DeVere v. Attorney General

146 N.H. 762 (2001) · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · September 20, 2001

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that RSA 260:14, III, the Driver Privacy Act provision governing disclosure for official business, does not generally permit a private citizen to obtain motor vehicle records merely by obtaining a court order and asserting a governmental purpose. The court concluded that section III applies to requests from governmental entities, while private parties must satisfy the requirements of section V, subject to its limitations and opt-out provisions. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings concerning the plaintiff’s alternative section V claims.

Holdings

  1. RSA 260:14, III does not authorize disclosure to a private party whenever the party asserts that the records relate to a governmental function. Section III applies to requests from governmental entities, including a court acting to obtain records for a litigant in connection with pending litigation; a private party seeking records for legislative testimony must instead satisfy section V.
  2. The phrase 'for use in official business' limits disclosure under section III. The official business must be that of the governmental entity seeking the records, not merely the private citizen's intended use of the information.
  3. The record was insufficient to determine whether DeVere could obtain the records under section V. Because he had not first requested access from the Division as section V requires, and the superior court had not addressed the section V issues or the effect of the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the matter had to be remanded.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether RSA 260:14, III permits a private citizen to obtain motor vehicle records pursuant to a court order merely because the citizen intends to use the records in connection with a governmental or legislative function.
  2. Whether RSA 260:14, III limits disclosure for governmental entities and courts to use in official business.
  3. Whether DeVere was entitled to disclosure under RSA 260:14, V (a)(2) or (4), despite not first requesting the records from the Division under section V.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (6)

  • Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 143-45 (2000)(followed)
  • Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 398 (1997)(followed)
  • Appeal of Ashland Elec. Dept., 141 N.H. 336, 340-41 (1996)(followed)
  • Appeal of Mascoma Valley Reg. School Dist., 141 N.H. 98, 100 (1996)(followed)
  • Piper v. Railroad, 75 N.H. 435, 442 (1910)(distinguished)
  • Appeal of Sturm, Ruger & Co., 124 N.H. 506, 508-09 (1984)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…