ent on a m oti on to dism iss by the Vi l l age . Fu rthe r proce ed ings w illperm it the p arties to exp lore thi s questi on. There ar e ver y re al safety an d securi ty concerns atst ake her e. Fo r exam ple , an ind i vi du al seeking to stalk orrape can go d o w n a st reet w he re o v e r n i g h tp a r k i n gi s b a n n e d a n d c o l l e c tth e h o me add re ss and perso nal i nfo rm ati on o fwom en wh ose vehi cl es have been tag ged. H e can asce rt ai n th e n am e,N o. 10

- 3243 25

SeeHear i ng on H .R . 3365 , 1994 W L 212833 ( Feb. 3, 1994) 19 ( s t at em en tofD ona l d L. Cah i l l , Leg i s l at i ve Chai rm an, F ra te rn a l O rd er o f P o lic e). The is sue ofthe al locat ion ofthe burd en ofproof w ith res pect 20 to the ex cep tio n s, seeThom as v. G eorge, Hartz, Lu n deen, Fu l m er, Jo h n s t o n e, K i ng, & S t e v e n s , P
. A. , 52 5 F .3d 110 7, 111 0-14 ( 11 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , i s p r e ma t u r e atth i s s t a g e o fth e p r o c e e d i n g . We ex p ress no opi ni on on the m at t er . W e al s o n ot e thatour ho ld ing tod ay m ak es an y d iscussio n o f the ap p ro p riate m eas ure ofdam ages und er the s tatute prem ature. W e theref ore pret erm itany disc uss ion ofthe m att er. ex ac t addr es s i nc l udi ng th e apa r tment number and even o th eri nf o r m at i o n s ucha s se x, a g e, he i g hta nd w eig h t p er tin e n t t o h is n efa riou s in te n t. Sim ilar ly, a pu bl i c o ffi ci al, having g one to g reat l engths to pro tect hi m sel fand hi s f am i l y fro m the thre at ofvi olence th at u nfor tu na te l y e ve r y pub l i c o ffi ci alf ac es , b ea r s th e r i sktha t ane xpi r ed par k i ngmete r v i o l at i o n mi g ht provi de an o pp or tuni ty f oran in d ivid ual i ntent on ca us i ngthe o ffi ci alo r hi s f ami l y b o di l y ha r m o r de ath. I nd eed, i n the or i gi nal hear i ng on the DPPA , l aw enf or cem en t a ge n ts th em se lve s e x p re ss ed co n c er n s a b ou t t h eir pers o na l s a fe t y a nd the s a fe t y o fthe i r f a mi l i e s b e c a use ofi nfo rm atio n that othe rwis e co uld be o btained fr om th e r ec o r ds as so ci at ed wi ththe i r pe r so na l v eh i cles. The 19 po ss ibi l i ti es f o r i d en tity the ft ar e o bv i o us . Gi ve n the concern ofCongr ess f orthes e s afetyand securi ty i ssues , th e d i sc l o se d i nf o r m at i o n a ctua l l y mustb e us ed f o r the pur po se s ta te d i n the e xc ept i o n. 2026 N o. 10

- 3243
Conclusi on W e hold that the D PP A ’s gen eral ru le of non -disclosu re o fp e r s o na l i nfo r mat i o n he l d in m oto r v e hi c l e r e c o r ds and i ts ove ra rchi ng pu rpos e of pri vacy prot ecti on m ust i nf o r m a pr o perunde r st an di ngo fthe o th erpr o vi si o ns of the statu te. A c c o r d ingly, w e hold that any d isclosure m ust co m plywith t hose l egi ti m ate uses o fi nfo rm ati on i de n tifi ed i n the sta tutory e xcepti ons. W i th the se pr i nc i pl es i n m ind , we ho l d tha t th e Vi l l ag e’ s pl ac ement of p ro te c te d p er so n al in for m at ion in v iew of t h e p u b lic const i tuted a disc l osur e r egul ate d by th e statute, re gar dle ss ofwh ethe r M r. S enne ca n est abl i sh that anyo ne act ua l l y v i e we d i t
. F ur ther m or e, bec ause M r. Sen n e h as art i c u lat ed a p lau sib le c laim th at th e V ill ag e’ s actio ns f ai l ed to ful fi l l i ts s ta tu to r y dut i es , the c as e s h ou ld n oth av e b ee n d ism iss ed

. R EVER S ED a nd R EMAND ED

P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, di sse nti ng. I ffedera l co urts f o l l o we d the we l l

- k no wn pr e c e pto fme di c a l e thi cs p r i m um no n n o cere( fi rs t, do no harm ) , the Vil l age of Palatine, th e d efend an t in this suit u n d er the D river’ s Priv acy Pro tect i on Act, 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2721 et seq ., w ou ldN o. 10

- 3243 27

w i n; and l i kewis e i fthe A ct were i nter prete d l i teral l y. Ia m no t a f ano fl i te r ali nt er pr et at i o n. Buti t i s th e properdef aul t r ule wh en i t has r eas onabl e co nsequences and there i s no i nd i cati on that the l egi sl atur e s tu m bl ed i n tr yi ng to tr anslat e l egi sl ati ve pu rpos e into w or ds. The m aj or i ty’ s fre e inter preta ti on o fthe A ct i s no t needed t o av oi d absurd r esul ts orachi eve the l egi sl atu r e’ s pur po se ; i t i s unl i k ely t o do a ny goo d; i t i s bo und t o d o h a r m. By i ncor pora ti on of the defi ni ti on o f“per sonali nfo rm ati on” f ound in 18 U
. S. C. § 2 725( 3)

— “i nfo rm ati on th at id e n t ifies an ind ivi d ua l, i nc lud ing an i nd ivi d ua l’ s ph otogr aph, so ci alse curi ty num ber, dri veri denti fi cati on nu m ber, nam e, ad d re s s ( bu t not th e 5-digit zi p cod e), tel ephone num ber, and m edic al ordi sabi l i ty i nfo rm ati o n”

— the Dr i v e r ’ s P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i o n Actf o rb i ds “a State d ep artm en t of m oto r v e h icl es, an d any offi cer, em plo yee , o r contr act or the re of

. . . [ to] kno w i ngl y di scl ose o r othe rwis e m ake a vai l abl e t o any per son or enti ty
. . . p er sonali nfo rm ati on . . . abo ut any i nd i vi du al obt ai ned by the depart m en t in connect i on with a m oto r ve h icle re c or d , ex c ep t as p ro vid ed in su b se c tio n (b).” § 2 721( a) ( 1)

. The I l l i noi s D epart m ent o fM oto r Vehic l es, and i ts em plo yee s a nd co ntra cto rs , ar e no t defendants i n thi s s uit, but “an a uthor i zed r eci pie nt o fper sonal in for m at ion ” fro m th e d ep ar tm en t is

— the m unici pal p o lice d ep ar tm en t t h at tic ke te d th e p lain tiff; an d it “m ay res ell or red isc los e p er so n al in for m at ion on ly for a us e pe rm itted un d er sub sect ion (b). ” § 2721(c).28 N o. 10

- 3243
So one goe s to subsect i on ( b) and fi nd s i n (b)(4 ) that “dis cl osur e” ofper sonali nfo rm ati on i s per m i tte d “f or use in connect i on with any c ivi l, cr i m i nal, adm i ni str ati ve, o r a rb i t r a l pr o c e e di ng i n a ny F e de r a l, S t a t e , o r lo c a l cou rt or agenc y or before an y self-regulatory b od y, in c lu d in g t h e s er vic e o f p ro c es s, in ve st iga tio n in anti ci pati on o fl i ti gat i on, and the executi on o r enf or cem ent o fj ud gm ents and or ders, o r pu rs uant to an o rder o fa F e d e r a l, S t a t e , o r l o c a l c o u r t
. ” A p r o c e e d i n g f o r t he i m posi ti on o fa parking fi ne i s a n adm i ni str ati ve proce eding, a nd pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n o n the pa r k i ng ticket p laced on th e w ind sh iel d of th e all eged viola tor’s ve hi c l e i s “ f o r u s e i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th ” a n “ a d mi nist ra tiv e . . . p ro c ee d in g” in a “loc al c ou rt,” an d sp ec ifica lly th e “s er vi ce o f pr o ce ss ” pha se o f th e pr o ce eding. The ti ck et is p roce ss ; pl ac i ngi t o n the wi nds hi el d i s th e co nventi onalm etho d ofse rv i ng pro cess f orpark i ng vi ol ati ons; and so a l i ter ali nt er p re tat i on i s that the pol i ce can pl ace perso nal i nfo rm ati on o n the ti cket

. There i s no in d i cati on that without be i ng ab l e t o express i ts i ntenti on in w or ds Congre ss i ntended to f o rbi d pol ice t o pl ac e per so na l i nf o r m at i o n o n a pa r k i ng tic ke t. T h e A c t d o e s n otlim it d isc los u re th at falls w i thi n one ofi ts excepti ons to w hat is “ re asonabl e” or “neces sa ry , ” o r author i ze j ud ges to i m pose such a re quir em ent. The concern that gave ri se to th e statute w as w i th st al ker s who w ent t o m oto r vehi cl e b u re au s to obt ai n the hom e a dd re sse s o fthei r i nten d ed vi cti m s, m or e t h an 30 st at es h av in g m ad e s u c h info rm at ion av ailab l e to mem be r s o fthe pub l i c f o r a smal l fee a s a m ea nsN o. 10

- 3243 29
ofenhanci ng st ate r eve nues. A te l evi si on actr ess was m urdere d i n 198 9 bya sta l kerwh ose pri vate i nvest i gat or ha d l awful l y o bt aine d he r unl i st ed addr es s fr o m the C ali fornia De p a r tm en t of M otor Ve hicles. T ha t un fortunate i nci dent w as a cata l ysto fthe Dri ver ’ s Pr i vacy P ro te c tio n A c t. Taylo r v. Acx i om Corp. , 61 2 F
. 3d 325, 33 6 an d n . 9 (5t h C ir. 20 10 ); Pi c h l e r v . UNI TE , 54 2 F
. 3d 380, 400 (3d Cir. 2008) (dissen ting op inion). Pa l a t i ne ’ s pr i nt i ng o f dr i v e r s ’ na mes a nd a ddr e sse s o n pa r k i ngt i c k e t s tha ta r e the n pl a c e d o n v i o l a t o r s ’ wi nd

sh ield s d oe s n o t e n c ou ra ge or fa c ilita te st alk in g. O n ly wi thdi ffi cul tyc ano ne i m ag i ne a s ta l k erwho , no ti cing a w om an he’ d l i ke to sta l k g et i nto her carand dri ve off, f ol l ows her and w hen she parks l urks behi nd hercar i n the ho pe tha t i t wi l l b e t i c k e t e d a nd tha ti fthat ha pp e ns h e ’ l l b e ab l e wi tho utb e i ngo b s e r v e d t o p e e kat the t i cketand dis cove r the o w ner’ s nam e and add re ss. H as thi s e verhappened? Th e pl ai nti ff’s lawyer adm i tte d at ora l arg u m en t n ev er h av in g h ea rd of su c h a th in g. A f a r mo r e pl a us ib l e s t r a t e g y f o r a s t a l k e r w h o h a d c o me acr oss hi s intended vi cti m ’ s v ehi cl e wo u ld be to f ol l ow h er h om e, w ith ou t h av in g t o r e l y o n h er p ar kin g illeg ally and the pol i ce c om in g along and w ri ti ng a ti cketr i ch i n pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n. W hy be nd the sta tute to sol ve a no nexi ste nt pro bl em? S ta l k er s ar e not the o nl y i nv ade r s o fpr i va cy, b ut w ho are the n o n- s t a l k e r s wh o p e e ka tt i c k e t s o n wi nd

sh i el ds an d wri te do wn th e i nf o r m at i o n the y fi nd ther e? Are there a ny such? I s i t wis e t o disl oca te a sta tute i n or der t o sol ve a probl em that s o f aras any-30 N o. 10

- 3243

on e k n ow s o r c an gu es s h as n ev er aris en an d w ill neverar i se? T h e maj o r i t y o p i n i o n r e g a r d s th e p l a c i ng o ft h e n a me an d a ddr es s o fthe o wnero fthe t i ck et ed veh icl e o n the parking ti cketas a gr atui tous act that, har m l ess o r not, serves no l aw en forcem en t p urp ose an d th erefore ca n’t be fora perm i tte d use. M an y, perhaps m ost, pol i ce do n’ t ha ve t i m e to pl ac e per so na l i nf o r m at i o n o n a par k i ngt i ck et, b ec au se the y woul d ha ve t o l ook up the i nfo rm ati on i n the databas e of the m oto r vehi c le b u re au and w ri te i t o n the ti cket

. Yet pla ci ng the i nfo rm ati on o n the tic k ets er ve s a m o des t er r o r - co r r ec ti o n func ti o n, w hi ch pres um abl y i s why som e po lice departm ents do pl ace such i nfo rm at ion on park i ng ti cket s. S up pose the na m e o r a ddr es s o fthe v eh i cl e’ s o wneri s l i st ed i nco r r ec tly i n the mo to r v eh i cl e bur ea u’ s dat ab as e, o r the po l i ce c o py the wro ngnam e o r a ddr es s i n wr i tingthe ti ck et
. Ors uppo se the na m e an d ad d ress ar e co r r ec t but the d ate o fb i r th, the wei g ht, o r the he i g htl i st ed o n the ti ck eti s no t that of th e na m ed per so n, thus i ndi ca ting tha t the r e ha s b e e n a mi s t a k e . Th e di s c o v e r y o fan e rr or i n t h e t i c k e tma y i mpe l th e o wn e r t o r e s p o n d t o the su m m ons b y i nf o r m i ngthe c o ur t th athe i s no t th e perso n nam ed i n i t o r that hi s t rue ad d re ss and o ther perso na l i nfo rm ati on a re di ffer ent fro m wh at i s wri tte n o n th e ti ck et; f o r he wi l l wor r y th at un less the m ista k es are correcte d he w on’t receive an y futu re co m mu n i c a t i o n s fr o m th e mo t o r v e h i c l e b u r e a u a nd othe r sta te and l oca l agenci es that re l y o n i t forper sonal i nf o r m at i o n.N o. 10

- 3243 31
This perhaps i s s m al l bee r but o n the othe r sid e is a nonexi sten t ri sk, wh ethero fst al ki ng o r ofso m e o ther ha r m fulb r ea cho fpr i va cy . And e ven i fl i st i nghe i g ht an d w eig h t o n a tic ke t is gra tu ito u s, th e m ajor ity ’s d ec isi on is apt t o entangl e the co urts i n cl ose r questi ons of the l egi ti m acy ofi ncl u d i ng par ti cul arper sonali nfo rm ati on on a p ar ki ng ti cket, questi ons that w i l l ge nera te costly and ti m e- consum i ng l i ti gat i on a nd poi ntl ess wea l th trans fer s fr o m t ax pay er s to v i o l at o r s o fthe par k i ngl aws . The maj o r i tyo pi ni on do es r es er ve the po ss ibil ity tha t i t m i g htb e per m i ss ibl e to wri te the own er ’ s nam e o n the ti cket

. But i t is a f ai nt poss ibi l i ty, s i n c e t h e re c ip ien t w ill kn ow w h o th e o w n er is

— hi m se lf, o r a f ami l y mem ber, o r who m ev erhe b o r r o wed the c a r fro m

— and so the incl usi on o fhi s nam e won’tbe str i ctl y nec ess ar y. Bec au se the s tatu te do es no t pl ac e Pa l at i ne o r a ny oth er com m un ity on notice th at includ ing p erson al inf o rm ati on o n a par ki ng ti cketi s pro hibi te d , e ver y pol i ce depa rtm en t i n the S ev en thCi r cui t th atha s do ne s ucha thi ng withi n the f our- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i on f orpri vate su its (se e 2 8 U .S.C . § 16 58 (a); H urs tv. State F ar m M ut ual Au t o In s . Co

. , C i v . A c t i o n N o . 1 0

- 1 0 0 1

- G MS, 2 0 1 2 WL 4260 18, at* 9 ( D. Del. Feb. 9, 20 12) ) f aces , as a re sul t o f today’ s d ecis i on, l i abi l i ty f or“a ctualdam age s, but not les s t h an liqu id at ed d am ag e s in th e a m ou n t o f $2 ,50 0.” 18 U
. S. C. § 2 724(b) ( 1)

. S o l i ttl e Pal atine ( i ts popu lat ion ro ughl y one- f or ti eth that o fChica go) f aces , i n thi s cl ass a c t i o n s ui tfi l e d o n b e ha l fo fe v e r y o ne wh o h a s r e c e i v e d a par ki ngt i ck eti n the Vi l l ag e wi th i n the pe r i o d o fthe sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons, a potenti all i abi l i ty of som e $ 8032 N o. 10

- 3243

m ill i on in l i quidate d dam age s

— m or e than $1, 000 per re si dent. T h e V illag e c an ob ta inn o s u c c o r fro m ou r d ec isio n in St e rk v. Re db ox Aut om at e d Re t ai l, LL C, 672 F. 3d 535, 53 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) , wh i ch hel d that a cl ai m f orl i quidate d dam age s ba sed on i denti call anguage i n the Video Pri vacy Prote ction A ct, 18 U

. S .C

. § 2710, r eq uired proof of inj ury i n the f o r m o fa n a ctua l i nv as i on ofpr i va cy . The defen dan t i n Sterkhad f ai l ed i n i ts sta tutory d u ty to d estroy law full y obtaine d doc um en ts c ont aining p ersonali nfo rm ati on, bu t there w as no indi cati on that any o f th e d ocu m en t s h ad been disclosed to anyon e before they w er e dest ro yed. In c ontrast, per sonali nfo rm ati on i s “di s c l o s e d” i n a l e t t e r e v e n i f, b e c a us e the l e t t e r was destr oye d en r oute to t he address ee, no i nvasi on o f p riv acy re sul ts. S i m i l ar l y, i fa ci ty poste d parki ng vi ol ator s’ nam es and ad d re sse s o n a publ i cl y a cces sibl e websit e, th e a c t o f p os tin g w ou ld be d isc los u re ev en if no one vi si te d the web si te
. S o Ido n’ t qua r r elwi ththe st at ementi n the maj o r i tyo pi ni o n tha t publ i cl y po st i ng i nf o r m at i o n i s “di sc l o su r e” whethe r o r no t anyo ne ever read s it or i s li kely t o d o so. Bu t this j us t un d ersco re s the m agni tu d e of the l i abi l i ty that the o pini on fi xes o n Pal atine. The op in i o n s ta te s th ati t i s “pr ematur e” t o thi nkabo ut d am ages at th is point. Th at is short sighte d

. Be fore cre ating a new cause o fact i on, a court shoul d consi der the c onse quences. And w ho wi l l b en efi t m o stfr o m th e cl as s ac ti o ns th atthe m aj or i ty opi ni on e nd or ses and i nvi tes ? W hy, sco ffl aw s,N o. 10

- 3243 33
of cour se, because they have the m ost ti cket s, ea c h now w or th $2 , 500. Fr om now u n tilthe sta tute i s a m ended ( u n l e s s t o d a y ’ s d e c i s i o n i s r e v e r s e d b y th e S u p r e me Cou rt first) , o nl y a s uck erwoul d pa r kl eg al l y i n the Vil l age o fPal atine.

F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e, w i th w h o m E A S T E RB R O OK, C hief Judg e, a nd P O SNER a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges , j oi n, di ssenting. Although Iag re e w i th the m aj or i ty’ s co ncl usi on th atthe p ostingo fpe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n o n a pa r k i ng ci tat i on consti tutes a disc l osur e withi n the m eani ng o f the Dr i v e r ’ s P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i on Act( “ DP PA” ) , 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 72 1, et seq
. , Iam un able to a g r e e w ith the m aj ority’ s conc lu si on that per m i ssibl e di scl osur es ar e l i m i ted to su ch i nform ation as is nece ssary t o effectu ate th e pu rpos e s o f the s t a t ut o r y e xc e pt i o ns . Ne i the r the t e xtnor th e legis lat ive h ist or y con ve ys C on gr es s’s in te n t to li m it the info rm ati on that m ay be di scl ose d i n connect i on wi tha pa r ti cul are xc ept i o n. T h e p r e s e n td i s p u t e tu r n s o n th e me a n i n g o fth e D P P A, o r, mor e spe ci fi ca l l y, o n the me ani ngo fthe e xc ept i o ns th a t p e r mi t th e d i s c l o s u r e o f p e r s o n a l i n f o r ma t i o n . Our g o ali s to a sc ertain Co ng r es s’ s pur po se i n e na ct i ngthe le g i sl at i o n. See, e. g ., M i l ne rv. D ep’ tof Navy, ___ U. S

. ___,34 N o. 10

- 3243
131 S. Ct. 12 59, 12 64 ( 2011 ) ( ci ti ng Park ‘NFly, Inc . v. D ol l ar Park & Fly, Inc ., 46 9 U .S. 18 9, 19 4 (1 98 5)); U ni t e d St a tes v. N
. E
. Ro se nblum Truck Lines, Inc. , 31 5 U .S . 5 0, 53 (1942). Gen er ally, the pla i n l anguage o fa sta tute i s the be st ev id en c e o fl e g isla tiv e in te n t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl i nt wood Elkho r n M i ni ng Co. , 5 53 U. S

. 1 , 1 1 ( 20 08 ) ( “T he st r o ng pr es um pti o n tha t the pl ain l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te e xp r e sses con gressiona l inten t is rebu tted only i n rare an d e xc ept i o na l c i r cumst an ce s. ” ( quo ta ti o n m arks a nd alt er at ion s o m itt ed )); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Ye, 58 8 F
. 3d 411, 41 4- 15 ( 7th Ci r . 20 09 )

. I n l o o k i ng to th e l an g uage of the DP PA , we are m i nd ful that sta tutory inter pretatio n is a “hol i sti c en d ea vor, ” which r equi re s co urts to l oo k a t w ords an d the i r mean i ngno t i n i so l at i o n b uti n the con t e x t of the statu tory sch em e in w hich they ap p ear. Koons Bui ckP ont i acGM C, Inc . v. N igh , 54 3 U.S

. 50 , 60 ( 2004 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S av. As s ’ n o f Te x. v . T im b e rs of

Inwood Fores t A ss ocs . , 484 U
. S. 365, 371 (1988 ))

. Tit l e 1 8, S ecti on 2 721(b) , o fthe U ni ted S tat es C ode, l i sts f ourt een “ perm issibl e use s” ofper sonali nfo rm ati on that do not vi ol ate the DP PA

. Rel evant to th e p ra cti ce chal l enged i n thi s ca se, S ecti on 2721(b) pro vi des: “Per sonal i nfo rm ati on r efer re d to i n subsec tio n ( a)

. . . m ay be d isc los ed

. . . (4) [f]or u se in c on n ec tio n w ith an y c ivil, c rim in al, ad m in ist ra tiv e, or a rb itr al p ro c ee d in g in an y . . . co ur t o r a g en cyo r b efo r e an y s el f

- r egulato r y b o dy, i ncl ud i ng t h e servi ce o fpro cess . . . . ” Un der I l l i noi s l aw and by m unici pal o rdi nance, the parking cit ati on that Se n n e re c eiv ed co n st itu te s s er vic e o fl eg al p ro c es s. See 625 I LC S 5/ 11- 208. 3( b) ( 3) ( author i zi ng m unici pal i ti es toN o. 10

- 3243 35

The e n ba nc m aj or i t y al s o det er m i ne s thatthe e xc ept i on f ound 1 i n s ubs ec t i on 27 21 ( b) ( 1) appl i es b ecaus e the i s s uan c e ofthe citatio n is on e of th e f u n c tion s of the V illag e’s p olice d ep artm en t. S ee O p . at 24
. T he initial p an el m ajor ity fou nd it u nn ecessar y to rea ch t his i ss ue afterconcl ud ing that the pers onal i nf or m at i on was pr ope rl y di s c l os ed un der the ( b) ( 4) e xc ept i on. S ee S en n e v . Villag e o f P a la tin e, Ill. , 64 5 F .3d 919 , 92 3-24 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ) (m ajor ity o p i n ion ). T he re is sim ilarly no nee d to ad d ress the ( b )( 1) excep tion her e since th e d ispu ted p hr ase “for u se” ap p lies in the sam e w ay to b oth excep tion s. serv e pr o ce ss f o r pa r k i ngv i o l at i o ns b y mean s o fa ffi xi ng the no ti ce t o the v ehi cl e) ; Vi l l age o fPal atine Ordi nance 2- 707(b) ( 3) ( ser vi ce o fco m pla i nt i n adm i ni str ati ve proceed ings m ay be e ffecte d by a ffi xi ng co m pla i nt to th e pr o per ty w he r e th e vi o l at i o n i s f o und)

. Inde ed, the m aj or i ty re cogni zes t hat the par ki ng ci tat i on co nsti tutes ser vi ce of pro cess . See O p . a t2 4 & n . 1 8
. In my v i e w, 1 b e c a us e a mun i c i pa l i t y f a l l s o ut s i de the DP PA’ s p r o s c r i ptions w he n it discloses p erson al inf o r m a t ion as p art of servi ng l egal proce ss, th e Vill age’s d isclosure of inform at i o n in the pa r k i ngc i ta ti o n do es no t vi o l at e th e DP PA

. The DPPA does n ot a sk w hetherthe ser vi ce o f p ro c ess r eve al s no m or e info rm ati on than neces sar y t o effect ser vi ce, and so nei thersho uld we. I n de te r m i ni ngtha t su bs ec ti o n 2 72 1(b) ( 4) perm i ts the di s c l o s ur e o fa l l p e r s o na l i nfo r mat i o n, n o tj us ttha twh i ch i s r eas onabl y nec ess ar y, Iadhere to the basi c ca non of statu tory interp retation of gi ving m ean ing to every w or d

. See D un ca n v . Wa lk er, 5 33 U. S

. 1 67, 174 (20 01 )

. The36 N o. 10

- 3243

w or ds “f oruse, ” which intro du ce e ach subs ecti on o f Se cti on 2 721(b) ’ s l i st ofexce pti ons, ind ica te that perso nal i nfo rm ati on ca n be disc l ose d w hen i t i s use d fo r one of the e n um er ate d pu rpos es. Thi s inter preta ti on does not r ea d “ f o r us e” o uto fthe DP PA , nordo es i t l i m i t th e phrase’ s functi on t o l i nki ng g ra m m ati call y the “m ay be di s c l o s e d ” l a n g u a g e i n th e i n t r o d u c t o r y p a r a g r a ph of Se cti on 2 721(b) to the pu rpos es and rec i pie nts l i ste d i n the subsect i ons. The expre ss term s o fthe sta tute perm i t the di scl osur e o fi nfo rm ati on w h en o ne o fS ecti on 2 721(b) ’ s e xcepti ons appli es. A ll o fthe i nfo rm ati on to whi chS enne obj ec ts was us ed i n the pa r k i ngc i ta ti o n, and i ts disc l osur e was the re f or e pr operunder s ubsection 2721 (b)( 4). Th e m aj or i ty i nter prets “foruse” as expre ssing a l i m i tin g p rin c ip le for w h at in for m ati on m ay be di sc l o se d unde r a pa r ti cul are xc eption. By r es tr i ct i ngthe sco pe ofthe exceptions, the m aj or i ty ess enti al l y inser ts a quali fi er, such a s “ appropri ate ” or “r eas onabl e” or“nece ssar y, ” into the p hras e “ f oruse. ” S ubsect i on 2 721( a) ( 1) ofthe DP PA pro hibi ts sta tes fro m di scl osing per sonal in for m at ion “e x c ep t a s p ro vid ed in s u b se c tio n (b) of t h is sect i on, ” but the D P P A does notco ntai n any l anguage that l i m i ts disc l osur e t o i nfo rm ati on that com pli es w i th the p u rpos es ofS ecti on 2 721(b) o r that i s a ctual l y use d t o c a r r y o uta n e nu mer ate d pu r po s e . S o me o fthe e xc e pti ons l i ste d in Se cti on 2721 ( b) l i m i t how th e in f or m ati on c an be used, but subsect i on 2 721(b) ( 4) ’ s e xcepti on f orse rv i ce o fpro cess does notco ntai n any w or ds ofN o. 10

- 3243 37

S i m i l a r l y, Co ng r e s s l i m i t e d p e r m i s s ibl e di s c l os ur e s by 2 requir ing ex press cons ent f or the dis cl osure of“highly r es tr ic ted personal i n f orm ati on. ” S ee 18 U. S. C. § 27 21 ( a) ( 2)

. Notabl y, al thoughCong re s s appli ed thi s r es t ri c t i on t o t enofSe c t i on 2721( b)’ s exc epti on s, C o ngress did not app ly this hei ghtened re str ic tio n to su b se ct io n 27 2 1 (b )(4). l i m i ta ti o n. Thus , th e DPPA’ s te xt m ak es cl ea r th at C on-

2 gr ess i nten d ed to l eave st ate s with consi derabl e l eeway. Congre ss coul d have included a qual i fi erf ordi scl o su r es , b uti t di d no t do s o . Co ng r es s o fc o urs e r emai ns at l iber ty to am end the s tatute, and, fo r th e pol i cy r e a s o n s a d v a n c e d b y th e maj o r i t y, i t ma y we l l s e e t he need to do s o . Ho we v e r, the c ur r e ntt e xtdo e s not s u p p o r tth e maj o r i t y ’ s v i e w. The m aj or i ty’ s i nter preta ti on of “f or use” is i nfo rm ed byi ts unde r sta ndi ngo fCo ng r es s’ s i nt en t i n e na ct i ngthe DP PA

. The m aj or i ty ass er ts that “the sta tute’ s purpose ofsa feg u arding i nfo rm ati on f orse curi ty and safetyr easons, conta i ned i n the gener al prohibi ti on aga i n st d i scl o su r e” woul d b e “f r us tr at ed” i f“ f o r us e” wer e co nstru ed to al low any inform ation t o b e d isclosed as pa rt o fa n e xc ept i o n. Op. a t 18

. Butthe l eg i sl at i ve hi story d oe s n otco n ve y a n int en t t o e lim in at e a n y a n d all dan g er s th atc anb e tr ac ed ba ckt o the di sc l o su r e o fi nf or m ati on fro m m oto r vehi cl e r eco rds. The l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryr eve al s that Congr ess ena cted the DPPA as a cri m e- fi ghti ng m eas ure i n re sponse to speci fi c co ncer ns. The m urder ofact re ss Rebecca S c h a e ffe r by a s t a l k e r w h o a c q u i r e d h e r a d d r e s s fr o m a38 N o. 10

- 3243

m o to r v eh i cl e depa r tmenti s wi del y r ec o g ni ze d a s th e c at aly st fo r t h e D P P A

. See Ta ylo r v. A cx io m C o rp . , 61 2 F.3d 325 , 336 (5th C ir. 2010). S im il arly, Senat or Ba rbara B oxe r, one of the D PP A ’s spon sors, em p ha sized that “[i ]n 34 Sta te s, so m eo n e c an w alk int o a Sta te M ot or V eh icle Dep ar tm ent with yo ur l i cense pla te num berand a few do l l a r s a nd wa l ko utwi th yo ur nam e a nd h o me a dd re ss .” 13 9 C on g. R ec . S1 5,7 62 (d aily e d . N ov . 16, 19 93 ); see al s o 140 Cong. Rec. H 2522 ( daily e d. A pr. 20 , 19 94) (state

m ent o fRep. M or an, a sponsoro fthe DP PA ) ( “A to tal str anger can obt ai n perso nal i nfo rm ati on about yo u wi th o utkno wi nga ny th i ngmor e ab o uty o u tha n y o ur li cen se p late nu m ber an d you are h elp le s s to stop i t.”)

. Th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y a l s o c o n t a i n s s t a t e me n t s abo ut th e ne ed to pr o te ctdo m es ti c vi o l en ce v i ct i m s an d l aw enf or cem ent offi cer s fro m re tal i ato ry at tack s. See Op

. a t 2 0

- 2 1 & n n . 1 4

- 1 5
. R a th e r th a n e v i n c i n g th e i nt en t to guar d agains t alli m aginabl e danger s, the l egi sl ati ve hi st o r y e m pha si ze s Con g r es s’ s intentt o pr ev en t th e sp ec ific d a n g e r th at aris es w h en ind ivid u als are ab le to o bt ain pe r so na l i nf o r m at i o n u po n re q u e st fro m st ate m ot or ve h icle rec or d s. S e e, e . g. , 139 Cong. Rec. S 15, 765 (d aily ed . N ov . 16 , 199 3) (s ta te m en t o f Sen . B id en ) (“T h is am endm ent c l ose s a lo op hol e in the l aw thatper m i ts stalkers to obtain— on d e m an d

— p rivate, p erson al inform ati on about thei r potenti alvi cti m s. . . . Thus, pote nti al cri m in als ar e abl e t o obt ai n pri vate , per sonali nfo rm ation abou t the ir victim s sim p ly by m aking a req ue st.”). The m aj or i ty i s co ncer ned that inter preting “foruse” to allo w th e d isc los u re of in for m at ion th at is no t s t r ict lyN o. 10

- 3243 39

n ec es sar y forthe excepti on cr eat es safetyr i sks , such a s a st al k er stum bl i ngupo n a pa r k i ngc i ta ti o n c o nt aini ng i nf o r m at i o n abo uthi s o r he r t ar g et, o r a mis cr ea nt se lec tin g a ta rg et ba se d on th e in for m at ion p ro vid ed in a ci tat i on. W hi l e r eco gni zin g th e pos sibi l i ty ofsuch chance c ri m es, Ico ncl ud e that these cri m es w er e no t th e ty pes o fc r i m es tha t m o ti va te d Co ng ress to en ac t th e DP PA

. Thou gh i nd i vi du all egi sl ato rs m i ght wel l f avo r p lac in g g re at er re st ric tio n s o n w h at st at e m ot or ve h icle departm ents can di sclose , i t i s no t e vi dent thatCongr ess as a w hol e w oul d wis h to do so. I t i s not u n c om m on f orCongr ess , o ut o fr espectf orour federa l sy ste m , to l i m i t i ts re sponse to l egi ti m ate pol i cy chal l enges — eve n thos e with apparent ( and perhaps appeal i ng) so l uti ons. Congre ss m ay have deci ded notto qual i fy “f oruse” so a s t o l i mi tth e e x e r c i s e o fj u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n. Un d e r my in te r p re ta tio n of “fo r u se ,” th e ro le of t h e jud icia ry is confi ned to deter m i ni ng how the publ i c ag ency w as us ing the i nform ation. I f th e agen c y w as u sing th e inform ati on in connect i on with one ofS ecti on 2721 ( b) ’ s per m i ssibl e use s, then the a gency ’ s di sclosu re o fi nfo rm ati on i s v al i d; othe rwis e, the age ncy’ s di scl osur e v i ol ate s th e D PP A

. Th is cat e g o rical ap p roach m ay en d up overorunder- i ncl usi ve at ti m es, but i t ha s the vi rtue o f bein g str ai ghtf or w ar d, predi ctabl e, and l ess co stl y t o adm i ni ste r. By co ntra st, u nd erthe m aj or i ty’ s inter preta
tion of “for use,” the j ud ici ary is taske d w ith d eterm i ni ng wh at pie ces ofinform ati on a re needed i n or der to c ar r y o utthe pur po se o fthe a ppl i cabl e ex ce pti o n. The st a t u t e o ffe r s n o g u i d a n c e t o th e j u d g e s , l a wy e r s , a nd40 N o. 10

- 3243
p ubl i c ac tor s who w i l l i nevi tabl y s tr uggl e t o dist i ngui sh b e tw eenn e c e s s a r y a nd e xt r a ne o us i nfo r mat i o n. By cal l i ng o n j ud ges to ban see m in gly unnecess ar y di scl osure s, the m ajor i ty m ake s the st atute l ess st ra i ghtf or w ard, l ess pre dict abl e, and m or e co stl y t o adm i ni ste r (du e to the li tigation ex p en ses ass ocia t ed w ith d eterm ining t h e p rop riety or ne cess ity ofeach disclosu re). The m aj or i ty’ s inter preta ti on o f“f oruse” ther eby ex p os es m u n icip alit ies to su b st an tia l p en alt ies (p os sib ly $80 m i l l ion fo r Pal atine) f orf ai l i ng to pre dictwh at discl osur es a j ud ge w il l fi nd to be appropri ate
. I t i s no t o urr es po ns ibi l i tyt o e va l ua te th e two a ppr o ac he s an d det er m i ne whi chc o ns ti tut es b et te r po l i cy ; r athe r, o ur re sponsi bi l i ty i s t o deter m in e w h ich approa ch C on gr es s in c or p or at ed int o th e D P P A

. See P a c. O pera to rs O ff shore, LLP v . V

a ll a dolid, ___ U.S

. ___, 13 2 S

. Ct. 68 0, 69 0 ( 2012 ) ( “[ I ] fCongr ess ’ cover age deci si ons ar e m i sta ken a s a ma t t e r o fp o l i c y, i ti s f o r C o n g r e s s t o c h a n g e th e m. W e s houl d not l egi sl ate f ort hem

. ” ( quoti ng Her b’s We l di ng, Inc . v. Gr ay, 4 7 0 U. S

. 4 1 4 , 4 2 7( 1 9 8 5 ) ) )

. F a r fr om frustrat ing C ong ress’s inten t, m y interp retation d efers to th e in tent express ed by Congre ss w hen i t incl ud ed th e phr as e “f o r us e” wi th o uta ny qua l i fi ero r a ny l i m i ti ng guidel i nes. Because the te xt co ntai ns no quali fi er, the m aj or i ty str uggl es to ar ti cul ate the substa nce o fthe quali fi erthat i t r eads into the phrase “fo r use. ” In cer tain part s ofi ts opi n ion, the m aj or i ty describes the s tandard f or evaluati ng di scl osur es i n br oad, co ncl us ory ter m s that express p ol i cy obj ecti ves but she d l i ttl e l i ght o n howN o. 10

- 3243 41

to d ist in gu ish p ro p er from im p ro p er d isc los u re s. Se e, e . g. , Op

. at17( “The w or ds ‘[f]oruse’

. . . co ntai n the necessa r y l i m i tingpr i nc i pl e th atpre se r ve s th e f o r ce o fthe gener alpro hibi ti on wh i l e per m i tting the di scl osur es com pa tible with that pr ohibi ti on. ”) ; Op. at 23 ( “Congr ess di d n o ti nt e nd tha tthe s t a t ut o r y e xc e pt i o ns b e di v o r c e d, l ogi cal l y o r pract i cal l y, fro m the pu rpos e o fthe sta tute. ”)

. In other parts o fi ts opi ni on, the m ajori ty sta tes th a t a n y d i s c l o s u r e “ mu s t b e c o mpa t ib l e wi th t he p urp ose o f t he exc ep tion,” Op

. at 18, m us t “effect[] a par ti c u lar p urpose exem pted by the A ct, ” Op. at19 , an d “m us t com p ly w ith th ose legi t im ate u ses of inform ati on i denti fi ed i n the sta tutory excepti ons, ” Op . at 26. T h is l a n gu ag e a p p ea rs sligh tly m or e c on c re te , bu t it sti l l f al l s s hor t o fpro vi ding actualgui dance. Reason able m ind s w il l d isagree as to w h at d isclosures are c om p at ible w ith th e p u rp os e o f th e e x c ep tio n, w h ile ar guably ex tr an eous disc l osur es m i ght s ti l l be vi ew ed as com patibl e. The m aj or i ty defines “ f oruse” as per m i tti ng “a n author i zed r eci pie nt” t o “dis c los e the i nfo rm ati on o nl y in a m anner that does not exc eed th e scop e of th e author i zed st atuto ryexce pti on, ” Op. at18 ( em phasi s i n o r i g i na l ) , b utthe m aj ority do es no t pr o vi de an y defini ti ons, te sts , o r too l s fordeter m i ni ng the sco pe. B y c o n st ru in g “ for u se ” t o c on ta ina lim itin g p rin c ip le w i thout ar ti cul ating i ts su bsta nce, the m aj or i ty effecti vel y c al l s o n j ud ges to deter m i ne wh ether a par ti cul ar disc l osur e i s “ appropri ate ” or“r eas onabl e” or“nece ssa ry ” f orcar ry i ng o ut the ex cepti on. The m aj or i ty sta tes that i t doe s no t r ead “use ” a s s i gni fyi n g “n ec ess ar y use , ” see42 N o. 10

- 3243 Op. a t 19 n.12, b uti t pr o vi des no a l te r na ti ve de fi ni ti o n. The m aj ori ty al so ass er ts that i t doe s no t r ead a “bes t p ra c tic es ” req u ire m en t int o th e s ta tu te , s e ei d. , b u t it does not expla i n w hat di stinguis hes “ l egi ti m ate ” o r “co m patibl e” uses, wh i ch ar e a pp ar entl y m andated by th e st atut e, f r o m b es t pr ac ti ce s, whi cha r e no t. The diss ent to the i ni ti al panel opi ni on h ad inte rpre ted th e D P PA as l im iti ng disclosu res to “th e pe rson al inform at i o n r ea so nably ne ce ss ar y t o e ffec tu at e th e g o ve r nm entalpurpose setf or th i n the excepti on. ” Se nnev. Vi l l age of Pa lati ne, Ill

. , 645 F.3d 91 9, 92 6 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ) ( R i p p l e , J. , d iss en tin g); se e also i d

. ( “[ T]he i nfo rm atio n di scl ose d u n d er an ex c ep tio n m u st h av e a r e a s on ab le re lat ion sh ip to th e p u r p o s e o fth e e x c e p t i o n . ” )

. T h o u g h th e e n b a nc o pi ni o n do es no t ado pt th e “r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ar y ” st an dard, i t s up pli es no cl earst andard i n i ts pla ce. F i na l l y, c er ta i n pa r ts ofthe maj o r i ty ’ s o pi ni o n de fi ne “f oruse” as r equi ring that “the di scl ose d i nfo rm ati on ac t ual l y must be us e d f o r the p ur po s e s t a t e d in the e xc e ptio n .” O p . at 2 5 (e m p h as is a d d ed ); see also O p. at17

- 18 ( “[ T]hatl anguage m eans that the a c tu ali nfo rm ati on disc l ose d— i
. e. , the disc l osur e a s it e x iste d i n f act— m ust be info rm ati on that i s us e d for th e id en tifie d p u rp os e.” ( em phasi s in o ri gi nal ) ) ; Op. at 24 ( “[ T]he com pla i nt does pu t in i ssue w hetherallo fthe disc l ose d i nfo rm ati on actual l y was us e d ine ffec tu at in g e ith er of th es e p u rp os es .” ( em phasi s in or i gi nal ) )

. Thi s a pp ro ach does hel p j ud ges by al l owing them to ev alu ate ex post w he th er the inform ati on was actual l y use d to car ry o ut the pu rpos e o f th e ex c ep tio n . Th is a p p ro ac h d oe s n ot, ho w ev er , he lpN o. 10

- 3243 43

A lthoug h the m aj ority ins is ts thatperm is sible dis cl osures 3 ar e notl i m i t ed t o th ose thatar e “ne c es s ar y” t o e ffec t uat e the ex ce p tio n, see Op. a t 1 9 n . 1 2 , a “ ne c e s s a r y” s t a nd a r d may be the on l y w a y to d eterm ine in ad v an ce w ha t inform atio n w ill ul t i m a t e l y be us e d. m unici pal i ti es to deter m i ne ex antewh e the r a p a r t i cul ar disc l osur e v i ol ate s the DPPA

. T he dete rm i nati on o f w hat info rm ati on wil l actual l y be u sed to car ryo ut an ex cep t ion can not alw ays be m ad e in ad van ce. Furth er, 3 as J ud ge Posner disc usses , ther e ar e h yp othe ti cal uses f oral l o fthe i nfo rm ati on di scl ose d by Pal atine. M unici pa lities m i ght s eekto di scl ose m or e info rm ati on th an s tr i ct l y ne ce ss ar y t o a cc o untf o r the r i sktha t th e c o r e i nfo r mat i o n i s e r r o ne o us o r o ut da t e d. The t ex t o fthe DPPA s i m pl y do es no t co nt ain the “a c tu al u se ” lim ita tio n th at th e m ajorit y re ad s in to it
. C f. Howard v. Cr i m i nal Inf o. Se r vs . , 654 F.3d 887, 892 (9th C ir. 2011 ) ( “There i s . . . no probl em with Defendants obta ining th e pe rs o n al inform ation for poten tial futu re use, e v e n i f the y may ne v e r us e i t
. Th e DP PA do es not contai n a t em pora l r equi re m ent forwh en the i nfo rm ati on obt ai ned m ust be used f or the perm i tt ed p u rpos e. N or is t here a re quir em ent that o nce the i nfo rm ati on i s obtained fo r a per m i tte d pu rpos e that i t a ctual l y b e us ed atal l

. The DPPA o nl y r equi re s that Defendants ob ta in ed th e in for m at ion for a p er m itt ed p u r p o se .”). In conflict w i th Congr ess ’ s intent to prese rv e the abi l i ty of law en for c em en t a n d m u n icip al i t i es to ca rry ou t t h eir fu n c tio n s, th e m ajorit y’s int er p re ta tio nop en s m u n icip ali-44 N o. 10

- 3243
ti es up to s ubs ta nt ial l i ab i l i tyf o r i nc o r r ec tly pr edi ct i ng exactl y what i nfo rm atio n w i l l be used i n the cour se o fc ar r y i ngo uta n e xc ept i o n. Contrary t o the v i ew o fm y c ol l eagues in the m ajori ty, I d o n otco n st ru e Se c tio n 27 21 (b ) as p e r m itt in g on ly th e d isclosure of inform ation th at is neces sary to carry ou t t he pu rp ose of an exc ep tion. C ong ress ha s the aut hori ty to am end the DPPA to r es tr i ct di scl osur es to thos e that ar e “fora necess ar y use ” o r “f oran a pp ro pri ate u se ,” b ut the exi sting te xt and l egi sl ati ve hi sto rydo not ev in c e C o n gr es s’s int en t t o d o s o. T h er efo re , w h ile Iconc ur w ith th e m aj ority’s con clusion that the V il lage’s ac ti o n co ns ti tu te s a di sc l o su r e, I r es pec tful l y dissent from i ts c o nc l us i o n tha t th e di sc l o su r e vi o l at es the DP P A

. In m y j ud gm ent, bec ause Se nne’s i nfo rm ati on w as u se d in th e pa rk in g cita tio n an d th e cita ti o n c o n st itutes serv ice of proce ss, the Vil l age ’ s di scl osur e doe s no t v i o l a t e th e D P P A.

8- 6- 12