# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nos . 14 -3 52 7, 1 4- 35 29 , 14 -3 53 3, 1 4- 35 37 , 14 -3 53 9, 1 4- 35 40 , 14 -3 54 2, 1 4- 35 43 , 14 -3 60 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Je ss ic a Leah Kam

ps ch ro er; Co ry

Pat ric k Kam

ps ch ro er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.
Ano ka Co un ty, et al.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 14 88

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Pat ric ia Mae Kerr Kara so v
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 16 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 1, 2 01 6 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

The Driv er’s Pri va cy Pro te ct io n Act (“ DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 27 24 (a), pr ov id es th at a pe rs on who kn owi ng ly ob ta in s in fo rm at io n fro m a m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd , fo r a pu rp os e no t pe rm it te d, is li ab le to th e in di vi du al to who m th e in fo rm at io n pe rta in s. Pat ric ia Karas ov an d Je ss ic a an d Co ry Kam ps ch ro er br ou gh t se pa rat e act io ns ag ai ns t

va rio us Mi nn es ot a ci ti es , co un ti es , an d la w en fo rcem en t en t i t i e s a ll eg in g DPPA vi ol at io ns

. In se pa rat e or de rs , t he di st ric t co ur t de ni ed in pa rt de f e n d a n t s ’ m ot io ns to d i s mi s s , i nc lu di ng cl ai m s by m an y de fen da nt s th at th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is ap pe al s th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y in th e Karas ov act io n, an d nu m ero us Mi nn es ot a co u n t ie s ap pe al th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y in th e Kam

ps ch ro ers act io n. Fo r or al arg um en t a n d s ub m is si on , we

Th i s op in io n is be in g fil ed by J ud ge W ol lm an an d Ju dg e Lok en pu rs u a n t t o 1 8t h C ir. R ul e 4 7E.
-2

-co ns ol id at ed th es e ap pe al s wit h nu m ero us ot he r ap pe al s rai si ng DPPA is su es ot he r

th an qu al ifi ed im m

un it y. We ha ve no w r es ol ve d th os e ap pe al s in a si ng le op in io n, Tich ic h v. Ci ty o f Bl oo m in gt on , No. 1 4- 31 51 (8t h C ir. Se pt em be r 1, 2 01 6) . In th is op in io n, we rev ie w th e de ni al s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y de no vo an d affi rm

. Brad fo rd v. Hu ck ab ee, 3 94 F.3d 10 12 , 10 15 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

App el la nt s arg ue th at th ey a r e e n ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se (1 ) th e
ve rb “ ob ta in []” in th e DPPA do es no t im po se li ab il it y on a pu bl ic of fic ia l who m erel y
acce ss es an d vi ews a pe rs on ’s m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd , an d (2 ) ev en if th ere is li ab il it y fo r su ch act io n, it was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e th e in fo rm at io n was acce ss ed in th es e cas es

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er th is is su e of la w in an in te rlo cu to ry
a pp eal , un li ke th e fact -in te ns iv e DPPA is su es th at pr ecl ud ed th e in te rl o c u t o r y qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pe al in Mal la k v. Ci ty of Bax te r, 82 3 F.3 d 44 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

Afte r th e pa rti es br ie fed th es e ap pe al s, we is su ed ou r de ci si on in McDo no ug h

v. Ano ka Co un ty, 79 9 F.3 d 93 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 6 S. Ct

. 23 88 (2 01 6) , whi ch sq ua rel y ad d r e s se d th is qu al ifi ed im m un it y is su e: “ Bec au se th e m ean in g of ‘obt ai n’ in th is co nt ex t is un am bi gu ou s,

. . . [d efen da nt s’] co nt en ti on th at qu al ifi ed im m un it y ap pl ie s to [ t h e i r ] co nd uc t be cau se th e m ean in g of ‘obt ai n’ is un cl ear

. . . fai ls .” Id

. at 94 4, n.6

. W e in vi te d th e pa rti es in al l th e pe nd in g DPPA cas es to su bm it

su pp le m en ta l br ie fs on a di ffer en t is su e -- ho w we sh ou ld ap pl y th e “ pl au si bi li ty

an al y si s” in ou r McDo no ug h op in io n to th es e ap pe al s. App el la nt s di d no t t ak e th at op po rtu ni ty to su bm it a br ie f arg ui ng fo ot no te 6 in McDo no ug h do es no t go ve rn th ei r qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pe al s. W e co nc lu de McDo no ug h is co nt ro ll in g pr eced en t. Our de ci si on th at th e st at ut o r y t e r m “ ob ta in ” is un am bi gu ou s co nt ro ls ap pe ll an ts ’ ad di ti on al arg um en t t ha t t he rul e o f le ni ty ent it le s th em to qu al ifi ed im m un it y . S ee Mar aci ch v. Sp ears , 13 3 S . Ct. 2 19 1, 2 20 9 (2 01 3)

.

The or de rs of t he di st ric t co ur t de nyin g ap pe ll an ts ’ m ot io ns to di sm is s ba se d

on th e d efen se of q ua li fie d i m m un it y are af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -3

-