## Facts

- Oklahoma City police investigated a complaint that the film *The Tin Drum* contained child pornography.
- An officer viewed the film and sought an ex parte determination from an Oklahoma state judge, who found certain scenes constituted child pornography.
- Relying on that determination, officers went to video stores to obtain copies of the film and sought identities of customers who had rented it.
- Officers obtained video store rental records showing customers’ names/addresses and the specific titles rented, and used that information to contact renters to retrieve tapes.
- Michael D. Camfield, an attorney, rented the film and surrendered his copy to officers after they asserted it was illegal.
- Camfield sued under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourth Amendment violations, and sought to impose liability on individual officers, prosecutors, and the City.

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining and using video store rental records identifying customers and the titles rented violated the VPPA.
2. Whether the VPPA permits liquidated damages and attorney’s fees without proof of actual damages.
3. Whether the film seizure and the collection/use of rental information established First Amendment or Fourth Amendment violations actionable under § 1983.
4. Whether officers and prosecutors were protected by qualified immunity or absolute prosecutorial immunity.
5. Whether the City could be liable under § 1983 under municipal policy/custom principles.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for Camfield on the VPPA claim, concluding the rental records constituted protected “personally identifiable information” and the challenged conduct did not fall within statutory exceptions.
- The court upheld the VPPA liquidated damages award of $2,500 and related fee/cost relief as authorized by statute.
- The court rejected most constitutional claims under § 1983, concluding Camfield did not establish a compensable First or Fourth Amendment violation on the record presented.
- The court held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims, given reliance on the state judge’s ex parte determination and the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct.
- The court held prosecutors were shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity for core prosecutorial acts and otherwise not shown liable on the record.
- The court denied municipal liability under § 1983 for lack of an underlying constitutional violation and lack of proof that a municipal policy or custom caused the alleged injury.

## Legal Principles

- VPPA “personally identifiable information” includes information identifying a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials; disclosure is prohibited absent a statutory exception.
- Government officials who obtain or induce disclosure of protected rental records can trigger VPPA liability when they bypass statutory safeguards rather than using authorized legal process.
- VPPA permits liquidated damages of not less than $2,500 per action, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, without requiring proof of actual damages.
- For § 1983 claims, qualified immunity bars damages unless the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation of clearly established law.
- Child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment; reliance on a judicial determination that material is contraband is significant to both merits and immunity analyses.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires an underlying constitutional violation and proof that a municipal policy or custom caused it.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit left intact Camfield’s statutory victory under the VPPA for improper acquisition and use of video rental records and upheld statutory damages and fees, but it declined to extend liability through § 1983 because the asserted First and Fourth Amendment claims failed on the merits and were barred by immunity doctrines, and the City was not liable absent a policy-caused constitutional violation.


Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001)