Supreme Court Upholds Driver’s Privacy Act of 1994

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 yesterday, ruling that Congress clearly has the power to control the release of driver information by state motor vehicle bureaus.

As a result of the ruling, list compilers and direct marketers could lose access to age data and other information contained on driver’s license and motor vehicle records, industry sources said.

Passed in response to the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a fan who located her through motor records, the bill requires that drivers be given a chance to prevent disclosure of personal information to direct marketers and others. DMers have generally been able to live with such “opt-out” provisions.

However, sources said the ruling will lead to enforcement of the Shelby Amendment, a provision added to last year’s appropriations bill by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). The measure, signed by President Clinton last October, says that drivers must “opt in” in order for states to disclose their personal information, and would cut off highway funding to states that fail to comply.

The opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist seems to validate this shift from an opt-out to an opt-in. “Under the amended DPPA, states may not imply consent from a driver’s failure to take advantage of a state-afforded opportunity to block disclosure, but must rather obtain a driver’s affirmative consent,” he wrote.

The opinion drew quick fire from the Direct Marketing Association.

“The decision sets a terrible precedent on whether or not public records remain public,” said DMA spokesperson Stephen Altobelli. “It will open the door for more activism on the part of Congress restricting public use of information without regard to freedom of information principles and the First Amendment.”

Altobelli added, “We also have concerns about the manner in which the Shelby amendment became law–there was no public debate, no public hearings on an amendment which significantly restricts access to important public records.”

Yesterday’s opinion seemed to fly in the face of several recent Supreme Court decisions restricting the ability of the federal government to regulate state activities.

Although he agreed that the Shelby amendment can now be enforced, Privacy Journal Publisher Robert Ellis Smith said, “The decision is neutral on privacy. It’s about the principles of federalism.”

The ruling reversed a decision by the U.S. District court for the District of South Carolina, which found that the DPPA was “incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution…,” Rehnquist wrote.

South Carolina had filed suit in 1997, claiming that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the Constitution.

However, due to the fact that drivers’ information is an article of commerce, “its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation,” Rehnquist ruled.

He added that “the DPPA regulates the states as the owners of databases,” and does not require them to “regulate their own citizens.”

Rehnquist also noted that the “DPPA’s provisions do not apply solely to states,” but also to resellers of information obtained from the states.

In addition, the effort to carry out the law is not an unconstitutional burden for states, he stated.

Rehnquist pointed out that motor vehicle information is used by “insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations.”

Several states prohibit any release of drivers’ information to marketers.