annemarie rasmus so mam end complaint

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-CV-00632-SRN-JSM

AFFIDAVIT OF LORENZ FETT, JR.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )

I, Lorenz Fett, Jr., being first duly sworn under oath, state and depose as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in this Court and submit this affidavit

in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended

Complaint in a clean, non-redlined manner.

3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended

Complaint, with all amendments shown in “red-line” fashion.

4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation to

Approve Filing of First Amended Complaint.

5. The Plaintiff’s need to amend her complaint was known to all parties and to

the Court at the first Scheduling Conference, at which Defendants consented to a two-

phase discovery process, the first phase of which was to seek a new and more complete

audit from the Department of Public Safety and thereafter to serve limited discovery on

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53 Filed 09/28/12 of 2

2

the Entity Defendants in this case to discover if the persons accessing Ms. Rasmusson’s

information had a legally permissible purpose to do so. All of this is set forth in the

Court’s May 30, 2012 Pretrial Scheduling Order.

6. That phase has concluded, and the First Amended Complaint represents the

best efforts of the undersigned and other counsel for Plaintiff to determine which persons

accessing Plaintiff’s private information had a permissible purpose and which persons did

not, and to include the latter as parties in this suit.

7. As shown in the Stipulation to Approve Filing of First Amended

Complaint, only counsel for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have consented to this

amendment as of the date of filing it.

FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

s/Lorenz Fett, Jr. Lorenz Fett, Jr. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of September, 2012. s/Catherine A. Haugen Notary Public

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53 Filed 09/28/12 of 2


Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington; City of Burnsville; City of Cottage Grove; City of Eagan; City of Eden Prairie; City of Golden Valley; City of Isanti; City of Lakeville; City of Minneapolis; City of Minnetonka; City of St. Paul; City of Woodbury; Chisago County; Dakota County; Pine County; Ramsey County; Tim Anderson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department; Charles Gollop, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police Department; Casey Buck, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police Department; Valerie Lonetti, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department; Danielle Anselment, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department; Sean Sweeney, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Eagan Police Department; Jennifer Bahr, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Ann Bogren, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kyle Duchschere, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Robert Haberle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Erica Halverson, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Laurie Henning, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Zachary Hessel, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department;

Civil File No. 12-CV-632 (SRN/JSM)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNDER FRCP

38(b)

EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:12-cv-00632-SRN-JSM Document 53-1 Filed 09/28/12 Page 1 of 88

2

Tracy Luke, acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Christopher Millard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Marci Pogatchnik, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Beth Sams, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Rachel Selness, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Carter Staaf, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Steve Velner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kevin White, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Joe Dutton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department; Steve Callahan, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Isanti Police Department; Todd Williams, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department; Kara Abbas, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Laura Bartsch, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Calvin Cook, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tim Costello, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Department; Hien Dinh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Thomas Fahey, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Fuchs, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Marc


3

Gingerich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Robert Glasrud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy Gross, in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Aaron Hanson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kimberly Heyda, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lonnie Hoffbeck, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jerry Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mark Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Joseph, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Christopher Karakostas, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mike Keefe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jason King, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Lillard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy MacDougall, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department; Darcy Mackenthun, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Sean McGinty, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David O’Connor, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Billy Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lucas Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis


4

Police Department; Michael Pfaff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David Pleoger, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Luis Porras, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Reuben, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Rocklin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Staufenberg, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristina Stichter, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristin Sturgis, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chris Thomsen, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Brian Thureson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Geoffry Toscano, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Stephanie Weibye, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Matthew Wente, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Pam Wheeler, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; William Willner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Wolf, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Nelson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department; Stephanie Bailey, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ann Baumgart, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Neil Benner, acting in his individual capacity


5

as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Bruce Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Laura Bolduan, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Amy Boyer, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Boyle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Brubaker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Brian Coyle, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Chad Degree, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Wes Denning, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Luis Diaz-Calle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Edward Dion, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Michael Dunaski, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shawn Filiowich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matthew Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tim Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Gorud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Nikkole Graupmann, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mike Helgoe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer for the St. Paul Police Department; Axel Henry, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Andrew Heroux, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cortez Hull, acting in his individual capacity as an officer of the St. Paul


6

Police Department; Jeffrey Hutchinson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Robert Jerue, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Erik Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Candice Jones, acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Ian Kough, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kimberly Kunde, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cary Lee, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Stephen Lentsch, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Sean Lohse-Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Theodore Mackintosh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James McKnight, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shelly Mehl, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Justin Miller, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Timothy Moore, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ryan Murphy, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James Nash, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Neubrand, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Evan O’Hara, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Salim Omari, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kathy O’Reilly, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mark Pierce, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Chris Rhoades, acting


7

in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Craig Rhode, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeff Rothecker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; David Rud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jon Sherwood, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Adam Siegfried, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Charles Sims, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Alan Singleton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jamie Sipes, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Stevens, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Stiff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Tallarico, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Todd Tessmer, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Threasa Timp, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matt Toupal, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Scott Wendell, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Ofstead, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department; Jay Belisle, acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s Department; John Grant, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department; Blake Fjosne, acting in his individual capacity as an Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Rebecca Lawrence, acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Dan Vosika, acting in


8

his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; John Melvin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Millicent Tompa, acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sean Huls, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-Duluth Police Department; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Mona Dohman, acting in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Elke Hobus; John and Jane Does (1 - 50) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other named law-enforcement agencies; Ramsey County Doe, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; Department of Public Safety Does (1-30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1-10) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota and federal departments and agencies,

Defendants. For her First Amended Complaint, for which she demands trial by jury on all claims so

triable, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson (“Rasmusson”) hereby states and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The United States Supreme Court long has recognized privacy as a fundamental

constitutional right protected by the U.S. Constitution and entitled to protection from

encroachment by the States, both under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and under


9

various protections extended to the people of the United States by the Bill of Rights. To enforce

those rights, the legislative branch of our federal government has adopted a strict approach to the

protection of privacy interests, particularly in the past twenty years. Recognizing that law-

enforcement personnel, among others, have the ability to access any person’s private

information, especially that information retained by the State in connection with a driver’s

license, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of

1994 (“DPPA”) to safeguard this information. In a separate but related vein, in 1997 the

Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. This case involves the

invasion of privacy and illegal searches of Plaintiff Anne Rasmusson by approximately 144

Minnesota law-enforcement officers, who accessed, used or disclosed her private information

approximately 554 times in the time period 2005 to 2012, without any legitimate business reason

to do so, and who not only violated the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, but have

damaged Plaintiff Rasmusson’s life by these violations. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination

that her rights have been violated, to an order enjoining further violations, and to monetary

damages for these invasions of her privacy.


10

General Background of Law and Facts

1. This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages for injuries sustained

when approximately 147 law-enforcement personnel in Minnesota illegally viewed Plaintiff

Anne Marie Rasmusson’s private, personal, and confidential driver’s license information without

a legitimate purpose. These law-enforcement personnel viewed her private information in excess

of 550 times from the 2005 to 2012. Further, several of these individuals used or disclosed

Rasmusson’s private information. Each unauthorized use of her private information, made while

acting under color of state law, violated Rasmusson’s federal civil rights and constituted

behavior prohibited by federal statute, Minnesota statute, common law, and agency and

departmental regulations prohibiting some or all of the conduct engaged in by Defendants in this

case.

2. Rasmusson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3), the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and

Minnesota common law invasion of privacy. The aforementioned statutory and constitutional

provisions confer original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter. This Court has jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs.

The Parties

4. Rasmusson is, and was at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States

and a resident of the State of Minnesota.

5. Defendant City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which

can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.


11

6. Defendant City of Burnsville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued

under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

7. Defendant City of Cottage Grove is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

8. Defendant City of Eagan is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under

Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

9. Defendant City of Eden Prairie is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


10. Defendant City of Golden Valley is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under § 466.01 et. seq.

11. Defendant City of Isanti is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under


12. Defendant City of Lakeville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


13. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which


14. Defendant City of Minnetonka is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which


15. Defendant City of St. Paul is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which can be


16. Defendant City of Woodbury is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued



12

17. Defendant Chisago County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


18. Defendant Dakota County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


19. Defendant Pine County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn.

Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

20. Defendant Ramsey County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


21. Defendants Entity Does (1-10) are various cities, counties, municipalities and

other entities sited in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. or other

statutes, and federal departments and agencies, which can be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 or

other statutes.

22. Plaintiff will refer to the entities named in paragraphs 5-16 above collectively as

the “Defendant Entities” or “Entity Defendants.”

23. Defendant Tim Anderson (“Anderson”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police

Department.

24. Defendant Charles Gollop (“Gollop”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police

Department.


13

25. Defendant Casey Buck (“Buck”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police

Department.

26. Defendant Valerie Lonetti (“Lonetti”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police

Department.

27. Defendant Danielle Anselment (“Anselment”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of

Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police

Department.

28. Defendant Sean Sweeney (“Sweeney”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department.

29. Defendant Jennifer Bahr (“Bahr”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

30. Defendant Ann Bogren (“Bogren”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.


14

31. Defendant Kyle Duchschere (“Duchschere”), upon information and belief, was, at

all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,

duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

32. Defendant Robert Haberle (“Haberle”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

33. Defendant Erica Halverson (“Halverson”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

34. Defendant Laurie Henning (“Henning”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

35. Defendant Zachary Hessel (“Hessel”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

36. Defendant Tracy Luke (“Luke”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



15

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department

37. Defendant Christopher Millard (“Millard”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

38. Defendant Marci Pogatchnik (“Pogatchnik”), upon information and belief, was at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

39. Defendant Beth Sams (“Sams”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

40. Defendant Rachel Selness (“Selness”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

41. Defendant Carter Staaf (“Staaf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.


16

42. Defendant Steve Velner (“Velner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

43. Defendant Kevin White (“White”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

44. Defendant Joe Dutton (“Dutton”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police

Department.

45. Defendant Steve Callahan (“Callahan”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Isanti Police Department.

46. Defendant Todd Williams (“Williams”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department.

47. Defendant Kara Abbas (“Abbas”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police

Department.


17

48. Defendant Laura Bartsch (“Bartsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

49. Defendant John Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material

herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota, duly appointed and

acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department.

50. Defendant Calvin Cook (“Cook”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police

Department.

51. Defendant Tim Costello (“Costello”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

52. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of Minneapolis”), upon information and

belief, was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul

Police Department.

53. Defendant Hien Dinh (“Dinh”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.


18

54. Defendant Thomas Fahey (“Fahey”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department

55. Defendant Chad Fuchs (“Fuchs”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

56. Defendant Marc Gingerich (“Gingerich”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

57. Defendant Robert Glasrud (“Glasrud”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

58. Defendant Tracy Gross (“Gross”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

59. Defendant Aaron Hanson (“Hanson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



19


Department.

60. Defendant Kimberly Heyda (“Heyda”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

61. Defendant Lonnie Hoffbeck (“Hoffbeck”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police

Department.

62. Defendant Jerry Johnson, upon information and belief, was at all times material



63. Defendant Mark Johnson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



64. Defendant Chad Joseph (“Joseph”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

65. Defendant Christopher Karakostas (“Karakostas”), upon information and belief,

was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of


20

Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis

Police Department.

66. Defendant Mike Keefe (“Keefe”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

67. Defendant Jason King (“King”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

68. Defendant Richard Lillard (“Lillard”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

69. Defendant Jill Mrolsa Loonsfoot (“Loonsfoot”), upon information and belief, was,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis

Police Department.

70. Defendant Tracy MacDougall (“MacDougall”), upon information and belief, was


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the

Minneapolis Police Department.


21

71. Defendant Darcy Mackenthun (“Mackenthun”), upon information and belief, was,



Police Department.

72. Defendant Sean McGinty (“McGinty”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

73. Defendant David O’Connor (“O’Connor”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

74. Defendant Billy Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



75. Defendant Lucas Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



76. Defendant Michael Pfaff (“Pfaff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.


22

77. Defendant David Pleoger (“Pleoger”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police

Department.

78. Defendant Luis Porras (“Porras”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

79. Defendant Patrick Reuben (“Reuben”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department

80. Defendant Michael Rocklin (“Rocklin”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

81. Defendant John Staufenberg (“Staufendberg”), upon information and belief, was,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis

Police Department.

82. Defendant Kristina Stichter (“Stichter”), upon information and belief, was, at all



23


Department.

83. Defendant Kristin Sturgis (“Sturgis”), upon information and belief, was at all



Department.

84. Defendant Chris Thomsen (“Thomsen”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

85. Defendant Brian Thureson (“Thureson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

86. Defendant Geoffrey Toscano (“Toscano”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

87. Defendant Stephanie Weibye (“Weibye”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.


24

88. Defendant Matthew Wente (“Wente”), upon information and belief, was at all



Department.

89. Defendant Pam Wheeler (“Wheeler”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

90. Defendant William Willner (“Willner”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

91. Defendant Jill Wolf (“Wolf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

92. Defendant Michael Nelson (“Nelson”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police

Department.

93. Defendant Stephanie Bailey (“Bailey”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.


25

94. Defendant Ann Baumgart (“Baumgart”), upon information and belief, was, at all



95. Defendant Neil Benner (“Benner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

96. Defendant Bruce Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material


acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department.

97. Defendant Laura Bolduan (“Bolduan”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department

98. Defendant Amy Boyer (“Boyer”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



99. Defendant Jeffrey Boyle (“Boyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



100. Defendant Jason Brubaker (“Brubaker”), upon information and belief, was, at all



101. Defendant Brian Coyle (“Coyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



26

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police

Department.

102. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of St. Paul”), upon information and belief,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul

Police Department.

103. Defendant Chad Degree (“Degree”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



104. Defendant Wes Denning (“Denning”), upon information and belief, was, at all



105. Defendant Luis Diaz-Calle (“Diaz-Calle”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police

Department.

106. Defendant Edward Dion (“Dion”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



107. Defendant Michael Dunaski (“Dunaski”), upon information and belief, was, at all




27

108. Defendant Shawn Filiowich (“Filiowich”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

109. Defendant Matthew Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



110. Defendant Tim Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material


acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department.

111. Defendant Eric Gorud (“Gorud”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



112. Defendant Nikkole Graupmann (“Graupmann”), upon information and belief,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul

Police Department.

113. Defendant Mike Helgoe (“Helgoe”), upon information and belief, was at all times



114. Defendant Axel Henry (“Henry”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.


28

115. Defendant Andrew Heroux (“Heroux”), upon information and belief, was, at all



116. Defendant Cortez Hull (“Hull”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



117. Defendant Jeffrey Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), upon information and belief, was,



Police Department

118. Defendant Robert Jerue (“Jerue”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



119. Defendant Erik Johnson (“Erik Johnson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



120. Defendant Candice Jones (“Jones”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.

121. Defendant Ian Kough (“Kough”), upon information and belief, was, at all times




29

122. Defendant Kimberly Kunde (“Kunde”), upon information and belief, was, at all



123. Defendant Cary Lee (“Lee”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



124. Defendant Stephen Lentsch (“Lentsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all



125. Defendant Sean Lohse-Johnson (“Lohse-Johnson”), upon information and belief,



Police Department.

126. Defendant Theodore Mackintosh (“Mackintosh”), upon information and belief,



Police Department.

127. Defendant James McKnight (“McKnight”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.


30

128. Defendant Shelly Mehl, (“Mehl”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



129. Defendant Justin Miller (“Miller”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



130. Defendant Timothy Moore (“Moore”), upon information and belief, was, at all



131. Defendant Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”), upon information and belief, was, at all



132. Defendant James Nash (“Nash”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department

133. Defendant Jason Neubrand (“Neubrand”), upon information and belief, was, at all



134. Defendant Evan O’Hara (“O’Hara”), upon information and belief, was, at all




31

135. Defendant Salim Omari (“Omari”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



136. Defendant Kathy O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), upon information and belief, was, at all



137. Defendant Mark Pierce (“Pierce”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



138. Defendant Chris Rhoades (“Rhoades”), upon information and belief, was, at all



139. Defendant Craig Rhode (“Rhode”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



140. Defendant Jeff Rothecker (“Rothecker”), upon information and belief, was, at all



141. Defendant David Rud (“Rud”), upon information and belief, was at all times




32

142. Defendant Jon Sherwood (“Sherwood”), upon information and belief, was, at all



143. Defendant Adam Siegfried (“Siegfried”), upon information and belief, was, at all



144. Defendant Charles Sims (“Sims”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



145. Defendant Alan Singleton (“Singleton”), upon information and belief, was, at all



146. Defendant Jamie Sipes (“Sipes”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



147. Defendant Eric Stevens (“Stevens”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



148. Defendant Jeffrey Stiff (“Stiff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times




33

149. Defendant Tony Tallarico (“Tallarico”), upon information and belief, was, at all



150. Defendant Todd Tessmer (“Tessmer”), upon information and belief, was, at all



151. Defendant Threasa Timp (“Timp”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



152. Defendant Matt Toupal (“Toupal”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



153. Defendant Scott Wendell (“Wendell”), upon information and belief, was, at all



154. Defendant Tony Ofstead (“Ofstead”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police

Department.

155. Defendant Jay Belisle (“Belisle”), upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s

Department.


34

156. Defendant John Grant (“Grant”), upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s

Department.

157. Defendant Blake Fjosne (“Fjosne”), upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s

Department.

158. Defendant Rebecca Lawrence (“Lawrence”), upon information and belief, was at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s

Department.

159. Defendant Dan Vosika (“Vosika”), upon information and belief, was at all times



Department.

160. Defendant John Melvin (“Melvin”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of

Corrections.

161. Defendant Millicent Tompa (“Tompa”), upon information and belief, was at all



35

appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation.

162. Defendant Sean Huls (“Huls”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-

Duluth Police Department.

163. Defendant Dean Grothem (“Grothem”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol.

164. Defendant Elke Hobus (“Hobus”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota.

165. Defendant, Ramsey County Doe, upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s

Department.

166. Defendants John and Jane Does (1-50), upon information and belief, were, at all

times material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly

appointed and acting in their individual capacities as law-enforcement supervisors, officers or

employees of the Defendant Entities or other federal, state, county or municipal entities in

Minnesota.

167. Plaintiff will refer to the individual Defendants (with the exception of the

“Commissioner Defendants,” “Department of Public Safety Defendants” and “Supervisor


36

Defendants” defined below), including John, Jane and Ramsey County Does, collectively as the

“Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel,” “Individual Defendants,” or “Defendant Individuals.”

168. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants with supervisory authority over the

Individual Defendants, including any John and Jane Does with such supervisory authority,

collectively as the “Defendant Supervisors” or “Supervisor Defendants.”

169. Defendant Michael Campion (“Campion”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota

Department of Public Safety.

170. Defendant Mona Dohman (“Dohman”), upon information and belief, was, at all

times material herein, a citizen, of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota,

duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Minnesota

Department of Public Safety.

171. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants Campion and Dohman collectively, as the

“Commissioner Defendants” or “Defendant Commissioners.”

172. Defendants DPS Does (1-30), upon information and belief, were, at all times

material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly

appointed and acting their individual capacities as officers, supervisors, employees, staff,

employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

173. Plaintiff will refer to officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees,

independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety who created,

installed, monitored, regulated, coded, enforced, supervised, maintained, oversaw, updated, or

otherwise worked on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database or Bureau of


37

Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database, each of which contained Rasmusson’s private

driver’s license information (collectively or individually, “DPS Databases”) as “Department of

Public Safety Does” or “DPS Does.”)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Rasmusson Served Honorably as a Law-Enforcement Officer

174. In 1996, Rasmusson graduated from the police academy at Range Technology

College in Hibbing, Minnesota. Her fellow classmates elected her as a Community Service

Sergeant for their class.

175. Immediately after graduation, in May 1996, she became a park ranger for the City

of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

176. In December 1996, Rasmusson became a police officer for the Eden Prairie Police

Department. She worked as a patrol officer.

177. Rasmusson was injured in the line of duty on June 6, 1999, while on a medical

emergency call. During that call, she needed to move some furniture, and, while doing so,

snapped her coccyx (tail bone).

178. In March 2000, Rasmusson underwent surgery related to that injury where her

coccyx and partial sacrum were removed.

179. Despite the injury and surgery, Rasmusson returned to duty.

180. In 2001, Rasmusson became a police officer for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota.

St. Paul requires lateral hires such as Rasmusson to attend their police academy. While there,

Rasmusson became the first female academy president in the department’s history. She gave her

St. Paul Police Academy class commencement speech.


38

181. In St. Paul, Rasmusson worked as a patrol officer in the West District, commonly

known as the “Frogtown” neighborhood.

182. In 2003, Rasmusson began to experience numbness in her leg and had difficulty

sitting. She was diagnosed with nerve damage and an unstable pelvis. Based on this diagnosis,

she was granted a full-medical retirement on December 17, 2003.

183. Rasmusson was deeply disappointed that she had to retire. Until the revelation of

the massive invasion of privacy in this case, retirement was one of the worst things to happen in

her life.

184. In 2004, Rasmusson moved to her rural home in northern Minnesota.

185. Rasmusson was never disciplined while on the force.

186. Rasmusson was highly regarded police officer and served with honor.

187. Rasmusson was proud to serve as a police officer.

II. Over 140 Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers Viewed Rasmusson’s Private Information Outside the Scope of Any Investigation or Official Police Business

188. As early as July 2006, law enforcement officers began looking up Rasmusson’s

private information on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database.

189. The officers viewed Rasmusson’s private personal and highly-restricted personal

information from her State-issued driver’s license including her home address, color photograph

or image, and driver identification number.

190. Under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, the Minnesota Department

of Public Safety (“DPS”) and DPS Does, knowingly created the DPS Databases that include

Rasmusson’s driver’s license information and the system for law-enforcement personnel to

access to that information.


39

191. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,

knowingly maintained and updated the databases that include Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information.

192. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,

knowingly provided access to the databases that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.

193. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the

ability to determine that drivers’ license information, including Plaintiff’s, was being accessed on

multiple occasions, by multiple law-enforcement personnel from multiple law-enforcement

agencies.

194. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, had the

ability to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including unauthorized access to

Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.

195. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, failed

to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information.

196. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does knowingly authorized, directed,

ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in the disclosure of Plaintiff’s

driver’s license information.

197. The policy of the State of Minnesota is to uphold the provisions of the law, both

state and federal, and to protect and safeguard the privacy rights of the State’s citizens and

inhabitants, including its drivers’ privacy rights, and including those rights as are required to be

protected by federal law, and in particular, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to comply

with the provisions and requirements of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.


40

Section 2721, et seq. This policy is even set forth in the driver’s license application and set forth

in statutory language with proper citation to that federal statute.

198. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly disclosed Plaintiff’s and

others’ driver’s license information and violated state policy by devising and implementing a

database that failed abysmally to uphold the privacy rights of Rasmusson and others similarly

situated as protected by the DPPA, exposing her information and others’ to impermissible and

knowing accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in this lawsuit, constituting a

knowing disclosure of her information within the meaning of the DPPA.

199. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly devised and implemented a

database, and a method for using and misusing that database, that both permitted and

encouraged, through the nature and monitoring of the system, accesses by police officers, state

employees, and others that failed to comply with state policy of protecting privacy rights and

complying with the DPPA.

200. The system knowingly devised and implemented by Commissioner Defendants

and DPS Does failed to set rules for protecting the privacy rights, and permitted and on

information and belief still permits, and in some instances promotes, the accessing of the

database from personal computers, the giving out of passwords to others, including persons not

authorized to have them, and the accessing of the system by persons without any accountability

or even in some instances without the ability to trace the person who made the access; so that

effective monitoring of the system is difficult if not impossible under the system as devised and

implemented by the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, who deliberately emphasized and

favored the convenience of the system by users at the expense of protecting the privacy rights of

the persons in the database.


41

201. This deliberate emphasis and preference of the convenience of the system users

over the privacy rights of the drivers was known to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS

Does, and was purposeful.

202. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does actually knew

that law-enforcement officers were accessing the databases for impermissible purposes,

including viewing Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and acquiesced, facilitated, approved

or simply ignored the conduct.

203. Even if the Commissioners and DPS Does had no actual knowledge of the

impermissible uses of the databases they oversaw, upon information and belief, they were

reckless in their supervision of their subordinates who did operate the database.

204. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does were grossly

negligent in supervising their subordinates who operated the databases.

205. Rasmusson began having suspicions that law enforcement officers were taking an

uncomfortable interest in her starting approximately in 2007. She had recently divorced, and

numerous officers who asked her for dates knew where she lived or what kind of car she drove.

206. In mid-2009, Rasmusson began to distance herself from law-enforcement get-

togethers and from police officers, even those who were her former colleagues and those whom

she considered her friends. More and more she began to live a secluded, even hermit-like,

reclusive existence.

207. On May 5, 2010, Rasmusson was pulled over for a potential speeding violation by

a Minneapolis police officer. Although the officer did not issue a citation against her, three other

squad cars arrived on the scene and then left without performing any known law enforcement

duties.


42

208. In early July 2010, Rasmusson changed her cell phone number and personal email

address, and moved from Lakeville back to northern Minnesota. She told few people of her

move and ceased contact with the majority of police acquaintances from then on.

209. Based in part on these foregoing incidents, Rasmusson contacted DPS to inquire

whether law enforcement officers had been viewing her private information. She asked that only

those officers who had run her name—as opposed to her license plates—on the DVS computer

database be identified.

210. On August 30, 2011, she was unpleasantly surprised, even horrified to learn from

DPS that it had determined that law-enforcement officers from 18 different departments and

agencies had reviewed her private driver’s license information since 2007. She became

physically ill upon learning that fact; she pulled over, opened her car door, and vomited.

211. In October 2011, she learned through the press that approximately 100 law-

enforcement officers had accessed her private driver’s license information approximately 400

times in the last four years, from 2007 through the fall of 2011.

212. Upon learning of the sheer volume of intrusions, Rasmusson again became

physically sick.

213. During Phase One discovery, Rasmusson was able to determine that, since 2005,

approximately 144 law-enforcement personnel from 23 entities in Minnesota accessed her

private personal driver’s license information on approximately 554 occasions without a

permissible purpose.

214. Rasmusson believes that even more unauthorized accesses and viewings will

occur in the future if the policies of the Entity Defendants and other police departments and law

enforcement agencies similarly situated are not changed to bring the actual custom and practice


43

of these Entity Defendants and others similarly situated into compliance with their own written

rules, with the rules of the Department of Public Safety, and with federal law, including the

DPPA.

215. In November 2011, DPS informed Rasmusson’s counsel that it was, in fact,

investigating 26 entities and their employees regarding this illegal conduct.

216. At the request of Rasmusson’s counsel, DPS provided a list of the entities whose

personnel had viewed her private information.

217. As part of Phase One Discovery, for each access of Rasmusson’s private, personal

information, DPS has provided DVS audits identifying the date, time, name of the law-

enforcement personnel and entity where the personnel were employed. The BCA audits do not

contain the names of the law-enforcement personnel.

218. As part of Phase One Discovery, many entities have indicated whether they

believe their law-enforcement personnel had a permissible or law-enforcement related purpose

for obtaining, using or disclosing Rasmusson’s private information.

219. Included in the audits provided by DPS to Rasmusson’s counsel were personnel

from law-enforcement departments associated with the following Defendant Entities:

• City of Anoka • City of Bloomington • City of Burnsville • City of Coon Rapids • City of Cottage Grove • City of Eagan • City of Eden Prairie • City of Fridley • City of Golden Valley • City of Hopkins • City of Inver Grove Heights • City of Isanti • City of Lakeville • City of Mendota Heights


44

• City of Minneapolis • City of Minnetonka • City of Princeton • City of Red Wing • City of Rosemount • City of St. Paul • City of St. Peter • City of South St. Paul • City of Woodbury • Chisago County • Dakota County • Dakota County Comm Center • Faribault County • Pine County • Ramsey County • Washington County • Metro Transit • University of Minnesota (Duluth Campus) • Federal Bureau of Investigation

220. The chart attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A summarizes the

number of times law-enforcement personnel accessed Rasmusson’s without a permissible, law-

enforcement related reason, as indicated in the DPS audits, Phase One Discovery responses and

subpoena responses.

221. Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit A into his First Amended Complaint as though fully

set forth in this paragraph.

222. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants primarily used Rasmusson’s

name, not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.

223. During Phase One Discovery, Bloomington did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information

by Anderson or Gollop.


45

224. During Phase One Discovery, Burnsville did not provide a permissible, law-


by Buck.

225. During Phase One Discovery, Cottage Grove did not provide a permissible, law-


by Lonetti.

226. The Eagan Police Department issued Eagan Police Officer Sean Sweeney an oral

reprimand for accessing Rasmusson’s private data from the DPS database for personal reasons.

227. During Phase One Discovery, Eagan did not provide a permissible, law-


by Anselment or Sweeney.

228. The City of Eden Prairie (“Eden Prairie”) disciplined three officers for viewing

Rasmusson’s private, personal information: Officer Zachary Hessel, Officer Christopher Millard

and Sergeant Carter Staaf. In addition, at least eight other Eden Prairie officers or employees

viewed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.

229. Hessel viewed Rasmusson’s private information on August 13, 2011, on a

computer in the patrol squad room. There were no incidents related to Rasmusson that day (or

any other day).

230. Hessel was on duty on August 13, 2011, made no traffic stops and had no reason

to look up Rasmusson.

231. Hessel had been trained to use the database on March 11, 2008 and on March 8,

2010.


46

232. Hessel admitted to Eden Prairie that he looked up Rasmusson after hearing other

Eden Prairie personnel discussing her. He had met her at a police softball tournament in 2006.

He did not have a permissible reason to access her personal information several years later.

233. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.

234. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Hessel and required him to undergo

coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.

235. Millard viewed Rasmusson’s private personal information on three separate

occasions in 2007 and 2011. He was on an alarm call and arrest the first time he looked her up.

He was also on duty when he did so again in 2011.

236. Millard had been trained to use the database on March 18, 2008 and October 15,

2010.

237. Millard looked up Rasmusson’s information so that he could obtain her address.

238. Eden Prairie determined that Millard did not have an official purpose to obtain


239. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Millard and required him to undergo

coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.

240. Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s private information at least 13 times from January

2007 until May 2011.

241. Staaf had been trained twice on the proper use of the database.

242. Despite that training, Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s information while on duty and

on both his mobile computer and at his Sergeant’s desk.


47

243. Staaf looked up Rasmusson’s present driver’s license, as well as her old driver’s

licenses to compare her photographs.

244. Staaf encouraged his subordinates to conduct their own DVS queries of

Rasmusson’s information because she was very attractive and so they could see that “she’s

changed and she’s got a new look.”

245. Eden Prairie’s records also indicate that one “John or Jane Doe” who looked up

Rasmusson’s personal information at Staaf’s suggestion did so “in the middle of a money

transport for the Community Center.”

246. Staaf has conceded that he did not run Rasmusson’s information for a legitimate

law-enforcement purpose.

247. Eden Prairie investigative records do not indicate an official, law-enforcement

purpose for Staaf to have obtained Rasmusson’s private, personal information.

248. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to obtain


249. As discipline for his conduct related to Rasmusson, Eden Prairie demoted Staaf.

250. During Phase One Discovery, Eden Prairie did not provide a permissible, law-


by Bahr, Bogren, Duchschere, Haberle, Halverson, Henning, Hessel, Luke, Millard, Pogatchnik,

Sams, Selness, Staaf, Velner, and White.

251. During Phase One Discovery, Golden Valley did not provide a permissible, law-


by Dutton.


48

252. During Phase One Discovery, Isanti did not provide a permissible, law-


by Callahan.

253. During Phase One Discovery, Lakeville did not provide a permissible, law-


by Williams.

254. On September 21, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the Minneapolis

Police Department (“Minneapolis Police”). While there, Minneapolis Police informed

Rasmusson that at least 20 Minneapolis Police officers had viewed her private, personal

information. According to the Minneapolis Police, police officers had made inquiries about her

as late as June 2011.

255. On information and belief, DPS has disciplined a few of these Minneapolis police

officers to a limited extent.

256. On information and belief, the Minneapolis Police Department has not disciplined

any of its officers for their unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s information.

257. On information and belief, 46 Minneapolis Police officers accessed Rasmusson’s

record 179 times from 2005 through of 2012 without a permissible purpose.

258. During Phase One Discovery, Minneapolis did not provide a permissible, law-


by Abbas, Bartsch, John Bennett, Cook, Costello, Patrick Daly of Minneapolis, Dinh, Fahey,

Fuchs, Glasrud, Gross, Hanson, Heyda, Hoffbeck, Jerry Johnson, Mark Johnson, Joseph,

Karakostas, Keefe, King, Lillard, Loonsfoot, MacDougall, Mackenthun, McGinty, O’Connor,


49

Billy Peterson, Lucas Peterson, Pfaff, Pleoger, Porras, Reuben, Rocklin, Staufenberg, Stichter,

Sturgis, Thomsen, Thureson, Toscano, Weibye, Wente, Wheeler, Willner, Wolf,

259. Minneapolis claims that Gingerich accessed Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information as part of a traffic stop.

260. At one point, Plaintiff had thought that Gingerich had been the Minneapolis

officer who had stopped her for a speeding violation.

261. Plaintiff now believes that Gingerich did not stop her for speeding, and that

Gingerich did not have a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for his access of her

private, driver’s license information.

262. By letter dated January 26, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety

admits that Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Dean Grothem received a written reprimand for

unauthorized use of the database related to Rasmusson.

263. Grothem’s written reprimand specifically states that he was being disciplined “for

accessing private information in the DVS database without a legitimate law enforcement need.”

264. During Phase One Discovery, Minnetonka did not provide a permissible, law-

enforcement related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information

by Nelson.

265. The DVS audit indicates that Dean Backlund, identified as a City of Princeton

employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on June 20, 2006.

266. The City of Princeton maintains that Backlund was not employed by it on June

26, 2006, and that the IP address does not match any devices at the Princeton Police Department.

The City of Princeton was not able to identify why Backlund appeared on the DVS audit.


50

267. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of Princeton is

incorrect or that DPS failed to accurately track this access of Rasmusson’s private information,

which it attributed to Joseph Backlund.

268. The DPS Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the access attributed

to Backlund on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to

properly record this access.

269. On September 27, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the St. Paul

Police Department (“St. Paul Police”). While there, the St. Paul Police informed Rasmusson that

at least 13 St. Paul Police officers and employees viewed her private, personal information.

270. Upon information and belief, between 2005 and 2012, St. Paul Police had

approximately 61 officers and employees who have accessed Rasmusson’s record 228 times

without a permissible purpose.

271. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-


by Bailey, Baumgart, Benner, Bruce Bennett, Bolduan, Boyer, Boyle, Brubaker, Coyle, Patrick

Daly of St. Paul, Degree, Denning, Diaz-Calle, Dion, Dunaski, Filiowich, Matthew Flynn, Tim

Flynn, Gorud, Graupmann, Helgoe, Henry, Heroux, Hull, Hutchinson, Jerue, Erik Johnson,

Jones, Kough, Kunde, Lee, Lentsch, Lohse-Johnson, Mackintosh, McKnight, Mehl, Miller,

Moore, Murphy, Nash, Neubrand, O’Hara, Omari, O’Reilly, Pierce, Rhoades, Rhode, Rothecker,

Rud, Sherwood, Siegfried, Sims, Singleton, Sipes, Stevens, Stiff, Tallarico, Tessmer, Timp,

Toupal, or Wendell.

272. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that Plaintiff asked Benner, Jerue

and Henry to access her driver’s license information.


51

273. Plaintiff denies asking Benner, Jerue or Henry to access her driver’s license

information.

274. The DPS audits also listed the names of two St. Paul law-enforcement personnel

who looked up Rasmusson on two occasions only as “Johnson.”

275. According to St. Paul, it has not yet been able to determine the first name(s) of the

individuals who accessed Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information on those two

occasions.



by either “Johnson” look-up where the first name was not known.

277. The DPS audits list six accesses of Rasmusson’s information by unnamed officers

from the St. Paul PD Comm Center.

278. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that “the access to DVS on these

particular devices were assigned to the device itself, not to an individual. The City of St. Paul no

longer has information indicating what employee was assigned to these devices at the time of

access.”

279. The DVS audit indicates that Phillip Hartung (“Hartung”), identified as a City of

South St. Paul employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on March 3, 2006.

280. During Phase One Discovery, South St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-


by Hartung, but claimed that Hartung resigned in 2005 and worked for the U.S. Marshall’s office

at the time of the access attributed to him.


52

281. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of South St. Paul is


which it attributed to Hartung.


to Hartung on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly

record this access.

283. During Phase One Discovery, Woodbury did not provide a permissible, law-


by Ofstead.

284. During Phase One Discovery, Chisago County did not provide a permissible law-


by Belisle.

285. During Phase One Discovery, Dakota County claimed Grant was investigating

Rasmusson for a law-enforcement-related reason.

286. Grant met Plaintiff the day prior to his accessing her private, driver’s license

information at a law-enforcement softball tournament in Duluth. There was no reason for Grant

to suspect anything of Plaintiff, who was not a resident of Dakota County, the very next day.

287. During Phase One Discovery, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not

provide a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private,

driver’s license information by Melvin.

288. During Phase One Discovery, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not provide

a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s

license information by Tompa.


53

289. Pine County did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for

each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Fjosne, Lawrence or Vosika.

290. Pine County claimed that Fjosne accessed Rasmusson’s information as part of a

wide-range license plate check.

291. Yet, according to the DPS audit, Fjosne used the DVS driver’s license database,

not a license plate search to access Rasmsson’s information.

292. Ramsey County Doe claims that he was not in the country when his DPS database

passwords and login information were used to look up Rasmusson.

293. Ramsey County Doe admits that he gave his password to two BCA employees he

worked with on the Metro Gang Strike Force.

294. Both BCA employees deny receiving Ramsey County Doe’s password.

295. Both BCA employees deny using Ramsey County Doe’s password to view

Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.

296. DPS regulations prohibit law-enforcement personnel and their employees from

sharing their DPS database passwords.

297. By sharing the password with BCA employees, by which they could access the

protected drivers’ license information of any Minnesota resident, including Rasmusson, Ramsey

County Doe and Ramsey County knowingly disclosed Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license

information under the DPPA.

298. Because they maintained a database without adequate security, the DPS

Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Ramsey County Doe and

Ramsey County.


54

299. During Phase One Discovery, the University of Minnesota-Duluth did not provide

a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s

license information by Huls.

300. The DPS audits list Hobus as working for the City of Red Wing.

301. The City of Red Wing claims that Hobus never worked for it.

302. The City of Red Wing claims that it was informed by the DPS that Hobus worked

as a deputy registrar, which was a private business.

303. Because they allowed non-law-enforcement personnel access to the DPS

databases and because of their inability to properly track these accesses, the DPS Commissioners

and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Hobus.

304. The remaining Individual Defendants’ identities (John and Jane Does) are not

presently known, because the Defendant Entities have either not provided Plaintiff with their

identities or not provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement

personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized, despite her requests. Plaintiff anticipates

that these yet-to-be-named Individual Defendants will become known through discovery.

305. The Supervisor Defendants are not presently known. Plaintiff anticipates that the

yet-to-be-named Supervisor Defendants who should have monitored, prevented and stopped the

unauthorized access to Rasmusson’s information will become known through discovery.

306. The remaining Entity Defendant identities (Entity Does) are not presently known,

because not all of the entities identified by the DPS have provided sufficient information to

determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized.

Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Entity Defendants will become known through

discovery.


55

307. The login page to the DVS website includes the following admonition:

Access to this service is for authorized personnel only conducting official business. If you do not have the express authorization, you must exit now or face the consequences of violating Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes and other laws. Further, the State of Minnesota prohibits unauthorized access, disclosure, duplication, modification, diversion, destruction, loss, misuse, or theft of its information in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.87 – 609.891. DVS collects and maintains electronic access data. This data may be used and disseminated for the purpose of evaluating electronic government services; to prevent unlawful intrusions into government electronic systems; or as otherwise provided by law.

308. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants’ training included

admonitions against viewing private driver’s license information for unofficial purposes.

309. Whatever training, monitoring, or inquiry into the officers’ usage of the

information systems has been adopted is woefully inadequate to ensure that access is used

properly and lawfully.

310. The Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual prohibits

accessing drivers’ license information for anything other than official business.

311. The City of Eden Prairie’s training includes quizzing its law-enforcement officers

as follows:

“1) . . . misuse of the system can lead to sanctions and disciplinary action; 2) . . . operators may run queries only for criminal justice purposes; 3) driver’s license or motor vehicle registration information can be accessed through CJDN only for the performance of official duties authorized by law. 4) For practice purposes, you are authorized to complete inquiries on family members or coworkers? FALSE.” (emphasis added).


56

312. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook admonishes its employees to

“conduct themselves, both on and off duty, in a manner that supports this trust.”

313. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook states that technology should be

“used primarily for City business. Employees should not use City technology for any purpose

that would reflect negatively on the City.”

314. The Eden Prairie Police Department Manual (“EPPD Manual”) informs officers

that its policies “also applies to off-duty conduct.”

315. The EPPD Manual explains that “[p]eace officers shall observe the confidentiality

of information available to them due to their status as peace officers.”

316. The EPPD Manual clearly states that officers should not use their official position

for personal gain:

Peace officers shall not use the authority of their position as peace officers, or information available to them due to their status as peace officers, for any purpose of personal gain, including, but not limited to, initiating or furthering personal and/or intimate interactions of any kind with persons which (sic) whom the officer has had contact while on duty.

317. The EPPD Manual also informs its officers that “Minnesota driver license

information obtained or otherwise accessed through a CJDN terminal or the DVS website may

be disseminated to authorized law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official

duties.”

318. On information and belief, despite this training, Defendant Entities and Defendant

Supervisors, allowed their employees, including but not limited to the Individual Defendants, to

view Plaintiff’s private driver’s license information for unlawful purposes.


57

319. On information and belief, Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors,

Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does permitted, condoned, or acquiesced in this illegal

access to Plaintiff’s private information, and knew or should have known that it was occurring.

320. On information and belief, this illegal access occurs with regularity not only of

Plaintiff’s private information, but of other Minnesota drivers’ private information.

321. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS

Does have lax policies or lax enforcement of these policies that allow for these intrusions.

322. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, Defendant Commissioners and DPS

Does either have no viable method of or have an inadequate method of ascertaining and

controlling the illegal access to individuals’ private information by their officers.

323. The extent of this illegal access appears to be widespread and pervasive

throughout departments, and is a custom and practice. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of

this practice, and the customary disregard of punishment for violations, such as a prosecution

that was dismissed when the officer’s attorney complained that the prosecution was akin to

“using a sledge hammer to kill a fly” or words to that effect. Further evidence of the custom and

practice can be found in actual statements made by current officers, one of whom was quoted in

a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “every single

cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down.” ; and based on actual statements made by

former officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into

Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “[y]ou used to look up people without a second thought.

You’d look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know.”


58

324. Before publicity surrounding Rasmusson’s situation, there was little or no training

by the DPS or the individual entities regarding appropriate use of the DPS Databases or what

was a permissible purpose for viewing drivers’ license information under the DPPA.

325. Before publicity surround Rasmusson’s situation, law-enforcement personnel

throughout Minnesota commonly looked up driver’s license information for personal reasons.

326. Each law-enforcement personnel has a password allowing that individual access

to the DPS Database. Law-enforcement personnel can access the DPS Databases from any

computer with internet access.

327. On further information and belief, this illegal access to driver’s license

information occurs disproportionately to women.

328. When Defendant law-enforcement personnel viewed Rasmusson’s private

information, they did not do so to carry out official police functions.

329. Rasmusson committed no crimes that would authorize the unauthorized access of

her private drivers’ license information.

330. The Individual Defendants obtained Rasmusson’s personal information without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

331. On a small handful of occasions, Rasmusson asked certain law-enforcement

personnel to view her driver’s license information for the express purpose of determining if the

database had posted her change of address or had listed the automobile she was presently

driving. None of the claims in this suit relate to those few instances.

332. Rasmusson never waived the protections of the DPPA.

III. Rasmusson Has Been Harmed By This Intrusion Into Her Private Life


59

333. The sheer volume of these intrusions into her private life demonstrates that law-

enforcement personnel are unfairly hostile toward Rasmusson’s privacy and safety.

334. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson does not feel comfortable

going to public places where police officers are likely to be around and has lost her sense of

freedom including her freedom to travel and enjoy public places.

335. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has become a recluse and was

forced to live like a hermit.

336. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson feels she has lost any control

over the privacy in her life.

337. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has shut down her social media

accounts.

338. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has installed a security gate

and an alarm system on her property.

339. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed and unlisted her

home and mobile telephone number.

340. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed her email address.

COUNT I

(Against all Defendants including Commissioner, Individual, Supervisor and Entity Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Violations of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et

seq.)

341. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 340 as

though fully set forth in this Paragraph 341.


60

342. Rasmusson provided personal information to the DPS including her address, color

photograph, date of birth, weight, height and eye color for the purpose of acquiring and utilizing

a State of Minnesota driver’s license.

343. The DPS Database also maintained Rasmusson’s driving record.

344. Rasmusson did not provide her consent for any of the Defendant Individuals to

obtain, disclose or use, or for any of the Defendant Entities or Defendant Supervisors to disclose

or to allow Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use, her private information for anything

but official law-enforcement business for any of the occasions listed in the attached Exhibit A.

345. Intentionally obtaining, disclosing or using driver’s license information without

an authorized purpose is a violation of the DPPA. The statute provides for criminal fines and

civil penalties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2723, 2724.

346. The DPPA provides redress for violations of a person’s protected interest in the

privacy of her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein.

347. The Defendants, each of them, have invaded Rasmusson’s legally protected

interest under the DPPA.

348. The Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety or the employees they

supervised knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s private personal information from her driver’s

license for purposes not permitted under the DPPA.

349. According to the Department of Vehicle Services and the Defendant Entities, the

Individual Defendants knowingly obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information,

from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a).

350. None of the Individual Defendants’ activities fell within the DPPA’s permitted

exceptions for procurement of Rasmusson’s private information.


61

351. By the actions described above, each Defendant Individual law-enforcement

personnel was acting within the scope of his or her employment when he or she obtained,

disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information from the DPS Databases for an

impermissible purpose.

352. The Individual Defendants knew that their actions related to Rasmusson’s

personal information were in violation of the DPPA.

353. The Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors knowingly authorized,

directed, ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in obtaining, disclosing or

using of Rasmusson’s private personal information by the Individual Defendants.

354. The Individual Defendants knowingly used the Defendant Entities’ computers,

passwords and passcodes to access Rasmusson’s private information.

355. By sharing database access passwords, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County

knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information in violation of the DPPA.

356. The sheer volume of law-enforcement personnel that obtained, disclosed or used

Rasmusson’s private personal information, especially given Rasmusson’s lack of a criminal

record, makes apparent that Defendants’ use was not permissible.

357. The Defendant Entities are each vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant

Individuals.

358. The Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the acts of Defendant

Individuals.

359. Rasmusson has suffered harm because her private information has been obtained

unlawfully. Rasmusson suffered and continues to suffer harm by virtue of the increased risk that

her protected information is in the possession of numerous law-enforcement personnel who


62

obtained it without a legitimate purpose. This is precisely the harm Congress sought to prevent

by enacting the DPPA and its statutory remedies.

360. The Individual Defendants, Supervisor Defendants, Commissioner Defendants,

DPS Does and Entity Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the law, entitling

Rasmusson to punitive damages under the DPPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(2), which is not

subject to the pleading requirement of Minnesota state law as set forth in Minn. Stat. section

549.20. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and

other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the

court determines to be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b).

361. In addition, under the DPPA, Plaintiff is entitled to a baseline liquidated damages

award of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1). Rasmusson

need not prove actual damages to receive said liquidated damages.

COUNT II

(Against Individual Defendants, including John and Jane Does, for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the exception of Hobus)

362. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 361 as


363. At no time did Rasmusson behave in a manner that would provide any legal

justification for the above-described invasion of her privacy.

364. The DPPA establishes that obtaining an individual’s driver’s license information

without a legitimate purpose constitutes an illegal search under the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment to the Bill of Rights.


63

365. The Individual Defendants’ viewing of Rasmusson’s personal information was

unauthorized, unjustified, and excessive, and violates the Fourth Amendment, the laws of the

United States and the laws of the State of Minnesota.

366. By the actions described above, each Individual Defendant Law-Enforcement

Personnel, acting under color of state law, violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly

established and well-settled civil right to be free from an unconstitutional search.

367. The acts of each Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel, acting under the color

of state law, constituted an invasion or repeated invasions of Rasmusson’s clearly-established

privacy rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, the laws of the United States, including the DPPA, and the laws of the State

of Minnesota.

368. The DPPA creates an individual right to privacy in a person’s driver’s license

information, thereby prohibiting unauthorized accessing of all persons’ information, including

Rasmusson’s information.

369. Each individual law-enforcement personnel, acting under color of state law, knew

that his or her actions violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established statutory rights

under the DPPA.

370. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel deprived Rasmusson of

her federal statutory rights and civil rights maliciously or by acting with reckless disregard for

whether Rasmusson’s rights would be violated by his or her actions.

371. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel was deliberately

indifferent to Rasmusson’s statutory and civil right to be free from illegal searches, invasions of

privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information.


64

372. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named

Individual Defendants, Rasmusson endured physical and mental suffering, and was damaged in

an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000)

Dollars.

373. Punitive damages are available against Individual Defendant law-enforcement

personnel for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional

violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith

v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirement for

punitive damages set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.

374. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney fees,

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

(Against Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants, including John, Jane and Entity Does, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)



376. The Individual Defendants’ numerous accesses of Rasmusson’s private

information are not unique, but one example of how frequently such law-enforcement agencies

customarily violate the DPPA by accessing private driver’s license information of persons

without having any legitimate or permissible reason for doing so.

377. Recently, in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s private

information, a current officer, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, stated that every

officer does it, including the chiefs of police. In that same article, another former officer stated


65

that the practice was widespread as a form of social media, simply to look up former friends or

acquaintances.

378. In addition, persons familiar with police departments and those involved in

teaching supervisors how to train and hold accountable their subordinate law-enforcement

personnel have been told by those supervisors that the unlawful and impermissible accessing of

private information is among the most frequently committed wrongs by police, for which they

are seldom if ever held accountable.

379. The foregoing information, other information to be presented at trial, and

evidence reasonably likely to be determined after full discovery demonstrate that the improper

access of citizens’ driver’s license information by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel for

their own personal and private uses, obtained by accessing that information through the

computerized information storage system kept by the State for official purposes only, is an

official custom or practice well known to Defendant Supervisors.

380. These customs and practices by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel are at

variance with the written rules set down by the Entity Defendants, but these formal rules are

widely and knowingly disregarded.

381. Given the municipalities’ failure to monitor and enforce their rules, the

aforementioned customs and practices are attributable to the municipalities themselves, including

the Entity Defendants herein.

382. The Defendant Entities and the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement

personnel accessing this information knew or should have known of this and other unlawful,

improper, unjustified, and impermissible access to private information by law-enforcement

personnel.


66

383. The prevalence of this custom, the lack of monitoring regarding these access

practices and the failure to take action to stop or prevent these practices, demonstrate the state of

mind of Defendant Supervisors and municipal officials of the Entity Defendants. These customs

and practices further demonstrate Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the federal statutory and

constitutional rights of the citizens and persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been

wrongfully accessed.

384. The Defendant Entities, in their official capacity, are directly liable for the custom

and practice of the widespread illegal access of citizens’ driver’s license information. The

Supervisor Defendants, up to and including the chief police officers and sheriffs employed by

each Entity Defendant, are liable in their individual capacity. Defendants’ liability is due to their

actual and constructive knowledge of this practice, their failure to institute any process for

monitoring and preventing it and their deliberate indifference to the federal rights of those

persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been and continues to be wrongfully

accessed.

385. In addition, the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement personnel, up to

and including the chief police officer in each of the Defendant Entities, are liable in their

individual capacities for the failure to train, monitor, supervise, and properly discipline the

officers who are improperly and unlawfully accessing the private driver’s license information of

citizens, including Plaintiff, without a proper, lawful, permissible, justifiable purpose for doing

so. This pattern of failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline demonstrates the state of

mind of these Defendant Supervisors and a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens

and others whose information has been so widely accessed, including Plaintiff.


67

386. The federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, whose information is

improperly accessed, are held in light regard by many if not most of the Defendant Supervisors

and by the Defendant Entities themselves.

387. Defendants’ lack of concern evidences their deliberate indifference both to the

problem of the unauthorized access and to the impact of the unauthorized access on the federal

rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, who would often be unaware of that access.

388. Defendants’ lack of concern is evidenced by the failure of most Defendant

Entities to take any sort of corrective action upon learning that multiple improper, unlawful,

unjustified accesses of Plaintiff’s information had taken place. Defendants have also

consistently refused to fully involve Plaintiff, keep her fully informed of the progress of the

investigation into the persons accessing her information, or to advise her of their identities, their

reasons for accessing her information, their knowledge of Plaintiff, and any discipline imposed

on them for their improper and illegal conduct.

389. The manner in which the investigation was handled by the Entity Defendants and

Supervisor Defendants provides little expectation that these and other law-enforcement personnel

will cease accessing Plaintiff’s private information and the private information of other persons

similarly situated to Plaintiff, without a justifiable, permissible basis.

390. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no system has been established by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to monitor the regular access of the DPS Databases by

law-enforcement personnel.

391. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no reviews have taken place of other

accesses of the DPS Databases by these same law-enforcement personnel, or of other officers

and employees in the Defendant Entities.


68

392. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to protect and safeguard the rights of other persons’ DPS

Database information.

393. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to provide redress and assurance to the persons, including

Plaintiff, whose DVS information has been wrongfully accessed by the Defendant Law-

Enforcement Personnel named in this Complaint, or by other officers in the municipalities named

in this Complaint.

394. Defendants’ accesses have been widely discussed among the Defendant Law-

Enforcement Personnel committing the accesses as well as among other personnel in the

Defendant Entities – all of which have damaged Plaintiff and her reputation, including but not

limited to her reputation as a single woman.

395. The reputational damage alone to Plaintiff, as well as the knowledge that this

activity is not merely unlawful but a federal crime, should have been enough to ensure that

Plaintiff’s concerns listed in the preceding paragraphs were addressed by Defendants in a

meaningful fashion. Holding accountable the law-enforcement personnel engaged in an

unlawful activity would have been an important step in eliminating this custom and practice of

permitting the widespread illegal accessing of Rasmusson’s information; yet nothing meaningful

in this regard has been accomplished, and no prosecutions have been initiated to the best of

Plaintiff’s knowledge.

396. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-named

Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors, Rasmusson has endured and continues to endure


69

physical and mental suffering, and has been damaged in an amount yet to determined and of a

continuing nautre, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.

397. Punitive damages are available against Defendant Supervisors for their reckless

and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of the federal law,

and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983),

and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.


under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT IV (Against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)



400. Defendant Campion was Commissioner of DPS from April 2004 to February

2011.

401. Defendant Dohman became Commissioner of DPS in March 2011 and presently

serves in that role.

402. As DPS Commissioners, Campion and Dohman, along with DPD Does, were and

are responsible for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that included


403. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does also had the ability to determine if

unauthorized access was being made and to prevent such unauthorized access to the database,

including of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and have the ongoing duty to prevent such

unauthorized accesses.


70

404. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to prevent unauthorized

access to the database, including Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.

405. The actions of the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, as alleged, violate

the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and under the DPPA.

406. On information and belief, the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does created

or oversaw the creation and maintenance of a database and system that was supposed to prevent

unauthorized access to driver’s license information.

407. From 2005, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does allowed unauthorized

access of Rasmusson’s driver’s license information such that approximately 144 law-

enforcement personnel from 18 different departments accessed her information over 544 times.

408. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants’ and DPS Does’ efforts

have been insufficient to prevent future unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s and other individuals’

private, personal information.

409. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does have sanctioned the constitutional

violations by the Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel through their failure to remedy the

policy, custom and practice of officers’ and employees’ unfettered and unauthorized access to

the database.

410. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doeshave been grossly negligent in

supervising subordinates responsible for implementing a law-enforcement database that prevents

unauthorized access to private, personal information.


71

411. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to

monitor and prevent unauthorized access to private, personal information even though they knew

or should have known that such unconstitutional acts were occurring.

412. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, acting under the color of state law,

were deliberately indifferent to Rasmusson’s constitutionally-recognized and federal statutory

rights to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her

private driver’s license information.

413. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does are jointly liable for disclosure of Ms.

Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information for each Individual Defendants’ access.

414. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Commissioner

Defendants and DPS Does, Rasmusson was forced to endure physical and mental suffering, and

was thereby damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One

Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.

415. Punitive damages are available against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does

for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional violations of

the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith v. Wade, 461

U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth in Minn. Stat.

§ 549.20.


under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT V

(Against All Defendants, including John, Jane, Entity and DPS Does, for Common Law Invasion of Privacy)


72

417. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through 416 as


418. By improperly obtaining Rasmusson’s private personal information for

impermissible reasons, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the solitude or seclusion of

Rasmusson’s private affairs and concerns.

419. The Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

420. The Defendants’ intrusion caused Rasmusson to suffer severe emotional distress

and physical harm.

421. The Defendants’ intrusion was intended to cause Rasmusson to suffer severe

emotional distress and physical harm, and was made with either actual or legal malice, or with

reckless disregard of her rights and her privacy.

422. Plaintiff is entitled to tort damages for Defendants’ invasion of privacy.

JURY DEMAND

423. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues of fact herein properly triable to a

jury under any statute or under common law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson prays for judgment against the

Defendants as follows:

1. A money judgment against all the Defendants for liquidated, actual and

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, together with her costs, including reasonable

attorney fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the DPPA, and other applicable laws, and prejudgment

interest;


73

2. Actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs and

such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate under 18

U.S.C. § 2724(b);

3. Liquidated damages of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18

U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1);

4. An injunction, permanently enjoining all Defendants from viewing Plaintiff’s

private information in violation of the DPPA, unless necessary for law enforcement purposes;

5. A permanent injunction, barring Defendant Individuals from trespassing or

instructing proxies to trespass on Plaintiff’s property or otherwise harass her or infringe in any

way on her privacy and her right against the invasion of her privacy;

6. A permanent injunction, allowing Plaintiff to use a post-office box in place of an

address on her Minnesota Driver’s License; and,

7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC Dated: October __, 2012 _________________________________ Jonathan A. Strauss (#0279602) Lorenz F. Fett (#196769) Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087) Kenneth H. Fukuda (#0389301) 12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242

Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 756-7100

Fax: 612-756-7101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


mailto:[email protected]




DRAFTEXHIBIT A TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Rasmusson v. City of Bloomington, et al.Civ File No. 12-cv-632 (SRN/JSM)

Page: 1

Entity Individual DefendantDate

AccessedTime

Accessed

Bloomington PD Tim Anderson 09/26/09 4:12:0009/26/09 4:13:0009/26/09 4:13:0002/24/10 6:16:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:23:0002/24/10 6:24:0002/24/10 6:24:00

Charles Gollop 10/22/06 11:08:0010/22/06 12:18:0007/28/08 8:31:0007/28/08 8:40:0007/28/08 13:35:0008/03/08 11:56:00

Burnsville PD Casey Buck 07/30/09 16:56:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:58:0007/30/09 16:58:00

Chisago Cnty SO Jay Belisle 02/04/06 20:51:0002/04/06 20:52:0002/04/06 20:54:0002/08/06 20:26:0002/08/06 20:31:0002/23/06 23:43:0004/13/06 20:58:00

Cottage Grove PD Valerie Lonetti 11/16/07 19:55:00Dakota Cnty SO John Grant 07/28/08 16:10:00Dept of Corrections John Melvin 05/20/08 15:45:00

05/20/08 15:46:0005/20/08 15:48:0005/20/08 15:49:0005/20/08 15:49:00

Eagan PD Danielle Anselment 08/13/07 7:09:00Sean Sweeney 02/10/06 20:46:00

02/10/06 20:46:0002/10/06 20:47:00




Page: 2


AccessedTime

Accessed

Eagan PD (cont'd) Sean Sweeney (cont'd) 02/10/06 20:48:0208/24/06 1:43:0008/24/06 1:43:0011/16/06 23:21:0012/26/06 3:39:0007/09/07 8:46:0007/09/07 8:47:0007/09/07 8:52:0007/09/07 14:45:0008/13/07 8:06:0008/13/07 15:15:0010/05/07 9:29:0010/10/07 7:46:0010/19/07 10:41:0011/16/07 14:12:0011/16/07 14:13:0011/19/07 10:55:0002/08/08 10:48:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:30:0009/23/08 8:31:0009/23/08 8:31:0001/22/09 15:14:0001/22/09 15:27:0001/22/09 15:28:0003/13/09 13:56:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:17:0012/17/09 10:19:0011/18/10 8:29:0011/18/10 8:29:00

Unknown 01/04/09 8:43:01Eden Prairie PD Jennifer Bahr 06/01/06 20:44:00

Ann Bogren 07/21/07 1:45:00Kyle Duchschere 07/24/06 10:40:00Robert Haberle 06/06/08 10:27:00Erica Halverson 08/08/07 20:26:00

08/08/07 20:27:00Laurie Henning 02/14/06 11:52:00




Page: 3


AccessedTime

Accessed

Eden Prairie PD (cont'd) Zachary Hessel 07/31/06 3:34:0007/31/06 3:34:0008/13/11 11:40:00

Tracy Luke 09/26/06 12:25:0009/26/06 12:28:00

Christopher Millard 08/10/06 18:13:0009/09/06 13:17:0007/14/07 9:08:0005/31/11 16:47:0005/31/11 16:48:0005/31/11 16:48:00

Marci Pogatchnik 06/09/07 6:54:00Beth Sams 08/29/06 6:57:00Rachel Selness 12/01/07 10:39:00Carter Staaf 04/09/06 13:25:00

07/24/06 1:06:0001/13/07 1:56:0007/01/07 1:53:0008/08/07 20:27:0001/04/09 23:52:0001/04/09 23:53:0001/04/09 23:53:0003/09/09 10:50:3307/08/09 1:34:0007/08/09 1:34:0011/21/09 4:05:0011/21/09 4:05:0007/17/10 2:26:0007/17/10 2:26:0005/01/11 2:42:00

Steve Velner 07/01/07 0:28:00Kevin White 08/05/07 6:35:00

08/05/07 6:36:00FBI Mpls Millicent Tompa 06/15/06 10:21:00

04/17/07 7:25:00Golden Valley PD Joe Dutton 02/19/06 11:56:00Isanti PD Steve Callahan 01/26/07 17:39:00




Page: 4


AccessedTime

Accessed

Lakeville PD Todd Williams 08/30/09 8:43:0010/18/09 10:49:4201/14/10 8:42:15

Minneapolis PD Kara Abbas 10/14/06 19:18:0010/27/06 12:14:00

Laura Bartsch 05/14/11 2:42:0005/14/11 2:58:00

John Bennett 04/12/07 18:51:00Calvin Cook 09/08/06 0:53:00Tim Costello 06/04/06 1:11:00

08/12/06 0:17:0009/13/06 1:18:0011/18/06 12:01:0008/09/07 17:06:0008/09/07 17:27:0008/24/07 17:59:0002/12/09 19:01:0002/12/09 19:02:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:57:0005/28/09 19:58:00

Patrick Daly 09/09/06 22:44:00Hien Dinh 10/26/06 1:57:00

10/26/06 1:58:0011/03/06 23:32:0011/03/06 23:33:00

Thomas Fahey 08/18/06 23:07:0008/18/06 23:08:0009/22/06 17:20:00

Chad Fuchs 12/28/05 19:17:00Marc Gingerich 11/28/09 2:24:00Robert Glasrud 03/07/05 21:37:26Tracy Gross (Lemieux) 04/30/08 13:06:00

12/07/09 1:00:0012/07/09 1:00:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:32:0002/17/11 23:33:0002/17/11 23:33:00




Page: 5


AccessedTime

Accessed

Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Tracy Gross(Lemieux) (cont'd) 06/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:40:0006/27/11 22:59:0006/27/11 22:59:00

Aaron Hanson 02/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:02:0002/03/09 2:03:00

Kimberly Heyda 01/13/07 13:18:00Lonnie Hoffbeck 08/08/06 15:01:00

09/29/06 2:09:00Jerry Johnson 03/07/05 21:37:43

05/07/07 20:48:0008/31/07 0:19:00

Mark Johnson 03/01/06 15:11:00Chad Joseph 01/02/06 23:57:00

08/14/06 22:12:0008/14/06 22:13:0008/14/06 22:14:0011/11/06 1:25:0002/25/07 1:05:0011/15/08 23:58:0011/15/08 23:59:0011/16/08 0:00:0011/16/08 0:01:0011/16/08 0:02:0011/16/08 0:15:00

Christopher Karakostas 10/08/07 7:24:00Mike Keefe 10/14/06 0:00:00Jason King 08/08/06 14:54:00

08/08/06 14:55:0008/08/06 14:57:0009/02/06 22:26:0010/20/06 19:23:0004/09/07 21:01:0004/09/07 21:01:0006/18/07 14:20:0001/11/08 0:46:0001/16/08 2:00:0001/26/08 4:14:00




Page: 6


AccessedTime

Accessed

Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Jason King (cont'd) 03/23/08 0:56:0006/02/08 14:35:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:28:0008/22/08 0:29:0011/22/08 14:57:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:52:0011/22/08 17:53:0011/26/08 2:57:0011/26/08 2:57:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/08/08 0:29:0012/19/08 1:21:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:22:0012/19/08 1:25:0012/20/08 1:59:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/20/08 2:00:0012/27/08 13:46:0012/27/08 13:46:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/18/09 14:42:0005/27/09 23:22:0005/27/09 23:22:0007/17/09 15:52:0007/17/09 15:52:0001/14/10 19:38:0007/30/10 21:37:0012/17/10 16:12:0012/17/10 16:12:00

Richard Lillard 10/28/06 18:41:00Tracy MacDougall 06/21/07 3:12:00

06/21/07 3:13:0006/21/07 3:15:0006/21/07 18:40:0006/21/07 18:41:00




Page: 7


AccessedTime

Accessed

Minneapolis PD (cont'd) Darcy Mackenthun 12/18/06 2:42:0001/19/08 0:32:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:53:0011/06/08 0:54:0011/06/08 0:54:00

Sean McGinty 11/24/06 1:26:00Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot 12/16/05 0:33:00

01/24/06 18:53:0009/06/06 22:41:0005/18/07 19:19:0010/05/07 20:11:0010/11/07 19:34:0001/11/08 19:20:0008/05/08 11:53:0001/02/09 20:11:0005/27/09 23:42:0005/27/09 23:43:0005/27/09 23:43:00

David O'Connor 04/29/06 5:03:00Billy Peterson 10/05/06 12:13:00

10/13/06 19:23:00Lucas Peterson 01/26/06 12:11:00

10/05/06 13:08:00Michael Pfaff 03/16/08 13:56:00

04/13/08 14:08:0004/13/08 14:08:00

David Pleoger 06/08/06 20:58:00

04/25/07 21:02:00Luis Porras 03/29/06 19:44:00

03/29/06 19:45:0005/01/08 9:01:0008/19/10 7:53:0008/19/10 7:54:00

Patrick Reuben 09/21/06 17:05:0009/21/06 17:06:00

Michael Rocklin 07/15/06 17:30:00




Page: 8


AccessedTime

Accessed

Minneapolis PD (cont'd) John Staufenberg 11/01/06 7:59:00

11/01/06 8:00:0001/29/08 19:57:00

01/29/08 19:58:00Kristina Stichter 09/21/06 15:07:00

09/21/06 15:08:00Kristin Sturgis 05/02/07 18:10:00

05/02/07 18:10:0005/02/07 18:11:0003/07/08 17:27:00

Chris Thomsen 10/11/06 22:38:00Brian Thureson 01/29/07 21:56:00

07/14/07 3:14:00Geoffrey Toscano 10/15/08 19:51:00

10/15/08 19:51:00Stephanie Weibye 08/24/06 1:19:00

12/11/06 3:08:00Matthew Wente 05/15/07 10:25:00

05/15/07 10:47:0005/15/07 10:56:00

Pam Wheeler 08/26/06 22:15:0002/17/07 0:48:00

09/27/07 19:16:0009/14/08 20:11:00

William Willner 10/21/06 22:01:0010/21/06 22:04:00

07/04/07 14:25:0012/15/07 13:51:00

Jill Wolf 10/06/06 10:29:00

MN State Patrol Dean Grothem 01/03/11 13:56:00

Minnetonka PD Michael Nelson 08/15/07 10:32:00Pine Cnty SO Blake Fjosne 04/11/11 19:27:00

Rebecca Lawrence 07/11/06 14:01:00Dan Vosika 11/16/06 7:37:00

11/16/06 7:38:0011/22/06 9:49:0012/07/06 10:55:00




Page: 9


AccessedTime

Accessed

Princeton PD Joseph Backlund 06/20/06 1:10:00

Ramsey Cnty SO Ramsey County Doe 03/14/07 16:54:0003/14/07 16:55:0003/14/07 16:55:00

Red Wing Elke Hobus 11/08/06 18:01:0001/10/07 15:23:0011/29/07 22:02:00

So. St. Paul PD Phillip Hartung 03/03/06 13:27:00St. Paul PD Stephanie Bailey 04/01/06 23:25:00

04/17/06 22:54:0005/23/06 22:23:0005/23/06 22:23:0002/22/07 22:49:0007/06/07 17:31:0007/06/07 17:34:00

Ann Baumgart 10/09/07 10:02:00Neil Benner 02/14/07 16:08:00Bruce Bennett 02/23/06 10:42:00Laura Bolduan 01/06/08 6:28:00Amy Boyer 12/15/07 23:15:00Jeffery Boyle 02/14/06 1:05:00

07/10/06 0:56:0001/21/07 20:15:0006/25/07 21:40:00

Jason Brubaker 11/04/09 13:39:0009/10/10 15:09:00

Brian Coyle 05/16/11 9:45:00Patrick Daly 08/29/06 22:55:00Chad Degree 08/03/06 21:25:00Wes Denning 09/22/06 8:27:00Luis Diaz-Calle 07/13/06 22:20:00Edward Dion 11/21/07 8:19:00Michael Dunaski 11/19/06 19:14:00Shawn Filiowich 11/13/06 0:08:00Tim Flynn 11/16/06 10:10:00Matthew Flynn 11/03/07 6:56:00Eric Gorud 05/07/08 2:08:00Nikkole Graupmann 02/21/07 2:49:00Mike Helgoe 03/21/07 1:14:00




Page: 10


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD (cont'd) Axel Henry 07/31/06 9:47:0008/01/06 7:32:0008/01/06 16:45:0008/02/06 16:20:0008/05/06 8:36:0008/14/07 4:11:0011/06/07 17:55:00

Andrew Heroux 01/06/08 6:29:00Cortez Hull 01/14/09 14:27:00Jeffery Hutchinson 09/02/06 4:47:00

09/27/06 3:10:0009/27/06 3:14:00

Robert Jerue 08/27/06 10:14:0009/15/06 22:32:0012/08/06 22:03:0006/30/07 7:48:0007/01/07 16:12:0007/08/07 13:57:0007/12/07 22:02:0011/15/07 8:14:0004/22/11 16:10:00

Johnson 04/26/06 17:32:00Johnson 09/26/06 8:30:00Erik Johnson 08/20/06 20:07:00

11/19/06 19:04:00Candice Jones 07/28/06 23:51:00

07/28/06 23:52:0010/21/06 22:01:0012/10/06 0:44:0012/31/06 13:20:0002/21/07 21:40:0003/11/07 22:43:0003/24/07 22:08:0003/28/07 21:26:0003/29/07 21:35:0003/30/07 21:36:0004/01/07 10:09:0004/02/07 22:28:0004/03/07 21:43:00




Page: 11


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD (cont'd) Candice Jones (cont'd) 04/05/07 20:33:0004/06/07 20:03:0004/07/07 22:38:0004/08/07 20:02:0004/09/07 21:40:0004/12/07 17:54:0004/14/07 20:57:0005/04/07 20:08:0005/20/07 0:11:0005/30/07 19:52:0006/09/07 18:48:0007/18/07 23:51:0007/20/07 19:55:0008/11/07 16:44:0010/07/07 0:25:0010/26/07 23:23:0002/03/08 0:02:0002/23/08 0:06:0003/14/08 3:10:0005/06/08 21:44:00

Ian Kough 05/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:38:0005/28/11 10:39:00

Kimberly Kunde 11/13/06 2:43:0011/29/06 3:31:0011/29/06 3:32:00

Cary Lee 09/23/06 14:04:00Stephen Lentsch 10/17/06 20:07:00

01/11/07 6:45:0010/17/07 18:21:0012/21/07 0:34:0003/05/08 11:37:0012/26/08 14:25:0012/26/08 14:26:0012/26/08 14:26:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:31:0007/08/09 0:32:00




Page: 12


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD (cont'd) Stephen Lentsch (cont'd) 07/08/09 0:32:00Sean Lohse-Johnson 10/08/07 10:17:00

03/03/08 7:47:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/03/08 7:48:0003/04/08 15:18:0003/05/09 14:00:0003/05/09 14:01:0003/05/09 14:03:0003/05/09 14:04:0003/05/09 14:04:0005/21/09 13:47:0006/16/09 15:06:00

Theodore Mackintosh 08/04/06 18:00:00James McKnight 10/18/09 2:47:00

12/04/10 21:52:0012/04/10 21:52:00

Shelly Mehl 10/11/06 13:33:0011/16/06 10:22:00

Justin Miller 09/24/06 22:50:0009/24/06 22:51:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:53:0009/24/06 22:54:00

Timothy Moore 06/15/09 18:48:00Ryan Murphy 09/24/06 17:35:00

11/19/06 17:38:0011/19/06 19:02:0012/04/08 19:18:00

James Nash 10/04/08 0:22:0010/04/08 0:23:0010/04/08 0:24:0010/04/08 0:25:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:26:0010/04/08 0:28:0010/04/08 0:29:0010/04/08 0:32:0010/04/08 0:33:00




Page: 13


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD (cont'd) James Nash (cont'd) 10/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 0:40:0010/04/08 1:59:0010/04/08 2:00:0010/04/08 2:36:0011/01/08 22:15:0011/01/08 22:17:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:18:0011/01/08 22:19:0011/01/08 22:21:0011/01/08 22:23:00

Jason Neubrand 10/22/07 6:17:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/13/08 4:09:0009/17/08 23:53:0009/17/08 23:53:0004/30/09 0:49:0004/30/09 0:50:0004/30/09 0:50:00

Evan O'Hara 05/05/08 15:56:0005/05/08 15:57:00

Salim Omari 09/27/08 23:33:0009/27/08 23:34:0009/27/08 23:34:00

Kathy O'Reilly 10/26/07 14:31:00Mark Pierce 08/21/07 0:10:00

08/21/07 2:39:0008/22/07 19:21:00

Chris Rhoades 05/20/09 17:17:0005/20/09 17:18:0005/20/09 19:33:0005/20/09 19:33:00

Craig Rhode 12/27/05 3:14:00Jeff Rothecker 01/14/09 20:37:00David Rud 03/21/07 1:21:00Jon Sherwood 10/02/08 8:59:00Adam Siegfried 08/13/06 23:10:00

08/14/06 0:11:00




Page: 14


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD (cont'd) Charles Sims 09/26/06 7:58:0009/26/06 8:02:0010/16/06 13:06:00

Alan Singleton 01/13/09 11:22:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:28:0001/13/09 11:29:0001/13/09 11:30:0001/13/09 11:35:0001/13/09 11:35:00

Jamie Sipes 01/18/08 2:13:00Eric Stevens 06/25/07 22:04:00Jeffery Stiff 11/13/06 0:07:00

03/30/07 2:35:0003/30/07 2:36:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:50:0005/19/09 2:51:0005/19/09 2:51:00

Tony Tallarico 03/31/08 10:09:00Todd Tessmer 12/15/07 20:41:00Threasa Timp 01/10/08 7:46:00

04/17/09 11:13:0004/17/09 11:13:0008/11/09 13:10:0008/11/09 13:10:0010/28/09 14:09:0010/28/09 14:09:00

Matt Toupal 02/14/07 15:59:00Scott Wendell 12/29/05 12:23:00

04/25/07 9:25:0004/27/07 13:58:0004/27/07 13:59:0005/18/07 14:26:0006/11/07 12:49:00

St. Paul PD Comm Cntr Unknown 06/11/07 12:56:19Unknown 08/17/08 22:21:22Unknown 09/27/08 23:37:23




Page: 15


AccessedTime

Accessed

St. Paul PD Comm Cntr (cont'd)

Unknown 05/20/09 17:18:34

Unknown 02/07/10 21:17:55Unknown 04/22/11 16:11:21

UMD PD Sean Huls 09/22/06 0:55:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:04:0009/22/06 1:05:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/22/06 2:39:0009/27/06 17:56:0012/18/06 21:53:0001/03/07 7:51:00

Woodbury PD Tony Ofstead 12/12/06 15:20:00



Anne Marie Rasmusson, Plaintiff, v. City of Bloomington; City of Burnsville; City of Cottage Grove; City of Eagan; City of Eden Prairie; City of Golden Valley; City of Isanti; City of Lakeville; City of Minneapolis; City of Minnetonka; City of St. Paul; City of Woodbury; Chisago County; Dakota County; Pine County; Ramsey County; University of Minnesota; Tim Anderson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police Department; Charles Gollop, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police Department; Casey Buck, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police Department; Valerie Lonetti, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police Department; Danielle Anselment, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department; Sean Sweeney, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Eagan Police Department; Jennifer Bahr, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Ann Bogren, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kyle Duchschere, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Robert Haberle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Erica Halverson, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Laurie Henning, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Zachary Hessel, acting in his individual capacity as an

Case Civil File No. ____________12-CV-632 (SRN/JSM)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNDER FRCP

38(b)

EXHIBIT 2


2

Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Tracy Luke, acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Christopher Millard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Marci Pogatchnik, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Beth Sams, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Rachel Selness, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Carter Staaf, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Steve Velner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Kevin White, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police Department; Joe Dutton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police Department; Steve Callahan, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the City of Isanti Police Department; Todd Williams, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department; Kara Abbas, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Laura Bartsch, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Calvin Cook, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tim Costello, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Department; Hien Dinh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Thomas Fahey, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Fuchs, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer


3

of the Minneapolis Police Department; Marc Gingerich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Robert Glasrud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy Gross, in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Aaron Hanson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kimberly Heyda, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lonnie Hoffbeck, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jerry Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mark Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chad Joseph, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Christopher Karakostas, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Mike Keefe, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jason King, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Richard Lillard, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Mrosla Loonsfoot, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Tracy MacDougall, acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Minneapolis Police Department; Darcy Mackenthun, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Sean McGinty, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David O’Connor, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Billy Peterson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Lucas Peterson, acting in his individual


4

capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Pfaff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; David Pleoger, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Luis Porras, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis Police Department; Patrick Reuben, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Rocklin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; John Staufenberg, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristina Stichter, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Kristin Sturgis, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Chris Thomsen, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Brian Thureson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Geoffry Toscano, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Stephanie Weibye, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Matthew Wente, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Pam Wheeler, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; William Willner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Jill Wolf, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police Department; Michael Nelson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police Department; Chris Erickson, acting in his individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Minnesota State Patrol; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael


5

Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety;Stephanie Bailey, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ann Baumgart, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Neil Benner, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Bruce Bennett, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Laura Bolduan, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Amy Boyer, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Boyle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Brubaker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Brian Coyle, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Patrick Daly, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Chad Degree, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Wes Denning, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Luis Diaz-Calle, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Edward Dion, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Michael Dunaski, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shawn Filiowich, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matthew Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tim Flynn, acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Gorud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Nikkole Graupmann, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mike Helgoe, acting in his


6

individual capacity as an Officer for the St. Paul Police Department; Axel Henry, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Andrew Heroux, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cortez Hull, acting in his individual capacity as an officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Hutchinson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Robert Jerue, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Erik Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Candice Jones, acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Ian Kough, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kimberly Kunde, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Cary Lee, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Stephen Lentsch, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Sean Lohse-Johnson, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Theodore Mackintosh, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James McKnight, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Shelly Mehl, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Justin Miller, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Timothy Moore, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Ryan Murphy, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; James Nash, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jason Neubrand, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Evan O’Hara, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the


7

St. Paul Police Department; Salim Omari, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Kathy O’Reilly, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Mark Pierce, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Chris Rhoades, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Craig Rhode, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeff Rothecker, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; David Rud, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jon Sherwood, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Adam Siegfried, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Charles Sims, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Alan Singleton, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jamie Sipes, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Eric Stevens, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Jeffrey Stiff, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Tallarico, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Todd Tessmer, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Threasa Timp, acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Matt Toupal, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department; Scott Wendell, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department; Tony Ofstead, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police Department; Jay Belisle, acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s


8

Department; John Grant, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department; Blake Fjosne, acting in his individual capacity as an Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Rebecca Lawrence, acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; Dan Vosika, acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s Department; John Melvin, acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Millicent Tompa, acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Sean Huls, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-Duluth Police Department; Dean Grothem, acting in his individual capacity as a Trooper of the Minnesota State Patrol; Michael Campion, acting in his individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Mona Dohman, acting in her individual capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Elke Hobus; John and Jane Does (1 - 12050) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other named law-enforcement agencies; Ramsey County Doe, acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department; Department of Public Safety Does (1-30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1-2010) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota and federal departments and agencies,

Defendants. For her First Amended Complaint, for which she demands trial by jury on all claims so

triable, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson (“Rasmusson”) hereby states and alleges as follows:


9

INTRODUCTION

The United States Supreme Court long has recognized privacy as a fundamental

constitutional right protected by the U.S. Constitution and entitled to protection from

encroachment by the States, both under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and under

various protections extended to the people of the United States by the Bill of Rights. To enforce

those rights, the legislative branch of our federal government has adopted a strict approach to the

protection of privacy interests, particularly in the past twenty years. Recognizing that law-

enforcement personnel, among others, have the ability to access any person’s private

information, especially that information retained by the State in connection with a driver’s

license, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of

1994 (“DPPA”) to safeguard this information. In a separate but related vein, in 1997 the

Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy. This case involves the

invasion of privacy and illegal searches of Plaintiff Anne Rasmusson by approximately 14400

Minnesota law-enforcement officers, who accessed, used or disclosed her private information

approximately 554400 times in the time period 200507 to fall of 20112012, and probably more

times before and after that time period, without any legitimate business reason to do so, and who

not only violated the DPPA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, but have damaged Plaintiff

Rasmusson’s life by these violations. Plaintiff is entitled to a determination that her rights have

been violated, to an order enjoining further violations, and to monetary damages for these

invasions of her privacy.


10

General Background of Law and Facts

1. This is an action for injunctive relief and money damages for injuries sustained

when approximately 14700 law-enforcement personnel in Minnesota—and perhaps more—

illegally viewed Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson’s private, personal, and confidential driver’s

license information without a legitimate purpose. These law-enforcement personnel viewed her

private information in excess of 550400 times from the 2005 period 2007 to the fall of

20112012.; presumably more had viewed it prior to 2007 and more after the fall of 2011.

Further, several of these individuals used or disclosed Rasmusson’s private information. Each

unauthorized use of her private information, made while acting under color of state law, violated

Rasmusson’s federal civil rights and constituted behavior prohibited by federal statute,

Minnesota statute, common law, and agency and departmental regulations prohibiting some or

all of the conduct engaged in by Defendants in this case.

2. Rasmusson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3), the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and

Minnesota common law invasion of privacy. The aforementioned statutory and constitutional

provisions confer original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter. This Court has jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interests and costs.

The Parties

4. Rasmusson is, and was at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States

and a resident of the State of Minnesota.


11

5. Defendant City of Bloomington is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which


6. Defendant City of Burnsville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


7. Defendant City of Cottage Grove is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be


7.

8. Defendant City of Eagan is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under


9. Defendant City of Eden Prairie is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


10. Defendant City of Golden Valley is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be

sued under § 466.01 et. seq.

9.11. Defendant City of Isanti is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued under


10.12. Defendant City of Lakeville is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


11.13. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which


14. Defendant City of Minnetonka is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which


12.


12

15. Defendant City of St. Paul is a home-rule charter city in Minnesota, which can be


16. Defendant City of Woodbury is a statutory city in Minnesota, which can be sued


17. Defendant Chisago County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


18. Defendant Dakota County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


13.19. Defendant Pine County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn.

Stat. § 466.01 et. seq.

14.20. Defendant Ramsey County is a county in Minnesota, which can be sued under


15. University of Minnesota was established by Article XIII of the Minnesota

Constitution and can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 3.736 et. seq.

16.21. Defendants Entity Does (1-120) are various cities, counties, municipalities and

other entities sited in Minnesota, which can be sued under Minn. Stat. § 466.01 et. seq. or other

statutes, and federal departments and agencies, which can be sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 or

other statutes.

22. Plaintiff will refer to the entities named in paragraphs 5-16 above collectively as

the “Defendant Entities” or “Entity Defendants.”

17.23. Defendant Tim Anderson (“Anderson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



13

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Bloomington Police

Department.

18. Defendant Charles Gollop (“Gollop”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Bloomington Police

Department.

24.

25. Defendant Casey Buck (“Buck”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Burnsville Police

Department.

26. Defendant Valerie Lonetti (“Lonetti”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Cottage Grove Police

Department.

27. Defendant Danielle Anselment (“Anselment”), upon information and belief, was,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police

Department.

28. Defendant Sean Sweeney (“Sweeney”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eagan Police Department.


14

29. Defendant Jennifer Bahr (“Bahr”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

30. Defendant Ann Bogren (“Bogren”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

31. Defendant Kyle Duchschere (“Duchschere”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

32. Defendant Robert Haberle (“Haberle”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

33. Defendant Erica Halverson (“Halverson”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

19.34. Defendant Laurie Henning (“Henning”), upon information and belief, was, at all



15


Department.

35. Defendant Zachary Hessel (“Hessel”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

20.36. Defendant Tracy Luke (“Luke”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department

37. Defendant Christopher Millard (“Millard”), upon information and belief, was, at


duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

38. Defendant Marci Pogatchnik (“Pogatchnik”), upon information and belief, was at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

39. Defendant Beth Sams (“Sams”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.


16

21.40. Defendant Rachel Selness (“Selness”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

41. Defendant Carter Staaf (“Staaf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Eden Prairie Police

Department.

42. Defendant Steve Velner (“Velner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

43. Defendant Kevin White (“White”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

44. Defendant Joe Dutton (“Dutton”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Golden Valley Police

Department.

45. Defendant Steve Callahan (“Callahan”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Isanti Police Department.


17

46. Defendant Todd Williams (“Williams”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Lakeville Police Department.

47. Defendant Kara Abbas (“Abbas”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

48. Defendant Laura Bartsch (“Bartsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

49. Defendant John Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



50. Defendant Calvin Cook (“Cook”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

51. Defendant Tim Costello (“Costello”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.


18

52. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of Minneapolis”), upon information and

belief, was, at all times material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

of Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul

Police Department.

53. Defendant Hien Dinh (“Dinh”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

54. Defendant Thomas Fahey (“Fahey”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department

55. Defendant Chad Fuchs (“Fuchs”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

56. Defendant Marc Gingerich (“Gingerich”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

57. Defendant Robert Glasrud (“Glasrud”), upon information and belief, was, at all



19


Department.

58. Defendant Tracy Gross (“Gross”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

59. Defendant Aaron Hanson (“Hanson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

60. Defendant Kimberly Heyda (“Heyda”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

61. Defendant Lonnie Hoffbeck (“Hoffbeck”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

62. Defendant Jerry Johnson, upon information and belief, was at all times material




20

63. Defendant Mark Johnson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



64. Defendant Chad Joseph (“Joseph”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

65. Defendant Christopher Karakostas (“Karakostas”), upon information and belief,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Minneapolis

Police Department.

66. Defendant Mike Keefe (“Keefe”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

67. Defendant Jason King (“King”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

68. Defendant Richard Lillard (“Lillard”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.


21

69. Defendant Jill Mrolsa Loonsfoot (“Loonsfoot”), upon information and belief, was,



Police Department.

70. Defendant Tracy MacDougall (“MacDougall”), upon information and belief, was


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an employee of the

Minneapolis Police Department.

71. Defendant Darcy Mackenthun (“Mackenthun”), upon information and belief, was,



Police Department.

72. Defendant Sean McGinty (“McGinty”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

73. Defendant David O’Connor (“O’Connor”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

74. Defendant Billy Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material




22

75. Defendant Lucas Peterson, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



76. Defendant Michael Pfaff (“Pfaff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

77. Defendant David Pleoger (“Pleoger”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

78. Defendant Luis Porras (“Porras”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.

79. Defendant Patrick Reuben (“Reuben”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department

80. Defendant Michael Rocklin (“Rocklin”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.


23

81. Defendant John Staufenberg (“Staufendberg”), upon information and belief, was,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minneapolis

Police Department.

82. Defendant Kristina Stichter (“Stichter”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

83. Defendant Kristin Sturgis (“Sturgis”), upon information and belief, was at all



Department.

84. Defendant Chris Thomsen (“Thomsen”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

85. Defendant Brian Thureson (“Thureson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

86. Defendant Geoffrey Toscano (“Toscano”), upon information and belief, was, at



24


Department.

87. Defendant Stephanie Weibye (“Weibye”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

88. Defendant Matthew Wente (“Wente”), upon information and belief, was at all



Department.

89. Defendant Pam Wheeler (“Wheeler”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

90. Defendant William Willner (“Willner”), upon information and belief, was, at all



Department.

91. Defendant Jill Wolf (“Wolf”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



Department.


25

22. Defendant Michael Nelson (“Nelson”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnetonka Police

Department.

23. Defendant Chris Erickson (“Erickson”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Lieutenant of the Minnesota State Patrol.




93. Defendant Stephanie Bailey (“Bailey”), upon information and belief, was, at all



94. Defendant Ann Baumgart (“Baumgart”), upon information and belief, was, at all



95. Defendant Neil Benner (“Benner”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



96. Defendant Bruce Bennett, upon information and belief, was, at all times material




26

97. Defendant Laura Bolduan (“Bolduan”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul Police Department

98. Defendant Amy Boyer (“Boyer”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



99. Defendant Jeffrey Boyle (“Boyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



100. Defendant Jason Brubaker (“Brubaker”), upon information and belief, was, at all



101. Defendant Brian Coyle (“Coyle”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police

Department.

102. Defendant Patrick Daly (“Patrick Daly of St. Paul”), upon information and belief,



Police Department.

103. Defendant Chad Degree (“Degree”), upon information and belief, was, at all times




27

104. Defendant Wes Denning (“Denning”), upon information and belief, was, at all



105. Defendant Luis Diaz-Calle (“Diaz-Calle”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

106. Defendant Edward Dion (“Dion”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



107. Defendant Michael Dunaski (“Dunaski”), upon information and belief, was, at all



108. Defendant Shawn Filiowich (“Filiowich”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

109. Defendant Matthew Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material



110. Defendant Tim Flynn, upon information and belief, was, at all times material


acting in his individual capacity as a Commander of the St. Paul Police Department.


28

111. Defendant Eric Gorud (“Gorud”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



112. Defendant Nikkole Graupmann (“Graupmann”), upon information and belief,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Officer of the St. Paul

Police Department.

113. Defendant Mike Helgoe (“Helgoe”), upon information and belief, was at all times



114. Defendant Axel Henry (“Henry”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



115. Defendant Andrew Heroux (“Heroux”), upon information and belief, was, at all



116. Defendant Cortez Hull (“Hull”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



117. Defendant Jeffrey Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”), upon information and belief, was,



Police Department


29

118. Defendant Robert Jerue (“Jerue”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



119. Defendant Erik Johnson (“Erik Johnson”), upon information and belief, was, at all



120. Defendant Candice Jones (“Jones”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Sergeant of the St. Paul Police Department.

121. Defendant Ian Kough (“Kough”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



122. Defendant Kimberly Kunde (“Kunde”), upon information and belief, was, at all



123. Defendant Cary Lee (“Lee”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



124. Defendant Stephen Lentsch (“Lentsch”), upon information and belief, was, at all



125. Defendant Sean Lohse-Johnson (“Lohse-Johnson”), upon information and belief,



30


Police Department.

126. Defendant Theodore Mackintosh (“Mackintosh”), upon information and belief,



Police Department.

127. Defendant James McKnight (“McKnight”), upon information and belief, was, at



Department.

128. Defendant Shelly Mehl, (“Mehl”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



129. Defendant Justin Miller (“Miller”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



130. Defendant Timothy Moore (“Moore”), upon information and belief, was, at all



131. Defendant Ryan Murphy (“Murphy”), upon information and belief, was, at all




31

132. Defendant James Nash (“Nash”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



133. Defendant Jason Neubrand (“Neubrand”), upon information and belief, was, at all



134. Defendant Evan O’Hara (“O’Hara”), upon information and belief, was, at all



135. Defendant Salim Omari (“Omari”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



136. Defendant Kathy O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), upon information and belief, was, at all



137. Defendant Mark Pierce (“Pierce”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



138. Defendant Chris Rhoades (“Rhoades”), upon information and belief, was, at all




32

139. Defendant Craig Rhode (“Rhode”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



140. Defendant Jeff Rothecker (“Rothecker”), upon information and belief, was, at all



141. Defendant David Rud (“Rud”), upon information and belief, was at all times



142. Defendant Jon Sherwood (“Sherwood”), upon information and belief, was, at all



143. Defendant Adam Siegfried (“Siegfried”), upon information and belief, was, at all



144. Defendant Charles Sims (“Sims”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



145. Defendant Alan Singleton (“Singleton”), upon information and belief, was, at all




33

146. Defendant Jamie Sipes (“Sipes”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



147. Defendant Eric Stevens (“Stevens”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



148. Defendant Jeffrey Stiff (“Stiff”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



149. Defendant Tony Tallarico (“Tallarico”), upon information and belief, was, at all



150. Defendant Todd Tessmer (“Tessmer”), upon information and belief, was, at all



151. Defendant Threasa Timp (“Timp”), upon information and belief, was, at all times



152. Defendant Matt Toupal (“Toupal”), upon information and belief, was, at all times




34

153. Defendant Scott Wendell (“Wendell”), upon information and belief, was, at all



154. Defendant Tony Ofstead (“Ofstead”), upon information and belief, was, at all


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Woodbury Police

Department.

155. Defendant Jay Belisle (“Belisle”), upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an employee of the Chisago County Sheriff’s

Department.

156. Defendant John Grant (“Grant”), upon information and belief, was at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s

Department.

157. Defendant Blake Fjosne (“Fjosne”), upon information and belief, was at all times



Department.

158. Defendant Rebecca Lawrence (“Lawrence”), upon information and belief, was at


duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as a Deputy of the Pine County Sheriff’s

Department.


35

159. Defendant Dan Vosika (“Vosika”), upon information and belief, was at all times



Department.

160. Defendant John Melvin (“Melvin”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as an Officer of the Minnesota Department of

Corrections.

161. Defendant Millicent Tompa (“Tompa”), upon information and belief, was at all


appointed and acting in her individual capacity as an Agent of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation.

162. Defendant Sean Huls (“Huls”), upon information and belief, was, at all times


appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the University of Minnesota-

Duluth Police Department.




164. Defendant Elke Hobus (“Hobus”), upon information and belief, was, at all times

material herein, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota.

24.165. Defendant, Ramsey County Doe, upon information and belief, was at all



36

appointed and acting in his individual capacity as a Sergeant of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s

Department.

25.166. Defendants John and Jane Does (1-5120), upon information and belief,

were, at all times material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of

Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in their individual capacities as law-enforcement

supervisors, officers or employees of the Defendant Entities or other federal, state, county or

municipal entities in Minnesota.

26.167. Plaintiff will refer to the individual Defendants (with the exception of the

“Commissioner Defendants,” “Department of Public Safety Defendants” and “Supervisor

Defendants” defined below), including John, and Jane and Ramsey County Does, collectively as

the “Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel,” “Individual Defendants,” or “Defendant

Individuals.”

27.168. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants with supervisory authority over the

Individual Defendants, including any John and Jane Does with such supervisory authority,

collectively as the “Defendant Supervisors” or “Supervisor Defendants.”

28.169. Defendant Michael Campion (“Campion”), upon information and belief,


Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the

Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

29.170. Defendant Mona Dohman (“Dohman”), upon information and belief, was,

at all times material herein, a citizen, of the United States and a resident of the State of

Minnesota, duly appointed and acting in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the

Minnesota Department of Public Safety.


37

171. Plaintiff will refer to the Defendants Campion and Dohman collectively, as the

“Commissioner Defendants” or “Defendant Commissioners.”

172. Defendants DPS Does (1-30), upon information and belief, were, at all times

material herein, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Minnesota, duly

appointed and acting their individual capacities as officers, supervisors, employees, staff,

employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

30.173. Plaintiff will refer to officers, supervisors, employees, staff, employees,

independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety who created,

installed, monitored, regulated, coded, enforced, supervised, maintained, oversaw, updated, or

otherwise worked on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database or Bureau of

Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database, each of which contained Rasmusson’s private

driver’s license information (collectively or individually, “DPS Databases”) as “Department of

Public Safety Does” or “DPS Does.”)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Rasmusson Served Honorably as a Law-Enforcement Officer

31.174. In 1996, Rasmusson graduated from the police academy at Range

Technology College in Hibbing, Minnesota. Her fellow classmates She was elected her as a

Community Service Sergeant for their class.as a Sergeant of her class.

32.175. Immediately after graduation, in May 1996, she became a park ranger for

the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

33.176. In December 1996, Rasmusson became a police officer for the Eden

Prairie Police Department. She worked as a patrol officer.


38

34.177. Rasmusson was injured in the line of duty on June 6, 1999, while on a

medical emergency call. During that call, she needed to move some furniture, and, while doing

so, snapped her coccyx (tail bone).

35.178. In March 2000, Rasmusson underwent surgery related to that injury where

her coccyx and partial sacrum were removed.

36.179. Despite the injury and surgery, Rasmusson returned to duty.

37.180. In 2001, Rasmusson became a police officer for the City of St. Paul,

Minnesota. St. Paul requires lateral hires such as Rasmusson to attend their police academy.

While there, Rasmusson became the first female academy president in the department’s history.

She gave her St. Paul Police Academy class commencement speech.

38.181. In St. Paul, Rasmusson worked as a patrol officer in the West District,

commonly known as the “Frogtown” neighborhood.

39.182. In 2003, Rasmusson began to experience numbness in her leg and had

difficulty sitting. She was diagnosed with nerve damage and an unstable pelvis. Based on this

diagnosis, she was granted a full-medical retirement on December 17, 2003.

40.183. Rasmusson was deeply disappointed that she had to retire. Until the

revelation of the massive invasion of privacy in this case, retirement was one of the worst things

to happen in her life.

41.184. In 2004, Rasmusson moved to her rural home in northern Minnesota.

185. Rasmusson was never disciplined while on the force.

42.186. Rasmusson was highly regarded police officer and served with honor.

43.187. Rasmusson was proud to serve as a police officer.

II. Over 14000 Minnesota Law Enforcement Officers Viewed Rasmusson’s Private Information Outside the Scope of Any Investigation or Official Police Business


39

44.188. As early as July 2006, law enforcement officers began looking up

Rasmusson’s private information on the Department of Vehicle Services’ (“DVS”) database.

45.189. The officers viewed Rasmusson’s private personal and highly-restricted

personal information from her State-issued driver’s license including her home address, color

photograph or image, and driver identification number.

46.190. Under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, the Minnesota

Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) and DPS Does, knowingly created the DVS DPS

dDatabases that includes Rasmusson’s driver’s license information and the system for law-

enforcement personnel to access to that information.

47.191. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants,

knowingly maintained and updated the database that includesdatabases that include Plaintiff’s



knowingly provided access to the databases that included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.


had the ability to determine that drivers’ license information, including Plaintiff’s, was being

accessed on multiple occasions, by multiple law-enforcement personnel from multiple law-

enforcement agencies.


had the ability to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including unauthorized access to



40

195. DPS and DPS Does, under the direction of the Commissioner Defendants, failed

to prevent unauthorized access to the databases, including access to Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information.

196. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does knowingly authorized, directed,

ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in the disclosure of Plaintiff’s


197. The policy of the State of Minnesota is to uphold the provisions of the law, both

state and federal, and to protect and safeguard the privacy rights of the State’s citizens and

inhabitants, including its drivers’ privacy rights, and including those rights as are required to be

protected by federal law, and in particular, it is the policy of the State of Minnesota to comply

with the provisions and requirements of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C.

Section 2721, et seq. This policy is even set forth in the driver’s license application and set forth

in statutory language with proper citation to that federal statute.

198. Defendant Commissioners,Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly disclosed

Plaintiff’s and others’ driver’s license information and disclosed Plaintiff’s and others’ driver’s

license information and violated state policy by devising and implementing a database that

failed abysmally to uphold the privacy rights of Rasmusson and others similarly situated as

protected by the DPPA, exposing her information and others’ to impermissible and knowing

accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in this lawsuit, constituting a knowing

disclosure of her information within the meaning of the DPPA, exposing her information and

others’ to impermissible and knowing accesses by various persons, including the Defendants in

this lawsuit, constituting a knowing disclosure of her information within the meaning of the

DPPA.


41

199. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does knowingly devised and implemented a

database, and a method for using and misusing that database, that both permitted and

encouraged, through the nature and monitoring of the system, accesses by police officers, state

employees, and others that failed to comply with state policy of protecting privacy rights and

complying with the DPPA.

200. The system knowingly devised and implemented by Commissioner Defendants

and DPS Does failed to set rules for protecting the privacy rights, and permitted and on

information and belief still permits, and in some instances promotes, the accessing of the

database from personal computers, the giving out of passwords to others, including persons not

authorized to have them, and the accessing of the system by persons without any accountability

or even in some instances without the ability to trace the person who made the access; so that

effective monitoring of the system is difficult if not impossible under the system as devised and

implemented by the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, who deliberately emphasized and

favored the convenience of the system by users at the expense of protecting the privacy rights of

the persons in the database.

201. This deliberate emphasis and preference of the convenience of the system users

over the privacy rights of the drivers was known to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS

Does, and was purposeful.

202. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does actually knew

that law-enforcement officers were accessing the databases for impermissible purposes,

including viewing Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and acquiesced, facilitated, approved

or simply ignored the conduct.


42

203. Even if the Commissioners and DPS Does had no actual knowledge of the

impermissible uses of the databases they oversaw, upon information and belief, they were

reckless in their supervision of their subordinates who did operate the database.

204. Upon information and belief, the Commissioners and DPS Does were grossly

negligent in supervising their subordinates who operated the databases.

51.

52.205. Rasmusson began having suspicions that law enforcement officers were

taking an uncomfortable interest in her starting approximately in 2007. She had recently

divorced, and numerous officers who asked her for dates knew where she lived or what kind of

car she drove.

53.206. In mid-2009, Rasmusson began to distance herself from law-enforcement

get-togethers and from police officers, even those who were her former colleagues and those

whom she considered her friends. More and more she began to live a secluded, even hermit-like,

reclusive existence.

54.207. On May 5, 2010, Rasmusson was pulled over for a potential speeding

violation by a Minneapolis police officer. Although the officer did not issue a citation against

her, three other squad cars arrived on the scene and then left without performing any known law

enforcement duties.

55.208. In early July 2010, Rasmusson changed her cell phone number and

personal email address, and moved from Lakeville back to northern Minnesota. She told few

people of her move and ceased contact with the majority of police acquaintances from then on.

56.209. Based in part on these foregoing incidents, Rasmusson contacted DPS to

inquire whether law enforcement officers had been viewing her private information. She asked


43

that only those officers who had run her name—as opposed to her license plates—on the DVS

computer database be identified.

57.210. On August 30, 2011, she was unpleasantly surprised, even horrified to

learn from DPS that it had determined that law-enforcement officers from 18 different

departments and agencies had reviewed her private driver’s license information since 2007. She

became physically ill upon learning that fact; she pulled over, opened her car door, and vomited.

58.211. In October 2011, she learned through the press that approximately 100

law-enforcement officers had accessed her private driver’s license information approximately

400 times in the last four years, from 2007 through the fall of 2011.

59.212. Upon learning of the sheer volume of intrusions, Rasmusson again became

physically sick.

60.213. On information and belief, Rasmusson believes that this number is only a

partial list of the illegal accesses of her information, and that more illegal accesses likely

occurred prior to 2007 and after summer of 2011During Phase One discovery, Rasmusson was

able to determine that, since 2005, approximately 144 law-enforcement personnel from 23

entities in Minnesota accessed her private personal driver’s license information on approximately

554 occasions without a permissible purpose..

61.214. Rasmusson believes that even more unauthorized accesses and viewings

will occur in the future if the policies of the Entity Defendants and other police departments and

law enforcement agencies similarly situated are not changed to bring the actual custom and

practice of these Entity Defendants and others similarly situated into compliance with their own

written rules, with the rules of the Department of Public Safety, and with federal law, including

the DPPA.


44

62.215. In November 2011, DPS informed Rasmusson’s counsel that it was, in

fact, investigating 26 entities and their employees regarding this illegal conduct.

216. At the request of Rasmusson’s counsel, DPS provided a list of the entities whose

personnel had viewed her private information.

217. As part of Phase One Discovery, for each access of Rasmusson’s private, personal

information, DPS has provided DVS audits identifying the date, time, name of the law-

enforcement personnel and entity where the personnel were employed. The BCA audits do not

contain the names of the law-enforcement personnel.

63.218. As part of Phase One Discovery, many entities have indicated whether

they believe their law-enforcement personnel had a permissible or law-enforcement related

purpose for obtaining, using or disclosing Rasmusson’s private information.

64.219. Included in the list audits provided by DPS to Rasmusson’s counsel were

personnel from law-enforcement departments from associated with the following Defendant

Entities:

• City of Anoka • City of Bloomington • City of Burnsville • City of Coon Rapids • City of Cottage Grove • e • City of Eagan • City of Eden Prairie • City of Fridley • City of Golden Valley • City of Hopkins • City of Inver Grove Heights • City of Isanti • City of Lakeville • City of Mendota Heights • City of Minneapolis • City of Minnetonka


45

• City of Princeton • City of Red Wing • City of Rosemount • City of St. Paul • City of St. Peter • City of South St. Paul • City of Woodbury • Chisago County • Dakota County • Dakota County Comm Center • Faribault County • Pine County • Ramsey County • Washington County • Metro Transit • University of Minnesota (Duluth Campus) • Federal Bureau of Investigation

65. Either on their own initiative or upon the request of her counsel, some of the

Defendant entities have identified the names of their law enforcement personnel who viewed

Rasmusson’s private, personal information.

220. The chart attached to this First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A summarizes the

number of times law-enforcement personnel accessed Rasmusson’s without a permissible, law-

enforcement related reason, as indicated in the DPS audits, Phase One Discovery responses and

subpoena responses.

221. Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit A into his First Amended Complaint as though fully

set forth in this paragraph.

222. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants primarily used Rasmusson’s

name, not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.

223. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants used Rasmusson’s name,

not her license plate number, to look up her private, personal information.During Phase One


46

Discovery, Bloomington did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each

access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Anderson or Gollop.

224. During Phase One Discovery, Burnsville did not provide a permissible, law-


by Buck.

66.225. During Phase One Discovery, Cottage Grove did not provide a

permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s

license information by Lonetti.

226. The Eagan Police Department issued Eagan Police Officer Sean Sweeney an oral

reprimand for accessing Rasmusson’s private data from the DPS database for personal reasons.

67.227. During Phase One Discovery, Eagan did not provide a permissible, law-


by Anselment or Sweeney.

68.228. The City of Eden Prairie (“Eden Prairie”) disciplined three officers for

viewing Rasmusson’s private, personal information: Officer Zachary Hessel, Officer

Christopher Millard and Sergeant Carter Staaf. In addition, at least eight other Eden Prairie

officers or employees viewed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.

69.229. Hessel viewed Rasmusson’s private information on August 13, 2011, on a

computer in the patrol squad room. There were no incidents related to Rasmusson that day (or

any other day).

70.230. Hessel was on duty on August 13, 2011, made no traffic stops and had no

reason to look up Rasmusson.


47

71.231. Hessel had been trained to use the database on March 11, 2008 and on

March 8, 2010.

72.232. Hessel admitted to Eden Prairie that he looked up Rasmusson after hearing

other Eden Prairie personnel discussing her. He had met her the day before at a police softball

tournament in 2006. He did not have a permissible reason to access her personal information

several years later.

73.233. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to

obtain Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information.

74.234. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Hessel and required him to

undergo coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.

75.235. Millard viewed Rasmusson’s private personal information on three

separate occasions in 2007 and 2011. He was on an alarm call and arrest the first time he looked

her up. He was also on duty when he did so again in 2011.

76.236. Millard had been trained to use the database on March 18, 2008 and

October 15, 2010.

77.237. Millard looked up Rasmusson’s information so that he could obtain her

address.

78.238. Eden Prairie determined that Millard did not have an official purpose to


79.239. Eden Prairie issued a letter of warning to Millard and required him to

undergo coaching and retraining on the proper use and access to DVS data.

80.240. Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s private information at least 13 times from

January 2007 until May 2011.


48

81.241. Staaf had been trained twice on the proper use of the database.

82.242. Despite that training, Staaf viewed Rasmusson’s information while on

duty and on both his mobile computer and at his Sergeant’s desk.

83.243. Staaf looked up Rasmusson’s present driver’s license, as well as her old

driver’s licenses to compare her photographs.

84.244. Staaf encouraged his subordinates to conduct their own DVS queries of

Rasmusson’s information because she was very attractive and so they could see that “she’s

changed and she’s got a new look.”

85.245. Eden Prairie’s records also indicate that one “John or Jane Doe” who

looked up Rasmusson’s personal information at Staaf’s suggestion did so “in the middle of a

money transport for the Community Center.”

86.246. Staaf has conceded that he did not run Rasmusson’s information for a

legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

87.247. Eden Prairie investigative records do not indicate an official, law-

enforcement purpose for Staaf to have obtained Rasmusson’s private, personal information.

88.248. Eden Prairie determined that Hessel did not have an official purpose to


249. As discipline for his conduct related to Rasmusson, Eden Prairie demoted Staaf.

250. During Phase One Discovery, Eden Prairie did not provide a permissible, law-


by Bahr, Bogren, Duchschere, Haberle, Halverson, Henning, Hessel, Luke, Millard, Pogatchnik,

Sams, Selness, Staaf, Velner, and White.


49

251. During Phase One Discovery, Golden Valley did not provide a permissible, law-


by Dutton.

252. During Phase One Discovery, Isanti did not provide a permissible, law-


by Callahan.

89.253. During Phase One Discovery, Lakeville did not provide a permissible,

law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license

information by Williams.

90.254. On September 21, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the

Minneapolis Police Department (“Minneapolis Police”). While there, Minneapolis Police

informed Rasmusson that at least 20 Minneapolis Police officers had viewed her private,

personal information. According to the Minneapolis Police, police officers had made inquiries

about her as late as June 2011.

91.255. On information and belief, DPS has disciplined a few of these

Minneapolis police officers to a limited extent.

92.256. On information and belief, the Minneapolis Police Department has not

disciplined any of its officers for their unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s information.

257. On information and belief, 24 46 Minneapolis Police officers accessed

Rasmusson’s record 17933 times from 20057 through summer of 20112 without a permissible

purpose.

258. During Phase One Discovery, Minneapolis did not provide a permissible, law-



50

by Abbas, Bartsch, John Bennett, Cook, Costello, Patrick Daly of Minneapolis, Dinh, Fahey,

Fuchs, Glasrud, Gross, Hanson, Heyda, Hoffbeck, Jerry Johnson, Mark Johnson, Joseph,

Karakostas, Keefe, King, Lillard, Loonsfoot, MacDougall, Mackenthun, McGinty, O’Connor,

Billy Peterson, Lucas Peterson, Pfaff, Pleoger, Porras, Reuben, Rocklin, Staufenberg, Stichter,

Sturgis, Thomsen, Thureson, Toscano, Weibye, Wente, Wheeler, Willner, Wolf,

259. Minneapolis claims that Gingerich accessed Plaintiff’s driver’s license

information as part of a traffic stop.

260. At one point, Plaintiff had thought that Gingerich had been the Minneapolis

officer who had stopped her for a speeding violation.

93. Plaintiff now believes that Gingerich did not stop her for speeding, and that

Gingerich did not have a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for his access of her

private, driver’s license information.

94.261. On information and belief, more than those 24 officers in the Minneapolis

Police have viewed Rasmusson’s record prior to 2007 and more since summer of 2011, along

with law enforcement personnel from other departments.

95.262. By letter dated January 26, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Public

Safety admits that Minnesota State Patrol Trooper Chris Erickson received an oral reprimand and

Trooper Dean Grothem received a written reprimand for unauthorized use of the database related

to Rasmusson.

263. Grothem’s written reprimand specifically states that he was being disciplined “for

accessing private information in the DVS database without a legitimate law enforcement need.”


51

264. During Phase One Discovery, Minnetonka did not provide a permissible, law-


by Nelson.

265. The DVS audit indicates that Dean Backlund, identified as a City of Princeton

employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on June 20, 2006.

266. The City of Princeton maintains that Backlund was not employed by it on June

26, 2006, and that the IP address does not match any devices at the Princeton Police Department.

The City of Princeton was not able to identify why Backlund appeared on the DVS audit.

267. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of Princeton is


which it attributed to Joseph Backlund.


to Backlund on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to

properly record this access.

96.

97.269. On September 27, 2011, Rasmusson met with a representative of the St.

Paul Police Department (“St. Paul Police”). While there, the St. Paul Police was informed

Rasmusson that at least 13 St. Paul Police officers and employees viewed her private, personal

information.

270. Upon information and belief, between 200507 and the summer of 20112, St. Paul

Police had approximately 6142 officers and employees who have accessed Rasmusson’s record

175228 times without a permissible purpose, including one female officer who accessed

Rasmusson’s record 34 times.


52

98.



by Bailey, Baumgart, Benner, Bruce Bennett, Bolduan, Boyer, Boyle, Brubaker, Coyle, Patrick

Daly of St. Paul, Degree, Denning, Diaz-Calle, Dion, Dunaski, Filiowich, Matthew Flynn, Tim

Flynn, Gorud, Graupmann, Helgoe, Henry, Heroux, Hull, Hutchinson, Jerue, Erik Johnson,

Jones, Kough, Kunde, Lee, Lentsch, Lohse-Johnson, Mackintosh, McKnight, Mehl, Miller,

Moore, Murphy, Nash, Neubrand, O’Hara, Omari, O’Reilly, Pierce, Rhoades, Rhode, Rothecker,

Rud, Sherwood, Siegfried, Sims, Singleton, Sipes, Stevens, Stiff, Tallarico, Tessmer, Timp,

Toupal, or Wendell.

272. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that Plaintiff asked Benner, Jerue

and Henry to access her driver’s license information.

273. Plaintiff denies asking Benner, Jerue or Henry to access her driver’s license

information.

274. The DPS audits also listed the names of two St. Paul law-enforcement personnel

who looked up Rasmusson on two occasions only as “Johnson.”

275. According to St. Paul, it has not yet been able to determine the first name(s) of the

individuals who accessed Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information on those two

occasions.



by either “Johnson” look-up where the first name was not knownOn information and belief,


53

more illegal accesses by St. Paul Police occurred prior to 2007 and some likely have occurred

after the summer of 2011.

277. The DPS audits list six accesses of Rasmusson’s information by unnamed officers

from the St. Paul PD Comm Center.

278. During Phase One Discovery, St. Paul claimed that “the access to DVS on these

particular devices were assigned to the device itself, not to an individual. The City of St. Paul no

longer has information indicating what employee was assigned to these devices at the time of

access.”

279. The DVS audit indicates that Phillip Hartung (“Hartung”), identified as a City of

South St. Paul employee, accessed Plaintiff’s information in that database on March 3, 2006.

280. During Phase One Discovery, South St. Paul did not provide a permissible, law-


by Hartung, but claimed that Hartung resigned in 2005 and worked for the U.S. Marshall’s office

at the time of the access attributed to him.

281. It is anticipated that discovery will show either that the City of South St. Paul is


which it attributed to Hartung.


to Hartung on the DVS audit and the poor database maintenance that may have failed to properly

record this access.

283. During Phase One Discovery, Woodbury did not provide a permissible, law-


by Ofstead.


54

284. During Phase One Discovery, Chisago County did not provide a permissible law-


by Belisle.

285. During Phase One Discovery, Dakota County claimed Grant was investigating

Rasmusson for a law-enforcement-related reason.

286. Grant met Plaintiff the day prior to his accessing her private, driver’s license

information at a law-enforcement softball tournament in Duluth. There was no reason for Grant

to suspect anything of Plaintiff, who was not a resident of Dakota County, the very next day.

287. During Phase One Discovery, the Minnesota Department of Corrections did not

provide a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private,

driver’s license information by Melvin.

288. During Phase One Discovery, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not provide

a permissible law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s

license information by Tompa.

289. Pine County did not provide a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for

each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s license information by Fjosne, Lawrence or Vosika.

290. Pine County claimed that Fjosne accessed Rasmusson’s information as part of a

wide-range license plate check.

291. Yet, according to the DPS audit, Fjosne used the DVS driver’s license database,

not a license plate search to access Rasmsson’s information.

292. Ramsey County Doe claims that he was not in the country when his DPS database

passwords and login information were used to look up Rasmusson.


55

293. Ramsey County Doe admits that he gave his password to two BCA employees he

worked with on the Metro Gang Strike Force.

294. Both BCA employees deny receiving Ramsey County Doe’s password.

295. Both BCA employees deny using Ramsey County Doe’s password to view

Rasmusson’s driver’s license information.

296. DPS regulations prohibit law-enforcement personnel and their employees from

sharing their DPS database passwords.

297. By sharing the password with BCA employees, by which they could access the

protected drivers’ license information of any Minnesota resident, including Rasmusson, Ramsey

County Doe and Ramsey County knowingly disclosed Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license

information under the DPPA.

298. Because they maintained a database without adequate security, the DPS

Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Ramsey County Doe and

Ramsey County.

299. During Phase One Discovery, the University of Minnesota-Duluth did not provide

a permissible, law-enforcement-related reason for each access of Rasmusson’s private, driver’s

license information by Huls.

300. The DPS audits list Hobus as working for the City of Red Wing.

301. The City of Red Wing claims that Hobus never worked for it.

302. The City of Red Wing claims that it was informed by the DPS that Hobus worked

as a deputy registrar, which was a private business.


56

99.303. Because they allowed non-law-enforcement personnel access to the DPS

databases and because of their inability to properly track these accesses, the DPS Commissioners

and DPS Does are jointly liable for this disclosure by Hobus.

100.304. The remaining Individual Defendants’ identities (John and Jane Does) are

not presently known, because the Defendant Entities have either not provided Plaintiff with their

identities or not provided sufficient information to determine if their law enforcement

personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized, despite her requests. Plaintiff anticipates

that these yet-to-be-named Individual Defendants will become known through discovery.

101.305. The Supervisor Defendants are not presently known. Plaintiff anticipates

that the yet-to-be-named Supervisor Defendants who should have monitored, prevented and

stopped the unauthorized access to Rasmusson’s information will become known through

discovery.

102.306. The remaining Entity Defendant identities (Entity Does) are not presently

known, because not all of the entities identified by the DPS have provided sufficient information

to determine if their law enforcement personnel’s access to the database was unauthorized.

Plaintiff anticipates that these yet-to-be-named Entity Defendants will become known through

discovery.

103.307. The login page to the DVS website includes the following admonition:

Access to this service is for authorized personnel only conducting official business. If you do not have the express authorization, you must exit now or face the consequences of violating Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes and other laws. Further, the State of Minnesota prohibits unauthorized access, disclosure, duplication, modification, diversion, destruction, loss, misuse, or theft of its information in accordance with the Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.87 – 609.891.


57

DVS collects and maintains electronic access data. This data may be used and disseminated for the purpose of evaluating electronic government services; to prevent unlawful intrusions into government electronic systems; or as otherwise provided by law.

104.308. On information and belief, the Individual Defendants’ training included

admonitions against viewing private driver’s license information for unofficial purposes.

105.309. Whatever training, monitoring, or inquiry into the officers’ usage of the

information systems has been adopted is woefully inadequate to assure ensure that access is used

properly and lawfully.

106.310. The Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual

prohibits accessing drivers’ license information for anything other than official business.

107.311. The City of Eden Prairie’s training includes quizzing its law-enforcement

officers as follows:

“1) . . . misuse of the system can lead to sanctions and disciplinary action; 2) . . . operators may run queries only for criminal justice purposes; 3) driver’s license or motor vehicle registration information can be accessed through CJDN only for the performance of official duties authorized by law. 4) For practice purposes, you are authorized to complete inquiries on family members or coworkers? FALSE.” (emphasis added).

108.312. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook admonishes its employees

to “conduct themselves, both on and off duty, in a manner that supports this trust.”

109.313. The City of Eden Prairie Employee Handbook states that technology

should be “used primarily for City business. Employees should not use City technology for any

purpose that would reflect negatively on the City.”

110.314. The Eden Prairie Police Department Manual (“EPPD Manual”) informs

officers that its policies “also applies to off-duty conduct.”


58

111.315. The EPPD Manual explains that “[p]eace officers shall observe the

confidentiality of information available to them due to their status as peace officers.”

112.316. The EPPD Manual clearly states that officers should not use their official

position for personal gain:

Peace officers shall not use the authority of their position as peace officers, or information available to them due to their status as peace officers, for any purpose of personal gain, including, but not limited to, initiating or furthering personal and/or intimate interactions of any kind with persons which (sic) whom the officer has had contact while on duty.

113.317. The EPPD Manual also informs its officers that “Minnesota driver license

information obtained or otherwise accessed through a CJDN terminal or the DVS website may

be disseminated to authorized law enforcement personnel in the performance of their official

duties.”

114.318. On information and belief, despite this training, Defendant Entities and

Defendant Supervisors, allowed their employees, including but not limited to the Individual

Defendants, to view Plaintiff’s private driver’s license information for unlawful purposes.

115.319. On information and belief, Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors,

and Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does permitted, condoned, or acquiesced in this illegal

access to Plaintiff’s private information, and knew or should have known that it was occurring.

116.320. On information and belief, this illegal access occurs with regularity not

only of Plaintiff’s private information, but of other Minnesota drivers’ private information.

117.321. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, and Defendant

Commissioners and DPS Does have lax policies or lax enforcement of these policies that allow

for these intrusions.


59

118.322. Defendant Entities, Defendant Supervisors, and Defendant

Commissioners and DPS Does either have no viable method of or have an inadequate method of

ascertaining and controlling the illegal access to individuals’ private information by their

officers.

323. The extent of this illegal access appears to be widespread and pervasive

throughout departments, and is a custom and practice. This is demonstrated by the tolerance of

this practice, and the customary disregard of punishment for violations, such as a prosecution

that was dismissed when the officer’s attorney complained that the prosecution was akin to

“using a sledge hammer to kill a fly” or words to that effect. Further evidence of the custom and

practice can be found in actual statements made by current officers, one of whom was quoted in

a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “every single

cop in the state has done this. Chiefs on down.” ; and based on actual statements made by

former officers, one of whom was quoted in a magazine article about the illegal access into

Rasmusson’s privacy as saying that “[y]ou used to look up people without a second thought.

You’d look up old friends from high school or just someone you used to know.”

324. Before publicity surrounding Rasmusson’s situation, there was little or no training

by the DPS or the individual entities regarding appropriate use of the DPS Databases or what

was a permissible purpose for viewing drivers’ license information under the DPPA.

325. Before publicity surround Rasmusson’s situation, law-enforcement personnel

throughout Minnesota commonly looked up driver’s license information for personal reasons.

119.326. Each law-enforcement personnel has a password allowing that individual

access to the DPS Database. Law-enforcement personnel can access the DPS Databases from

any computer with internet access.


60

120.327. On further information and belief, this illegal access to driver’s license

information occurs disproportionately to women.

121.328. When Defendant law-enforcement personnel viewed Rasmusson’s private

information, they did not do so to carry out official police functions.

122.329. Rasmusson committed no crimes that would authorize the unauthorized

access of her private drivers’ license information.

330. The Individual Defendants obtained Rasmusson’s personal information without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

123.331. On a small handful of occasions, Rasmusson asked certain law-

enforcement personnel to view her driver’s license information for the express purpose of

determining if the database had posted her change of address or had listed the automobile she

was presently driving. None of the claims in this suit relate to those few instances.

124.332. Rasmusson never waived the protections of the DPPA.

III. Rasmusson Has Been Harmed By This Intrusion Into Her Private Life

125.333. The sheer volume of these intrusions into her private life demonstrates that

law-enforcement personnel are unfairly hostile toward Rasmusson’s privacy and safety.

126.334. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson does not feel

comfortable going to public places where police officers are likely to be around and has lost her

sense of freedom including her freedom to travel and enjoy public places.

127.335. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has become a recluse

and was forced to live like a hermit.

128.336. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson feels she has lost any

control over the privacy in her life.


61

129.337. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has shut down her

social media accounts.

130.338. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has installed a security

gate and an alarm system on her property.

131.339. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed and

unlisted her home and mobile telephone number.

132.340. As a result of this invasion of privacy, Rasmusson has changed her email

address.

COUNT I

(Against all Defendants including Commissioner, Individual, Supervisor and Entity Defendants, including John, Jane, and Entity and DPS Does, for Violations of the DPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2721,

et seq.)

133.341. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through

132339 340 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 1333401.

134.342. Rasmusson provided personal information to the DPS including her

address, color photograph, date of birth, weight, height and eye color for the purpose of

acquiring and utilizing a State of Minnesota driver’s license.

135.343. The DVS DPS dDatabase also maintained Rasmusson’s driving record.

136.344. At no time did Rasmusson did not provide her consent for any of the

Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use, or for any of the Defendant Entities or

Defendant Supervisors to disclose or to allow Defendant Individuals to obtain, disclose or use,

her private information for anything but official law-enforcement business for any of the

occasions listed in the attached Exhibit A.


62

137.345. Intentionally obtaining, disclosing or using driver’s license information

without an authorized purpose is a violation of the DPPA. The statute provides for criminal fines

and civil penalties. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2723, 2724.

138.346. The DPPA provides redress for violations of a person’s protected interest

in the privacy of her motor vehicle records and the identifying information therein.

347. The Defendants, each of them, have invaded Rasmusson’s legally protected

interest under the DPPA.

139.348. The Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety or the employees

they supervised knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s private personal information from her driver’s

license for purposes not permitted under the DPPA.

140.349. According to the Department of Vehicle Services and the Defendant

Entities, the Individual Defendants knowingly obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal

information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. 18

U.S.C. § 2724(a).

141.350. None of the Individual Defendants’ activities fell within the DPPA’s

permitted exceptions for procurement of Rasmusson’s private information.

142.351. By the actions described above, each Defendant Individual law-

enforcement personnel was acting within the scope of his or her employment when he or she

obtained, disclosed or used Rasmusson’s personal information from the DPSVS dDatabases for

an impermissible purpose.

143.352. The Individual Defendants knew that their actions related to Rasmusson’s

personal information were in violation of the DPPA.


63

144.353. The Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors knowingly authorized,

directed, ratified, approved, acquiesced in, committed or participated in obtaining, disclosing or

using of Rasmusson’s private personal information by the Individual Defendants.

145. The Individual Defendants knowingly used the Defendant Entities’ computers,

passwords and passcodes to obtain access Rasmusson’s private information.

354.

355. By sharing database access passwords, Ramsey County Doe and Ramsey County

knowingly disclosed Rasmusson’s driver’s license information in violation of the DPPA.

146.356. The sheer volume of law-enforcement personnel that obtained, disclosed

or used Rasmusson’s private personal information, especially given Rasmusson’s lack of a

criminal record, makes apparent that Defendants’ use was not permissible.

357. The Defendant Entities are each vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant

Individuals.

147.358. The Commissioners and DPS Does are jointly liable for the acts of

Defendant Individuals.

148.359. Rasmusson has suffered harm because her private information has been

obtained unlawfully. Rasmusson suffered and continues to suffer harm by virtue of the increased

risk that her protected information is in the possession of numerous law-enforcement personnel

who obtained it without a legitimate purpose. This is precisely the harm Congress sought to

prevent by enacting the DPPA and its statutory remedies.

149.360. The Individual Defendants, Supervisor Defendants, Commissioner

Defendants, DPS Does and Entity Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the law,

entitling Rasmusson to punitive damages under the DPPA, see 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b)(2), which is


64

not subject to the pleading requirement of Minnesota state law as set forth in Minn. Stat. section

549.20. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and

other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the

court determines to be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b).

150.361. In addition, under the DPPA, Plaintiff is entitled to a baseline liquidated

damages award of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1).

Rasmusson need not prove actual damages to receive said liquidated damages.

COUNT II

(Against Individual Defendants, including John and Jane Does, for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with the exception of Hobus)

151.362. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through

3601150 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 3612151.

152.363. At no time did Rasmusson behave in a manner that would provide any

legal justification for the above-described invasion of her privacy.

153.364. The DPPA establishes that obtaining an individual’s driver’s license

information without a legitimate purpose constitutes an illegal search under the meaning of the

Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

154.365. The Individual Defendants’ viewing of Rasmusson’s personal information

was unauthorized, unjustified, and excessive, and violates the Fourth Amendment, the laws of

the United States and the laws of the State of Minnesota.

155.366. By the actions described above, each Individual Defendant Law-

Enforcement Personnel, acting under color of state law, violated and deprived Rasmusson of her

clearly established and well-settled civil right to be free from an unconstitutional search.


65

156.367. The acts of each Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel, acting under the

color of state law, constituted an invasion or repeated invasions of Rasmusson’s clearly-

established privacy rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, including the DPPA, and the laws of

the State of Minnesota.

157.368. The DPPA creates an individual right to privacy in a person’s driver’s

license information, thereby prohibiting unauthorized accessing of all persons’ information,

including Rasmusson’s information.

158.369. Each individual law-enforcement personnel, acting under color of state

law, knew that his or her actions violated and deprived Rasmusson of her clearly established

statutory rights under the DPPA.

159.370. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel deprived

Rasmusson of her federal statutory rights and civil rights maliciously or by acting with reckless

disregard for whether Rasmusson’s rights would be violated by his or her actions.

160.371. Each Individual Defendant law-enforcement personnel was deliberately

indifferent to Rasmusson’s statutory and civil right to be free from illegal searches, invasions of

privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her private driver’s license information.

161.372. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the above-

named Individual Defendants, Rasmusson endured physical and mental suffering, and was

damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to be well in excess of One Million

($1,000,000) Dollars.

162.373. Punitive damages are available against Individual Defendant law-

enforcement personnel for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their


66

intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common

law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading

requirement for punitive damages set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.

163.374. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of her costs, including reasonable attorney

fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT III

(Against Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants, including John, Jane and Entity Does, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)



165.376. The Individual Defendants’ numerous accesses of Rasmusson’s private

information are not unique, but one example of how frequently such law-enforcement agencies

customarily violate the DPPA by accessing private driver’s license information of persons

without having any legitimate or permissible reason for doing so.

166.377. Recently, in a magazine article about the illegal access into Rasmusson’s

private information, a current officer, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation, stated that

every officer does it, including the chiefs of police. In that same article, another former officer

stated that the practice was widespread as a form of social media, simply to look up former

friends or acquaintances.

167.378. In addition, persons familiar with police departments and those involved

in teaching supervisors how to train and hold accountable their subordinate law-enforcement

personnel have been told by those supervisors that the unlawful and impermissible accessing of

private information is among the most frequently committed wrongs by police, for which they

are seldom if ever held accountable.


67

168.379. The foregoing information, other information to be presented at trial, and

evidence reasonably likely to be determined after full discovery demonstrate that the improper

access of citizens’ driver’s license information by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel for

their own personal and private uses, obtained by accessing that information through the

computerized information storage system kept by the sState for official purposes only, is an

official custom or practice well known to Defendant Supervisors.

169.380. These customs and practices by Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel

are at variance with the written rules set down by the Entity Defendants, but these formal rules

are widely and knowingly disregarded.

170.381. Given the municipalities’ failure to monitor and enforce their rules, the

aforementioned customs and practices are attributable to the municipalities themselves, including

the Entity Defendants herein.

171.382. The Defendant Entities and the Defendant Supervisors of the law-

enforcement personnel accessing this information knew or should have known of this and other

unlawful, improper, unjustified, and impermissible access to private information by law-

enforcement personnel.

172.383. The prevalence of this custom, the lack of monitoring regarding these

access practices and the failure to take action to stop or prevent these practices, demonstrate the

state of mind of Defendant Supervisors and municipal officials of the Entity Defendants. These

customs and practices further demonstrate Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the federal

statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens and persons, including Plaintiff, whose

information has been wrongfully accessed.


68

173.384. The Defendant Entities, in their official capacity, are directly liable for the

custom and practice of the widespread illegal access of citizens’ driver’s license information.

The Supervisor Defendants, up to and including the chief police officers and sheriffs employed

by each Entity Defendant, are liable in their individual capacity. Defendants’ liability is due to

their actual and constructive knowledge of this practice, their failure to institute any process for

monitoring and preventing it and their deliberate indifference to the federal rights of those

persons, including Plaintiff, whose information has been and continues to be wrongfully

accessed.

174.385. In addition, the Defendant Supervisors of the law-enforcement personnel,

up to and including the chief police officer in each of the Defendant Entities, are liable in their

individual capacities for the failure to train, monitor, supervise, and properly discipline the

officers who are improperly and unlawfully accessing the private driver’s license information of

citizens, including Plaintiff, without a proper, lawful, permissible, justifiable purpose for doing

so. This pattern of failure to train, monitor, supervise, and discipline demonstrates the state of

mind of these Defendant Supervisors and a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens

and others whose information has been so widely accessed, including Plaintiff.

175.386. The federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, whose information is

improperly accessed, are held in light regard by many if not most of the Defendant Supervisors

and by the Defendant Entities themselves.

176.387. Defendants’ lack of concern evidences their deliberate indifference both to

the problem of the unauthorized access and to the impact of the unauthorized access on the

federal rights of the citizens, including Plaintiff, who would often be unaware of that access.


69

177.388. Defendants’ lack of concern is evidenced by the failure of most Defendant

Entities to take any sort of corrective action upon learning that multiple improper, unlawful,

unjustified accesses of Plaintiff’s information had taken place. Defendants have also

consistently refused to fully involve Plaintiff, keep her fully informed of the progress of the

investigation into the persons accessing her information, or to advise her of their identities, their

reasons for accessing her information, their knowledge of Plaintiff, and any discipline imposed

on them for their improper and illegal conduct.

178.389. The manner in which the investigation was handled by the Entity

Defendants and Supervisor Defendants provides little expectation that these and other law-

enforcement personnel will cease accessing Plaintiff’s private information and the private

information of other persons similarly situated to Plaintiff, without a justifiable, permissible

basis.

179.390. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no system has been established by

the Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to monitor the regular access of the DVPS

dDatabases by law-enforcement personnel.

180.391. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no reviews have taken place of other

accesses of the DPVS Ddatabases by these same law-enforcement personnel, or of other officers

and employees in the Defendant Entities.

181.392. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the

Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to protect and safeguard the rights of other

persons’ DPVS Ddatabase information.

182.393. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, no attempt has been made by the

Entity Defendants and Supervisor Defendants to provide redress and assurance to the persons,


70

including Plaintiff, whose DVS information has been wrongfully accessed by the Defendant

Law-Enforcement Personnel named in this Complaint, or by other officers in the municipalities

named in this Complaint.

183.394. Defendants’ accesses have been widely discussed among the Defendant

Law-Enforcement Personnel committing the accesses as well as among other personnel in the

Defendant Entities – all of which have damaged Plaintiff and her reputation, including but not

limited to her reputation as a single woman.

184.395. The reputational damage alone to Plaintiff, as well as the knowledge that

this activity is not merely unlawful but a federal crime, should have been enough to ensure that

Plaintiff’s concerns listed in the preceding paragraphs were addressed by Defendants in a

meaningful fashion. Holding accountable the law-enforcement personnel engaged in an

unlawful activity would have been an important step in eliminating this custom and practice of

permitting the widespread illegal accessing of Rasmusson’s information; yet nothing meaningful

in this regard has been accomplished, and no prosecutions have been initiated to the best of

Plaintiff’s knowledge.


named Defendant Entities and Defendant Supervisors, Rasmusson has endured and continues to

endure physical and mental suffering, and has been damaged in an amount yet to determined and

of a continuing nautre, but believed to be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.

186.397. Punitive damages are available against Defendant Supervisors and

Defendant Entities for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their

intentional violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common


71

law, Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading

requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.



COUNT IV (Against Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doess for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)


187 3987 as though fully set forth in this Paragraph 399188.

189.400. Defendant Campion was Commissioner of DPS from April 2004 to

February 2011.

190.401. Defendant Dohman became Commissioner of DPS in March 2011 and

presently serves in that role.

191.402. As DPS Commissioners, Campion and Dohman, along with DPD Does,

were and are responsible for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that

included Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.

192.403. Defendant Commissioners and DPS Does also had the ability to determine

if unauthorized access was being made and to prevent such unauthorized access to the database,

including of Plaintiff’s driver’s license information, and have the ongoing duty to prevent such

unauthorized accesses.

193.404. The Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does failed to prevent

unauthorized access to the database, including Plaintiff’s driver’s license information.


72

194.405. The actions of the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, as alleged,

violate the rights of the Plaintiff under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and under the DPPA..

195.406. On information and belief, the Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does

created or oversaw the creation and maintenance of a database and system that was supposed to

prevent unauthorized access to driver’s license information.

196.407. From 20057, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does allowed

unauthorized access of Rasmusson’s driver’s license information such that approximately 100

144 law-enforcement personnel from 18 different departments accessed her information over

544400 times.

197.408. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants’ and DPS Does’

efforts have been insufficient to prevent future unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s and other

individuals’ private, personal information.

198.409. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does have sanctioned the

constitutional violations by the Defendant Law-Enforcement Personnel through their failure to

remedy the policy, custom and practice of officers’ and employees’ unfettered and unauthorized

access to the database.

199.410. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Doeshave been grossly negligent in

supervising subordinates responsible for implementing a law-enforcement database that prevents

unauthorized access to private, personal information.

200.411. On information and belief, Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does

failed to monitor and prevent unauthorized access to private, personal information even though

they knew or should have known that such unconstitutional acts were occurring.


73

412. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, acting under the color of state law,

were deliberately indifferent to Rasmusson’s constitutionally-recognized and federal statutory

rights to be free from illegal searches, invasions of privacy and the unauthorized accessing of her

private driver’s license information.

201.413. Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does are jointly liable for disclosure

of Ms. Rasmusson’s private driver’s license information for each Individual Defendants’ access.


namedthe Commissioner Defendants and DPS Does, Rasmusson was forced to endure physical

and mental suffering, and was thereby damaged in an amount yet to determined, but believed to

be well in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars.

203.415. Punitive damages are available against Commissioner Defendants and

DPS Does for their reckless and callous disregard for Rasmusson’s rights and their intentional

violations of the federal law, and are hereby claimed as a matter of federal common law, Smith

v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983), and, as such, are not subject to the pleading requirements set forth

in Minn. Stat. § 549.20.



COUNT V

(Against All Defendants, including John, Jane, and Entity and DPS Does, for Common Law Invasion of Privacy)

205.417. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the alleagations in Paragraphs 1 through



74

206.418. By improperly obtaining Rasmusson’s private personal information for

impermissible reasons, Defendants intentionally intruded upon the solitude or seclusion of

Rasmusson’s private affairs and concerns.

207.419. The Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable

person.

208.420. The Defendants’ intrusion caused Rasmusson to suffer severe emotional

distress and physical harm.

209.421. The Defendants’ intrusion was intended to cause Rasmusson to suffer

severe emotional distress and physical harm, and was made with either actual or legal malice, or

with reckless disregard of her rights and her privacy.

210.422. Plaintiff is entitled to tort damages for Defendants’ invasion of privacy.

JURY DEMAND

211.423. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues of fact herein properly triable

to a jury under any statute or under common law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Anne Marie Rasmusson prays for judgment against the

Defendants as follows:

1. A money judgment against all the Defendants for liquidated, actual and

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars and punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, together with her costs, including reasonable

attorney fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the DPPA, and other applicable laws, and prejudgment

interest;


75

2. Actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs and

such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate under 18

U.S.C. § 2724(b);

3. Liquidated damages of at least $2,500 for each violation of the DPPA under 18

U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1);

4. An injunction, permanently enjoining all Defendants from viewing Plaintiff’s

private information in violation of the DPPA, unless necessary for law enforcement purposes;

5. A permanent injunction, barring Defendant Individuals from trespassing or

instructing proxies to trespass on Plaintiff’s property or otherwise harass her or infringe in any

way on her privacy and her right against the invasion of her privacy;

6. A permanent injunction, allowing Plaintiff to use a post-office box in place of an

address on her Minnesota Driver’s License; and,

7. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

SAPIENTIA LAW GROUP PLLC Dated: March October __, 2012 _________________________________ Jonathan A. Strauss (#0279602) Lorenz F. Fett (#196769) Sonia Miller-Van Oort (#278087) Lori D. Semke (#0296910) Kenneth H. Fukuda (#0389301) 12 South Sixth Street, Suite 1242

Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 756-7100

Fax: 612-756-7101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]






76

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF




Page: 1


AccessedTime

Accessed

Bloomington PD Tim Anderson 09/26/09 4:12:0009/26/09 4:13:0009/26/09 4:13:0002/24/10 6:16:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:17:0002/24/10 6:23:0002/24/10 6:24:0002/24/10 6:24:00

Charles Gollop 10/22/06 11:08:0010/22/06 12:18:0007/28/08 8:31:0007/28/08 8:40:0007/28/08 13:35:0008/03/08 11:56:00

Burnsville PD Casey Buck 07/30/09 16:56:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:57:0007/30/09 16:58:0007/30/09 16:58:00

Chisago Cnty SO Jay Belisle 02/04/06 20:51:0002/04/06 20:52:0002/04/06 20:54:0002/08/06 20:26:0002/08/06 20:31:0002/23/06 23:43:0004/13/06 20:58:00

Cottage Grove PD Valerie Lonetti 11/16/07 19:55:00Dakota Cnty SO John Grant 07/28/08 16:10:00Dept of Corrections John Melvin 05/20/08 15:45:00

05/20/08 15:46:0005/20/08 15:48:0005/20/08 15:49:0005/20/08 15:49:00

Eagan PD Danielle Anselment 08/13/07 7:09:00Sean Sweeney 02/10/06 20:46:00

02/10/06 20:46:0002/10/06 20:47:00
