United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

Nos. 14-3527, 14-3529, 14-3533, 14-3537,

14-3539, 14-3540, 14-3542, 14-3543, 14-3600

___________________________

Jessica Leah Kampschroer; Cory Patrick Kampschroer

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

Anoka County, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants

____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: December 15, 2015

____________

___________________________

No. 15-1488

___________________________

Patricia Mae Kerr Karasov

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
City of Minneapolis

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: December 16, 2015

____________

 Filed: September 1, 2016

[Published] 

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.1

____________

PER CURIAM. 

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a), provides

that a person who knowingly obtains information from a motor vehicle record, for a

purpose not permitted, is liable to the individual to whom the information pertains. 

Patricia Karasov and Jessica and Cory Kampschroer brought separate actions against

various Minnesota cities, counties, and law enforcement entities alleging DPPA

violations. In separate orders, the district court denied in part defendants’ motions

to dismiss, including claims by many defendants that they are entitled to qualified

immunity. The City of Minneapolis appeals the denial of qualified immunity in the

Karasov action, and numerous Minnesota counties appeal the denial of qualified

immunity in the Kampschroers action. For oral argument and submission, we

This opinion is being filed by Judge Wollman and Judge Loken pursuant to

1

8th Cir. Rule 47E.

-2-
consolidated these appeals with numerous other appeals raising DPPA issues other

than qualified immunity. We have now resolved those appeals in a single opinion,

Tichich v. City of Bloomington, No. 14-3151 (8th Cir. September 1, 2016). In this

opinion, we review the denials of qualified immunity de novo and affirm. Bradford

v. Huckabee, 394 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

Appellants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because (1) the

verb “obtain[]” in the DPPA does not impose liability on a public official who merely

accesses and views a person’s motor vehicle record, and (2) even if there is liability

for such action, it was not clearly established at the time the information was accessed

in these cases. We have jurisdiction to consider this issue of law in an interlocutory

appeal, unlike the fact-intensive DPPA issues that precluded the interlocutory

qualified immunity appeal in Mallak v. City of Baxter, 823 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2016). 

After the parties briefed these appeals, we issued our decision in McDonough

v. Anoka County, 799 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2388 (2016),

which squarely addressed this qualified immunity issue: “Because the meaning of

‘obtain’ in this context is unambiguous, . . . [defendants’] contention that qualified

immunity applies to [their] conduct because the meaning of ‘obtain’ is unclear . . .

fails.” Id. at 944, n.6. We invited the partiesin all the pending DPPA cases to submit

supplemental briefs on a different issue -- how we should apply the “plausibility

analysis” in our McDonough opinion to these appeals. Appellants did not take that

opportunity to submit a brief arguing footnote 6 in McDonough does not govern their

qualified immunity appeals. We conclude McDonough is controlling precedent. Our

decision that the statutory term “obtain” is unambiguous controls appellants’

additional argument that the rule of lenity entitles them to qualified immunity. See

Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191, 2209 (2013). 

The orders of the district court denying appellants’ motions to dismiss based

on the defense of qualified immunity are affirmed.

______________________________

-3-