Van Zee v. Hanson

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
630 F.3d 1126 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A government official's disclosure of an individual's statutorily confidential records does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy where the individual has waived any legitimate expectation of privacy by executing release forms authorizing the disclosure.

Facts:

Joseph S. Van Zee enlisted in the U.S. Army in early 2008.
In June 2008, an Army recruiter informed Van Zee that a background check was required before he could begin basic training.
Van Zee executed two blank release forms, one for law enforcement records and another for probation and court records, to facilitate the background check.
The Army recruiter sent these forms to relevant agencies, but the Chief Court Services Officer of the Sixth Judicial District of South Dakota declined to release Van Zee's juvenile records, citing state law.
On July 9, 2008, the recruiter contacted Marilyn Hanson, the Clerk of Courts for Hyde County, and requested Van Zee's juvenile records.
Hanson disclosed Van Zee's juvenile records to the Army recruiter.
Following the disclosure, the recruiter informed Van Zee that his enlistment was canceled.

Procedural Posture:

Joseph S. Van Zee sued Marilyn Hanson in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Hanson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The district court requested and considered copies of the release forms signed by Van Zee.
The district court granted Hanson's motion to dismiss.
Van Zee, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Hanson as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a clerk of courts violate an individual's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy by disclosing their juvenile records to a third party when the individual has signed release forms authorizing the disclosure of such records?

Opinions:

Majority - Benton, J.

No. A clerk of courts does not violate an individual's Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy by disclosing juvenile records when the individual has signed release forms, because such action negates any legitimate expectation of privacy. To establish a constitutional privacy violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must show a deprivation of a federally protected right. The court held that a violation of the constitutional right to privacy requires that the disclosed information be a 'shocking degradation or an egregious humiliation' or a 'flagrant breach of a pledge of confidentiality.' The court determines this by assessing whether the individual had a legitimate expectation that the information would remain confidential. Here, Van Zee did not have such an expectation because he signed release forms specifically authorizing the disclosure of his records to the recruiter for a background check. By requesting the release, he waived any privacy or property interest he might have had in the confidentiality of those records under state law.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the high threshold required to establish a constitutional right-to-privacy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It clarifies that an individual's consent, such as signing a release form, effectively waives their legitimate expectation of privacy, even if a state statute otherwise protects the information's confidentiality. The decision highlights that a violation of a state-law confidentiality provision does not automatically amount to a federal constitutional violation. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on constitutional privacy claims where they have taken any action to authorize the release of the information in question.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Van Zee v. Hanson (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature