Gaylor v . McLaughlin, et a l . CV-03-337-B 11/19/03
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dorothy Gaylor, et a l .
v. Civil N o . 03-337-B
Phil McLaughlin, et a l .
O R D E R
Plaintiffs Dorothy Gaylor, William Gaylor, and Richard
Gaylor (“plaintiffs”) are the parents and brother of convicted
felon, Gregory Gaylor (“Gaylor”). After Gregory Gaylor absconded
during his criminal trial, state officials placed a notice on the
internet seeking information concerning his whereabouts. The
notice identified plaintiffs’ familial relationships to Gaylor
and listed their names, addresses, home telephone numbers and
Texas drivers license numbers. 1 Plaintiffs complain that
defendants’ disclosure of their personal information violated
their constitutional right to privacy and the Driver’s Privacy
Protection Act (“DPPA”),
, et seq. They also
Plaintiffs assert that defendants also disclosed their
Social Security numbers. However, the notice, which plaintiffs
attached to their complaint, lists only Gaylor’s Social Security
number.
assert state law claims for defamation and invasion of privacy.
Defendants have moved to dismiss.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable claim that
defendants’ disclosure of their names, home addresses, and
telephone numbers violated their constitutional right to
privacy.2 Even if I assume that plaintiffs had a legitimate
expectation that this information would remain private — an
assumption that is difficult to make in the modern world in which
such information is readily available from non-governmental
sources — defendants’ decision to disclose the information cannot
support a right to privacy claim because it was narrowly tailored
to serve the state’s legitimate interest in apprehending a
fugitive. See, e.g., A.A. ex rel. M.M. v . New Jersey,
(3d Cir. 2003) (governmental interest in disclosing
name and address of sex offender). While drivers license numbers
are not readily available from non-governmental sources and it is
2
Plaintiffs do not base their claim on defendants’
disclosure of their familial relationships to Greg Gaylor. If
they has asserted such a claim, it would fail for the same
reason.
-2-
not clear how the disclosure of the numbers furthered defendants’
effort to apprehend Gaylor, their decision to disclose the
information does not give rise to a constitutional claim because
a drivers license number is not the kind of deeply personal
information that the right to privacy was intended to protect
from public disclosure. See Rowe v . Burton,
(D. Alaska 1994).
II. DRIVER’S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT CLAIM
Plaintiffs’ DPPA claim fails because defendants were engaged
in a legitimate law enforcement activity when they disclosed the
information that they allegedly obtained from motor vehicle
records. The DPPA provides that personal information obtained
from motor vehicle records may be disclosed “[f]or use by any
government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency,
in carrying out its functions . . . .”
(b)(1).
The disclosure that occurred in this case plainly qualifies under
this exception as defendants disclosed the information in
furtherance of a lawful effort to apprehend a fugitive.
-3-
III. STATE LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiffs claim that the internet notice defamed them and
wrongly placed them in a false light because it created a false
impression that they had been engaged in criminal activity. I
reject these claims because the notice could not be read by any
reasonable person to imply that plaintiffs had been engaged in
criminal activity. Instead, the only reasonable way to read the
notice is to understand it to assert that plaintiffs are the
parents and brother of a wanted felon, a fact that plaintiffs
concede is true.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. n o . 3 ) is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Paul Barbadoro
Chief Judge
November 1 9 , 2003
cc: Dorothy Gaylor, pro se
Richard Gaylor, pro se
William Gaylor, pro se
Andrew Livernois, Esq.
-4-
