What rights do I have to protect my personal information?
December 11, 2009 10:54 AM Subscribe
I ran a red light and got caught by a traffic camera. I received a citation in the mail a few days later. Not my citation, though, someone else's.
The citation showed a different car, different intersection, different driver. While examining it, I noticed the citation had a lot of personal information on it. This person's full name, his address, his date of birth, his driver's license number, and all of his vehicle information.
The coversheet of the citation had my name and address and citation number, which was one digit off from his. It appears they made an error matching up the two sheets -- I got mailed someone else's, someone else got mailed mine, and so on down the line. This was confirmed after a couple visits to the red light enforcement office and several phone calls: they messed up their mailings that day and a number of people were mailed the wrong citation.
The officers admit they made an error but say it's no big deal. I say, they violated my right to privacy by sending my personal information to a person unknown to me, and exposed me to potential identify theft or other mischief.
Just wondering what recourse you think I have, realistically. I live in Sacramento, California. Note: I'm not contesting my actual citation.
The citation showed a different car, different intersection, different driver. While examining it, I noticed the citation had a lot of personal information on it. This person's full name, his address, his date of birth, his driver's license number, and all of his vehicle information.
The coversheet of the citation had my name and address and citation number, which was one digit off from his. It appears they made an error matching up the two sheets -- I got mailed someone else's, someone else got mailed mine, and so on down the line. This was confirmed after a couple visits to the red light enforcement office and several phone calls: they messed up their mailings that day and a number of people were mailed the wrong citation.
The officers admit they made an error but say it's no big deal. I say, they violated my right to privacy by sending my personal information to a person unknown to me, and exposed me to potential identify theft or other mischief.
Just wondering what recourse you think I have, realistically. I live in Sacramento, California. Note: I'm not contesting my actual citation.
What possible recourse could you be looking for? Money? It was a filing mistake, the damage was done but it was a one-time blunder. Save the recourse for the truly flagrant violations of your rights – not for the honest error of a minimum wage filing clerk.
posted by Think_Long at 11:02 AM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Think_Long at 11:02 AM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
full name, address, date of birth, driver's license number, and vehicle information.
When you break the law, you may give up certain aspects of your right to privacy, including the information above; a traffic citation typically becomes a public record, and it typically contains all of that information. This may not be the case in your jurisdiction, however.
I would be more concerned if they have not given me proper notice and evidence of my alleged wrongdoing. That seems like an actual due process issue if they are summarily trying to convict me of a traffic violation.
IANYL
posted by jabberjaw at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2009
When you break the law, you may give up certain aspects of your right to privacy, including the information above; a traffic citation typically becomes a public record, and it typically contains all of that information. This may not be the case in your jurisdiction, however.
I would be more concerned if they have not given me proper notice and evidence of my alleged wrongdoing. That seems like an actual due process issue if they are summarily trying to convict me of a traffic violation.
IANYL
posted by jabberjaw at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2009
Unless California has a statute to the contrary, this may be one of those "no harm, no foul" situations.
Recourse? Not much. I mean, you might get some nominal or statutory damages if you went to small claims court--assuming California even recognizes this sort of breach as a cause of action, for which you will need to consult a California attorney--but your actual damages are pretty minimal.
Send a politely nasty letter to the department and pay your fine.
posted by valkyryn at 11:05 AM on December 11, 2009
Recourse? Not much. I mean, you might get some nominal or statutory damages if you went to small claims court--assuming California even recognizes this sort of breach as a cause of action, for which you will need to consult a California attorney--but your actual damages are pretty minimal.
Send a politely nasty letter to the department and pay your fine.
posted by valkyryn at 11:05 AM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: It's not a filing clerk, it's a law enforcement officer who does the mailings -- they told me that, and there's a certificate of mailing attached to the citation signed by an officer with a code of civil procedure noted.
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
posted by notmydesk at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
posted by notmydesk at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2009
Was there’s a ‘judgement’ error though? Wasn’t it just a mix-up? I get the frustration, I’m just not sure what you’re looking for.
posted by Think_Long at 11:13 AM on December 11, 2009
posted by Think_Long at 11:13 AM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
Because your error in judgment involved you deliberately breaking the law. Theirs was obviously accidental, and not actually illegal.
posted by cerebus19 at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Because your error in judgment involved you deliberately breaking the law. Theirs was obviously accidental, and not actually illegal.
posted by cerebus19 at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
I don't think it's likely the person in question decided to mix up the papers. It may be an error, but it's not one of judgement. There is a law that relates to your actions, and it imposes a penalty. It is unlikely that there is a law that imposes one for the misfiling.
posted by zamboni at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2009
I don't think it's likely the person in question decided to mix up the papers. It may be an error, but it's not one of judgement. There is a law that relates to your actions, and it imposes a penalty. It is unlikely that there is a law that imposes one for the misfiling.
posted by zamboni at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
You saw the light was yellow/red and chose to go through the intersection instead of stopping. Somebody accidentally put the wrong piece of paper in an envelope. Your tone makes it sound like the officer did it on purpose, which I'm sure he didn't.
On preview: Yeah, I think there's a consensus here.
posted by puritycontrol at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2009
You saw the light was yellow/red and chose to go through the intersection instead of stopping. Somebody accidentally put the wrong piece of paper in an envelope. Your tone makes it sound like the officer did it on purpose, which I'm sure he didn't.
On preview: Yeah, I think there's a consensus here.
posted by puritycontrol at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2009
This is not personal information. It is a public record. I could go get a copy of it and staple it onto light posts all over town if I wanted.
posted by chris p at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2009
posted by chris p at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
Because they're the cops and you're little people. You broke a rule with a defined penalty, they (most likely) did not. Your "right to privacy" is a somewhat nebulous and disputed thing, if you follow the legal and constitutional arguments around this. Maybe we should make rules like assessing fines to cops when they make a mistake and give your personal information to the wrong people, but we don't. We do, however, make rules assessing a fine for getting caught running a red light by an automated camera. With others I feel your pain but don't get what you're really asking. As valkyryn says you could presumably mount some sort of legal action but without any apparent demonstrable material damages or evidence that it was anything but a clerical snafu by the officer (i.e. no intent on his part) I can't see it doing you much good, and let's face it, there's a pretty good chance of a judge seeing it as purely an act of revenge for getting a ticket, and being against you from the get go.
posted by nanojath at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2009
Because they're the cops and you're little people. You broke a rule with a defined penalty, they (most likely) did not. Your "right to privacy" is a somewhat nebulous and disputed thing, if you follow the legal and constitutional arguments around this. Maybe we should make rules like assessing fines to cops when they make a mistake and give your personal information to the wrong people, but we don't. We do, however, make rules assessing a fine for getting caught running a red light by an automated camera. With others I feel your pain but don't get what you're really asking. As valkyryn says you could presumably mount some sort of legal action but without any apparent demonstrable material damages or evidence that it was anything but a clerical snafu by the officer (i.e. no intent on his part) I can't see it doing you much good, and let's face it, there's a pretty good chance of a judge seeing it as purely an act of revenge for getting a ticket, and being against you from the get go.
posted by nanojath at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: The certificate of mailing states: "I placed this Notice to Appear in an envelope addressed to the registered owner or lessee as shown above and sealed it." And the officer signed this. I would say the error in judgment comes from him judging he had correctly placed the notice in an envelope addressed to me, which he did not. I'm not saying it was intentional.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's no big deal, as they keep telling me. I found it interesting that the officer I spoke to wouldn't even give me her first name when I asked. I guess it's understandable for them to be protective of their personal information, but I shouldn't feel protective of mine. That's the general vibe I've gotten.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
posted by notmydesk at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2009
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's no big deal, as they keep telling me. I found it interesting that the officer I spoke to wouldn't even give me her first name when I asked. I guess it's understandable for them to be protective of their personal information, but I shouldn't feel protective of mine. That's the general vibe I've gotten.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
posted by notmydesk at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
Putting aside that I don't really think either of these were "errors in judgement", You can hire a lawyer and take the police department to court. Either they will end up with some sort of repercussion for their mistake, or a judge will explain to you why not.
Seems like a lot of trouble/expense to me, but you may feel differently.
posted by mikepop at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2009
Putting aside that I don't really think either of these were "errors in judgement", You can hire a lawyer and take the police department to court. Either they will end up with some sort of repercussion for their mistake, or a judge will explain to you why not.
Seems like a lot of trouble/expense to me, but you may feel differently.
posted by mikepop at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2009
The certificate of mailing states: "I placed this Notice to Appear in an envelope addressed to the registered owner or lessee as shown above and sealed it." And the officer signed this.
This statement is not there to protect your personal information. It is there to show that they gave you proper notice of your citation so that you can be punished if you don't pay it. It was a mistake, but you're not a victim of it in any way. All of the information in your ticket is public information. I assume that they did eventually send you a proper citation. That means you're still on the hook for the ticket.
I guess it's understandable for them to be protective of their personal information, but I shouldn't feel protective of mine. That's the general vibe I've gotten.
The general vibe I get is that you're raising whatever sort of hell you can to get out of a ticket that you rightly deserved. The officer may have not given out her name because she didn't want to be involved with your crap. You got a ticket. I know it sucks. You'll probably be happier if you pay for it and move on. Sorry.
posted by chris p at 12:15 PM on December 11, 2009
This statement is not there to protect your personal information. It is there to show that they gave you proper notice of your citation so that you can be punished if you don't pay it. It was a mistake, but you're not a victim of it in any way. All of the information in your ticket is public information. I assume that they did eventually send you a proper citation. That means you're still on the hook for the ticket.
I guess it's understandable for them to be protective of their personal information, but I shouldn't feel protective of mine. That's the general vibe I've gotten.
The general vibe I get is that you're raising whatever sort of hell you can to get out of a ticket that you rightly deserved. The officer may have not given out her name because she didn't want to be involved with your crap. You got a ticket. I know it sucks. You'll probably be happier if you pay for it and move on. Sorry.
posted by chris p at 12:15 PM on December 11, 2009
World Famous has it. The penalties work differently because you broke a law, and the police officer likely did not. If you believe that what the police officer did should violate a law, then you are free to attempt to change the laws via the political process.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:19 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by craven_morhead at 12:19 PM on December 11, 2009
None of the info on that sheet was "personal information". It's all stuff thats public record.
posted by WeekendJen at 12:23 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by WeekendJen at 12:23 PM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: Well, this looks like it could apply. 1798.3 defines the information they disclosed as "personal". Penalties here. But I'm not a lawyer and don't know if I'm reading it right.
And I'm sorry if some of you feel I'm simply trying to dodge a ticket. I am not contesting my ticket and I've told the officers that very thing. I'm trying to determine if my right to privacy has been violated. I'm not trying to make a federal case or sue for millions, I just feel like I've been exposed to possible harm from their actions.
posted by notmydesk at 12:28 PM on December 11, 2009
And I'm sorry if some of you feel I'm simply trying to dodge a ticket. I am not contesting my ticket and I've told the officers that very thing. I'm trying to determine if my right to privacy has been violated. I'm not trying to make a federal case or sue for millions, I just feel like I've been exposed to possible harm from their actions.
posted by notmydesk at 12:28 PM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: Also, out of curiosity, would any of you be comfortable posting your full first, last, and middle names, your date of birth, your home address, your driver's license number, your license tags and vehicle information, and a photograph of yourself in this thread so a bunch of strangers can have it? If so, please do.
posted by notmydesk at 12:32 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by notmydesk at 12:32 PM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: may have been sent to one other person
One other person who could, say, give it to a bunch of other people or post it online?
But your point is taken. I'll revise the invitation: feel free to send me that information via Mefi Mail, if you like.
posted by notmydesk at 12:40 PM on December 11, 2009
One other person who could, say, give it to a bunch of other people or post it online?
But your point is taken. I'll revise the invitation: feel free to send me that information via Mefi Mail, if you like.
posted by notmydesk at 12:40 PM on December 11, 2009
I actually didn't know that when you get a traffic citation, your DL number becomes a matter of public record. Is this actually true? In a computer security class I once took, the professor told us that you should guard your DL number just as closely as your SSN, because with your DL number and a decent fake ID setup, identity theft is a piece of cake. If someone creates a convincing fake ID with your DL number and name but their photo, they can use it as ID to set up all kinds of accounts and really, in most aspects of day-to-day life, live as you. Sure, convincing fake IDs aren't easy to create, but it can be done. I would rather not have my info on those convincing fake IDs.
I got a speeding ticket in the state of California some years back, and I just took a look at the site of the county where I got it. While the record of my infraction is there, the only personally identifying information it contains is my full name. Certainly no DOB or DL number.
notmydesk, I doubt you will be able to use the fact that this is potentially bad PII to have out in the open to get out of the ticket. Most people really seem not to believe in the risk of identity theft until it happens to them. However, you should keep an eye on your bank accounts and maybe put a flag on your credit report...and if you're really paranoid, maybe even just try and get a new DL. I know my number changed the last time I got a new one. Doesn't necessarily prevent the aforementioned fake ID from being created, but at least if someone with a fake ID with your name on it gets a DUI, they'll be caught out.
Sorry this happened to you. That stinks.
posted by crinklebat at 12:42 PM on December 11, 2009
I got a speeding ticket in the state of California some years back, and I just took a look at the site of the county where I got it. While the record of my infraction is there, the only personally identifying information it contains is my full name. Certainly no DOB or DL number.
notmydesk, I doubt you will be able to use the fact that this is potentially bad PII to have out in the open to get out of the ticket. Most people really seem not to believe in the risk of identity theft until it happens to them. However, you should keep an eye on your bank accounts and maybe put a flag on your credit report...and if you're really paranoid, maybe even just try and get a new DL. I know my number changed the last time I got a new one. Doesn't necessarily prevent the aforementioned fake ID from being created, but at least if someone with a fake ID with your name on it gets a DUI, they'll be caught out.
Sorry this happened to you. That stinks.
posted by crinklebat at 12:42 PM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks, crinkle. And, once more, I'm not trying to get out of paying my fine. I'm simply not. I'm just concerned about what has happened, I'm genuinely baffled that few others share my concerns, and I'm wondering what I can or should do about it.
posted by notmydesk at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by notmydesk at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2009
From your "penalties" link:
1798.48. In any suit brought under the provisions of subdivision
(b) or (c) of Section 1798.45, the agency shall be liable to the
individual in an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) Actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages
for mental suffering.
(b) The costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's
fees as determined by the court.
Hand wringing aside, unless something happens to you as a result of this, if you did sue, you would likely be entitled to nominal damages, which in most courts is $1.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
1798.48. In any suit brought under the provisions of subdivision
(b) or (c) of Section 1798.45, the agency shall be liable to the
individual in an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) Actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages
for mental suffering.
(b) The costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's
fees as determined by the court.
Hand wringing aside, unless something happens to you as a result of this, if you did sue, you would likely be entitled to nominal damages, which in most courts is $1.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:51 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oh, also, I am not your lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:51 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by craven_morhead at 12:51 PM on December 11, 2009
I am definitely not a lawyer, either.
My guess, though, (for what little it is worth) is that you would have to prove actual harm has been done to you by the filing/mailing officer's mistake to have any sort of successful complaint. You are worried about potential harm, but that is not the same thing.
If you are worried about identity theft, put a freeze on your credit report at each of the 3 credit bureaus, just in case.
posted by fancyoats at 12:54 PM on December 11, 2009
My guess, though, (for what little it is worth) is that you would have to prove actual harm has been done to you by the filing/mailing officer's mistake to have any sort of successful complaint. You are worried about potential harm, but that is not the same thing.
If you are worried about identity theft, put a freeze on your credit report at each of the 3 credit bureaus, just in case.
posted by fancyoats at 12:54 PM on December 11, 2009
Think_Long writes "It was a filing mistake, the damage was done but it was a one-time blunder."
You have know way of knowing that. The department could be shipping the citations out to the wrong people on a regular basis.
posted by Mitheral at 1:01 PM on December 11, 2009
You have know way of knowing that. The department could be shipping the citations out to the wrong people on a regular basis.
posted by Mitheral at 1:01 PM on December 11, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks for the advice, fancyoats, I may do that. At any rate, it's a relief to know I'm not crazy, and that the information they sent out was in fact personal and does appear to be protected, as I suspected. Hopefully, if I press them on this, they'll take steps in the future to safeguard against this sort of carelessness.
posted by notmydesk at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by notmydesk at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2009
I absolutely think this is a fair thing to be concerned about. Imagine an equal scenario not involving a ticket (not even involving the government): a credit rating agency accidentally sending a full credit report to the wrong address. I'd be very concerned about that. However, the only thing I think I could do about it would be to cancel my accounts and change as much identifying information as possible. Now, if someone DID steal my identity as a direct result of the agency's error, then I might have some standing to sue for damages. However, as fancyoats says, you generally have to prove actual harm resulted from the other party's action or negligent inaction. Mere exposure of identifying information is not currently a crime, as far as I know. (I am not a lawyer).
posted by Chris4d at 1:20 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by Chris4d at 1:20 PM on December 11, 2009
And, once more, I'm not trying to get out of paying my fine. I'm simply not.
Why not? That seems to me to be your most obvious recourse.
They mishandled the evidence, so I think you have a leg to stand on. IANAL, but in a drug bust or other more serious crime then mishandling evidence usually gets that evidence thrown out. Get the picture thrown out and you may be off the hook.
At the very least, they may have to reissue the citation. And oftentimes in bureaucracies, many bureaucrats will simply not bother.
posted by I am the Walrus at 1:47 PM on December 11, 2009
Why not? That seems to me to be your most obvious recourse.
They mishandled the evidence, so I think you have a leg to stand on. IANAL, but in a drug bust or other more serious crime then mishandling evidence usually gets that evidence thrown out. Get the picture thrown out and you may be off the hook.
At the very least, they may have to reissue the citation. And oftentimes in bureaucracies, many bureaucrats will simply not bother.
posted by I am the Walrus at 1:47 PM on December 11, 2009
Mishandling the evidence? That's a lot of shooting from the hip, Walrus. I think you're dipping your toe into the realm of discovery disputes and/or evidentiary issues, which is a whole different kettle of fish. By referring to evidence getting "thrown out," you're probably referring to inadmissible evidence, which in a drug case might be something that has been tampered with or that the people can't prove up a chain of custody for. Not only is that rare, it has no application to this instance, where copies of evidentiary bits were sent to the wrong recipient.
posted by craven_morhead at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by craven_morhead at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Privacy issues aside, I don't know about California law, but here in BC this would be sufficient grounds to have the citation declared a nullity.
posted by Neiltupper at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by Neiltupper at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2009
Ok, I'll admit to a bit of overstatement, but I stand behind the idea. All the stuff I have read online about beating tickets says the first thing to do is look at discrepancies in the details, then these details are grounds for showing that other details might also be wrong. If the citation has the wrong date, maybe it has the wrong speed. In this case, if the department cannot send her the correct citation, then they have not proven that she broke the law.
posted by I am the Walrus at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by I am the Walrus at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2009
Oh, I agree with you there. I think the issue here is that they sent a copy of the citation to the wrong person, but still have the valid original of the citation. If they don't have that, then we have a different situation entirely.
posted by craven_morhead at 2:49 PM on December 11, 2009
posted by craven_morhead at 2:49 PM on December 11, 2009
"Disclose" is not equal to "clerical error".
Or at least that's what the judge will tell you. I understand your concerns, don't get me wrong.
Probably the best you can do, if you are truly worried about safety, is to petition for a free license number and driver's license number change.
posted by gjc at 5:27 PM on December 11, 2009
Or at least that's what the judge will tell you. I understand your concerns, don't get me wrong.
Probably the best you can do, if you are truly worried about safety, is to petition for a free license number and driver's license number change.
posted by gjc at 5:27 PM on December 11, 2009
I guess I don't see why my error in judgment comes with a fine and their error of judgment doesn't come with anything.
I am in complete sympathy with you.
However, the recourse will never be granted by the bureaucracy. It would have to be awarded by a judge, or at the very least, in response to a lawyer acting on your behalf and threatening to involve a judge.
This may be do-able. A lot of people upthread are making the distinction between mistakes that break the law and those that don't, but it's just not that simple. For example, it is not illegal for the cop who gave you the ticket to oversleep and fail to show up in court to testify in your case. But if that happens, you are still likely to win. It is also not illegal for a cop to slip and fall face-down in a pool of blood while investigating a murder scene, but if that happens, the evidence is still tainted, and that could very well affect the outcome of any ensuing court cases.
The robotic photograph ticket-issue system is pretty controversial already, and you may even be able to align yourself with individuals or groups who are fighting that system as a whole, and be able to share some of their resources.
Best of luck.
posted by bingo at 5:57 PM on December 11, 2009
I am in complete sympathy with you.
However, the recourse will never be granted by the bureaucracy. It would have to be awarded by a judge, or at the very least, in response to a lawyer acting on your behalf and threatening to involve a judge.
This may be do-able. A lot of people upthread are making the distinction between mistakes that break the law and those that don't, but it's just not that simple. For example, it is not illegal for the cop who gave you the ticket to oversleep and fail to show up in court to testify in your case. But if that happens, you are still likely to win. It is also not illegal for a cop to slip and fall face-down in a pool of blood while investigating a murder scene, but if that happens, the evidence is still tainted, and that could very well affect the outcome of any ensuing court cases.
The robotic photograph ticket-issue system is pretty controversial already, and you may even be able to align yourself with individuals or groups who are fighting that system as a whole, and be able to share some of their resources.
Best of luck.
posted by bingo at 5:57 PM on December 11, 2009
The certificate of mailing states: "I placed this Notice to Appear in an envelope addressed to the registered owner or lessee as shown above and sealed it." And the officer signed this.
Just nit-picking here, but I'd be interested to learn how the officer managed to sign it after having placed it in an envelope and sealing the envelope. Unless, of course, he signed it first, in which case he was willingly making an untrue statement, and could have signed it and then thrown it in the trash.
posted by aqsakal at 12:04 AM on December 12, 2009
Just nit-picking here, but I'd be interested to learn how the officer managed to sign it after having placed it in an envelope and sealing the envelope. Unless, of course, he signed it first, in which case he was willingly making an untrue statement, and could have signed it and then thrown it in the trash.
posted by aqsakal at 12:04 AM on December 12, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2009