## Facts

- Chester Dirkes was a police officer employed by the Borough of Runnemede Police Department.
- During a May 24, 1990 death investigation, Dirkes was accused of removing pornographic magazines and videotapes from the decedent’s apartment.
- On May 29, 1991, a Camden County grand jury indicted Dirkes for misconduct in office.
- Following the indictment, the Department issued a disciplinary notice and suspended Dirkes without pay and benefits.
- Dirkes was tried and acquitted on May 5, 1992.
- After the acquittal, the Borough retained special counsel and resumed an internal-affairs investigation; Lieutenant Emil P. Busko was assigned to investigate.
- On or about May 7, 1992, Busko obtained the names and rental dates of pornographic videotapes rented by Chester and his wife, Marie Dirkes, from a video store (Videos To Go).
- Busko obtained the rental information by asking a store employee; he did not obtain a warrant, subpoena, or court order.
- The videotape rental information was listed in an internal-affairs memorandum and distributed to the Borough’s special counsel, and then used in Dirkes’s disciplinary hearing and in a proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County.
- The Department ultimately terminated Dirkes’s employment.
- Chester and Marie Dirkes sued the Borough, the Police Department, and Busko in federal court, alleging (among other claims) violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were not proper defendants under the VPPA because they were not the videotape service provider.

## Issues

1. Whether the VPPA permits suit against non-provider defendants—such as a borough, its police department, and an investigating officer—based on their obtaining and distributing a consumer’s videotape rental information.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the theory that the VPPA targets only videotape service providers, not governmental recipients or users of the information obtained from a provider.
3. Whether the record presented genuine disputes of material fact about defendants’ involvement in obtaining and disseminating plaintiffs’ personally identifiable videotape rental information without statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that only a videotape service provider can be sued under the VPPA.
- The court concluded that, on the summary-judgment record, plaintiffs had shown enough to proceed on a VPPA theory based on defendants’ acquisition and dissemination of videotape rental information obtained without a warrant, subpoena, or court order.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The VPPA protects the privacy of consumers’ videotape rental, purchase, or delivery records and restricts disclosure of “personally identifiable information” connected to those transactions.
- The VPPA’s private right of action is not limited, as a categorical matter, to suits against the videotape service provider; liability may extend to other persons or entities involved in wrongful receipt, disclosure, or use of protected information, depending on the statute’s terms and the facts.
- Government status or a law-enforcement purpose does not, by itself, eliminate VPPA limits on obtaining and disclosing videotape rental information; statutory authorization (such as lawful process) and the statute’s exceptions govern whether a disclosure is permitted.
- Where the evidence permits competing inferences about how protected information was obtained, who participated in its distribution, and whether statutory conditions were met, those questions generally cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The district court denied summary judgment because defendants were not entitled to a ruling that the VPPA applies only to videotape service providers, and the record supported a triable claim that a police investigator obtained and disseminated the Dirkes’ videotape rental information during an internal-affairs investigation without a warrant, subpoena, or court order.


Dirkes v. Borough of Runnemede, 936 F. Supp. 235 (1996)