The availability of drivers' license records is once again in the spotlight as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutional validity of a 1994 law that limited the public's access to the records.
The court's decision, which is expected sometime after the New Year, will also determine the fate of a provision in an appropriations bill passed by Congress - and signed by President Clinton - in October that changes the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) to limit access further.
Effect on journalists
For journalists, this could mean either a return to full access to drivers' records or a complete roadblock, depending on the Supreme Court's ruling.
"If they want to use the big 'P' word - privacy - to invoke all this unnecessary legislation, we need to speak up as journalists," said Kyle Elyse Niederpruem, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and a writer for the Indianapolis Star. "The big deal now is waiting on the Supreme Court to figure out the mess - whether that be colored by privacy interests, state rights issues or compelling public safety concerns - here's one person who hopes the Supreme Court sees through this mess."
Niederpruem said the DPPA, which went into effect in 1997, merely made "everybody's life a nightmare," including both journalists and DMV officials. The exemptions and variances in state laws made for a patchwork across the country, and many journalists were unaware of the changes until they tried to access the data after the laws passed, Niederpruem said.
Wording of law
The DPPA restricted state departments of motor vehicles from releasing personal information contained in drivers' license records, unless they established an "opt-out" provision for citizens to withhold their information from public release.
About twenty-nine states have since established an "opt-out" and a few have adopted a media exemption. News media exemptions fall under a provision of the federal law that keeps records open for matters relating to vehicle and driver safety.
Latest proposal
However, a provision in the Department of Transportation appropriations bill, passed in October, would require states to have an "opt-in" provision instead, and allows the government to withhold federal highway funding for states that don't comply. This would mean individuals would have to agree, in writing, to allow their personal information to be released to the public.
"If they want to use the big 'P' word - privacy - to invoke all this unnecessary legislation, we need to speak up as journalists," said Kyle Elyse Niederpruem.
The state of South Carolina challenged the DPPA on the grounds that it interferes with the states' sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment by requiring states to enforce a federal program. The Federal Appeals Court ruled the law unconstitutional there.
Three other states also challenged the law - Alabama, Wisconsin and Oklahoma - and appeals courts upheld the law in the Wisconsin and Oklahoma cases, and invalidated the law in the Alabama case.
When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November, justices questioned whether the federal government was encroaching on state functions, but said striking down the DPPA might also result in a need to revisit a 1985 law regarding fair labor standards.
Maryjo Sylwester can be reached by e-mail at maryjo@nicar.org