Privacy of Driver’s License Data Upheld

In a victory for individual privacy over states’ rights, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law Wednesday that bars states from selling or revealing personal information obtained from driver’s licenses.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court said the law did not burden the states and was well within Congress’ power. California, in fact, already protects the information.

But after the recent string of states’ rights rulings, it is somewhat surprising now when the high court upholds an act of Congress.

Privacy has a special appeal, however. Last month, the justices revived a California law that barred businesses from selling names and addresses obtained from police records.

In the recent past, data from motor vehicle records proved to be a profit center for some states. New York, Florida and Wisconsin, for example, earned tens of millions of dollars a year by selling names and addresses to mass marketers. A decade ago, in nearly all the states, including California, anyone willing to pay a small fee could obtain names, addresses, phone numbers and sometimes even photographs of drivers.

The practice came to light after a series of notorious crimes, including the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer in Los Angeles. The co-star of the television series “My Sister Sam” did not publicly list her address or phone number.

But a stalker apparently obtained this information from the state Department of Motor Vehicles and shot her outside her apartment.

Soon after, officials in Sacramento tightened the DMV rules for releasing personal data. And in 1994, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act to force all states to do the same.

Lawmakers said stalkers, abusive former spouses and anti-abortion zealots were among those who used driver’s license files to track unwary victims.

Under the federal law, unless motorists consent, states may not disclose a driver’s name, address, photograph, Social Security number or telephone number unless the motorist consents. The law includes exceptions for information related to traffic safety. Police and courts can check drivers’ records, as can insurers and lenders.

But South Carolina Atty. Gen. Charles Condon challenged the law, saying it intruded on the state’s turf. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., agreed and two years ago struck down the law as unconstitutional.

The 4th Circuit has emerged as the bastion of states’ rights and the most conservative of the lower federal courts. Its judges struck down the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which was debated by the Supreme Court justices Tuesday.

In the drivers’ privacy case, Judge Karen Williams of the 4th Circuit concluded that the “information found in motor vehicles records is not the sort of information to which individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

This time, however, the conservative lower court went too far.

Acting on appeal from the Clinton administration, the justices on Wednesday revived the federal law in the case of Reno vs. Condon, 98-1464.

The measure simply “regulates the states as owners of databases,” Rehnquist said. It does not subject states to lawsuits and does not force states to make major changes in their operations, he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an author of the law, said she was delighted with the outcome. The ruling makes clear “Congress has the right to protect the privacy of personal information that could be used to harm our citizens.”

The Feminist Majority Foundation said the decision “will save the lives of both abortion providers and women targeted by stalkers.”

The outcome should have no significant effect in California, said DMV officials, because privacy protections have already been set.

“We had to make some small adjustments because of the federal law,” said Evan Nossoff, a DMV spokesman in California. “With limited exceptions, the home addresses of motorists are confidential in California, and the lists are never sold to mass marketers.”

In another case, the justices ruled Wednesday that a convicted California embezzler has no constitutional right to represent himself during his appeals.

As a general matter, defendants have a right to a lawyer at their trials. And they also have a right to represent themselves if they choose to do so.

But unlike a trial, whose primary purpose is fact finding, an appeal is a legal proceeding, the justices said Wednesday.

The government has an “interest in efficiency and fairness” during appeals, said Justice John Paul Stevens. To make sure the legal issues are properly and thoroughly considered, the state can require that lawyers represent the defendant, even when the defendant would rather do it himself.

Salvador Martinez is a self-taught paralegal who said he worked at 12 law firms over 25 years in California. While employed as an office assistant at a firm in Santa Ana, he was accused of embezzling $6,000 and was later convicted.

Because he has three prior convictions, Martinez was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

When he appealed, he asked to represent himself. The California Supreme Court refused, saying “there is no constitutional right to self-representation on the initial appeal.”

The high court agreed in Martinez vs. California, 98-7809.