Rollins v. City of Albert Lea (79 F. Supp. 3d 946, 2014)

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 2014-12-17

Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Citations

Full opinion text

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Henne-pin County’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 19]; (2) Defendants City of Albert Lea, City of Anoka, City of Blaine, City of Breezy Point, City of Brooklyn Part, City of Champlin, City of Coon Rapids, City of Elk River, City of Howard Lake, City of Maplewood, City of Minnetonka, City of Mora, City of North St. Paul, City of Ramsey, City of Rogers, and City of Roseville’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Sever [Doc. No. 25]; (S) Defendant Ramsey County’s Motion to Dismiss or for Severance [Doc. No. 31]; (4) Defendant City of St. Paul’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Sever [Doc. No. 36]; Defendant Dakota County’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 46]; (5) Defendant Anoka County’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 60]; (6) Defendants Sherburne and Washington Counties’ Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doe. No. 73]; and (7) Defendants Commissioner Ramona Dohman and Commissioner Michael Campion’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 79], For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies in part and grants in part these motions.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Summer Michelle Rollins (“Plaintiff’ or “Rollins”) filed this action on January 31, 2014 against the municipal, county, and individual Defendants listed above. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) In Count I of her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., against all Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 311— 33.) In Count II, Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all individual Defendants, including Jane and John Does. (Id. ¶¶ 334-51.) In Count III, Plaintiff states an additional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all entity Defendants and supervisor Defendants, including John and Jane Entity Does. (Id. ¶¶ 352-74.) In Count Plaintiff asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Commissioner Defendants and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Does. (Id. ¶¶ 375-92.) Finally, in Count V, Plaintiff brings a claim for common law invasion of privacy against all Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 393-98.) Plaintiffs claims are centered on allegations that law enforcement personnel viewed her private driver’s license information in the Minnesota Department of Vehicle Services (“DVS”) driver’s license database and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database without a legitimate purpose. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 56-291.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that law enforcement personnel may have accessed her personal information because Rollins has a tenuous relationship with family members who work or worked for the DPS and various police forces. (Id. ¶¶ 47-52.) Plaintiffs mother works for the DPS. (Id. ¶ 47.) Rollins and her mother have allegedly had a “tenuous relationship since ... [Rollins’ mother] kicked Rollins out of the house at age 15.” (Id. ¶49.) Plaintiffs uncle, Ken Rollins, was a police office in Elk River and Mora, and is currently an officer in Howard Lake. (Id. ¶ 48.) Rollins’ “other family members” have also served, or continue to serve, as law enforcement officers within the state of Minnesota. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that her mother and uncle “dislike” Plaintiff because they disapproved of Plaintiffs divorce. (Id. ¶ 50.) Although Plaintiff does not communicate with either her mother or her uncle (id. ¶ 54), Rollins believes that they, and other family members, as well as those government employees who associate with these family members, “have been obtaining, using, or disclosing [Rollins’] information for ... [illegitimate purposes]” (id. ¶ 55).

In 2013, Plaintiff contacted Kim Jacobson at the DPS and requested an audit of the number of times her name whs run on the DVS and BCS databases. (Id. ¶¶ 249-53.) On August 7, 2013, Rollins alleges that she learned from the DPS that officers from various departments and agencies accessed her driver’s license information 574 times since 2003. (Id. ¶¶ 251-53; see Ex. A; Ex.- B [Doe. No. 1-1].) The chart below itemizes the number of look-ups allegedly made by each Defendant for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA:

_Entity_Number of times accessed

Hennepin County_9 (Compl. ¶ 109 [Doc. No. 11.)

City of Albert Lea_ 1 (id. ¶ 69.)_

City of Anoka_3 (id. ¶ 77.)_

City of Blaine_Kid ¶ 81.)_

City of Breezy Point _57 (id. ¶ 85.)_

City of Brooklyn Park_1 (id. ¶ 89.)_

City of Champlin_1 (id. ¶ 93.)_

City of Coon Rapids_7 (id. ¶ 97.)_

City of Elk River_7 (id. ¶ 105.)_

City of Howard Lake_26 (id. ¶ 113.)_

City of Maplewood _125 (id. ¶ 117.)_

City of Minnetonka_N/A (id. ¶ 121)_

City of Mora_8 (id. ¶ 125.)_

City of North St. Paul_48 (id. ¶ 129.)_

City of Ramsey_25 (id ¶ 133.)_

City of Rogers_- 10 (id ¶ 141.)_

City of Roseville_12 (id ¶ 145.)_

City of St. Paul_12 (id ¶ 153.)_~

Dakota County_2 (id. ¶ 101.)_

Anoka County_95 (id. ¶ 73.)_

Sherburne County_30 (id. ¶ 149.)_

Washington County_24 (id. ¶ 157.)_

Ramsey County_5 (id. ¶ 137.)

Plaintiff alleges that the searches detailed above were not based on any legitimate law-enforcement, governmental, judicial, or litigation-related purpose. (Compl. ¶¶74, 255 [Doc. No. 1].) Rather, Rollins claims that these inquiries were a result of governmental employees’ curiosity about, or romantic attraction to, Rollins. (Id. 1f 255.) In fact, before filing suit, Plaintiff requested Entity Defendants “to provide her with any permissible reason it or its employees, agents, and officers had in looking up her information,” but Defendants allegedly “never provided any legitimate permissible reason.” (Id. ¶ 258.)

Plaintiff describes the driver’s license information at issue. She alleges that individual Defendants viewed the following private information: “home address, color photograph or image, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, driver’s identification number, and upon information and belief, medical and social security information.” (Id. ¶ 164.) The Court held oral argument on all of the aforementioned motions on June 19, 2014 [Doc. No. 94].

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Dakota County also moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the facts in the Complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences- from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). However, the Court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. School District of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.1999), or legal conclusions Plaintiff draws from the facts pled. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990). In addition, the Court ordinarily does not consider matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The Court may, however, consider exhibits attached to the complaint and documents that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings, Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697 n. 4 (8th Cir.2003), and may also consider public records, Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir.2007).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclu-sory statements,’-’ will not pass muster. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). In sum, this standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. These same standards apply to a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir.2009); Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir.2012).

B. Plaintiffs Claims

Plaintiff has failed to state cognizable claims in Counts II through V of her Complaint, and the applicable statute of limitations bars some of Plaintiffs Count I claims asserted against Defendants who submitted Motions to Dismiss. Below, the Court begins by addressing Plaintiffs § 1983 and intrusion upon seclusion claims against all Defendants. The Court then proceeds by addressing Plaintiffs DPPA claims against each Defendant individually.

1. Counts II, III, IY: Section 1983 Claims

Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiffs Complaint state causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. ¶¶ 334-92 [Doc. No. 1].) Section 1983 provides that:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or eausés to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that the unnamed individual Defendants in this lawsuit, acting under color of state law, violated her statutory rights under the DPPA, her constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and her rights under the laws of the State of Minnesota. (See Compl. ¶¶ 334-51.) In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that the entity and supervisor Defendants are liable for the unnamed individual Defendants’ custom and practice of improperly accessing information; their own failure to monitor and enforce the rules; and their failure to train, supervise, and impose proper discipline. (See id. ¶¶ 352-74.) In Count IV, Rollins alleges that the Defendant Commissioners and the DPS Does are liable under § 1983 for creating, maintaining, and providing access to the database that included Rollins’ private data. (See id. ¶ 375-392.)

The Defendants in this case assert numerous arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims. First, they argue that the § 1983 claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See, e.g., Def. Hennepin County’s Mem. at 11 [Doc. No. 22].) Second, they argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims based on their alleged DPPA violations fail because the DPPA is not separately enforceable under § 1983. (See id. at 18-19.) Third, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims based on alleged violations of her constitutional rights fail because Plaintiff has not stated a legally-eognizable deprivation of a constitutional right. (See id. at 19-20.) Finally, Defendants argue that Rollins’ § 1983 claims based on violations of Minnesota law fail because § 1983 cannot be used to enforce state law. (See id. at 19, n. 3.) Because the Court agrees with Defendants’ latter three arguments, each of which is dispositive, it declines to address the statute of limitations issue as it applies to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims.

a. DPPA basis

Plaintiffs § 1983 claims fail to the extent that they are based on alleged violations of the DPPA. The reasoning that follows echoes this Court’s holding in Rasmusson v. Chisago County, et al., 991 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1072-74 (D.Minn.2014).

As noted above, a plaintiff may generally use § 1983 to enforce federal statutory rights. In order to determine “whether a statute creates an individually enforceable federal right,” a plaintiff must demonstrate that “ ‘(1) Congress intended the statutory provision to benefit the plaintiff; (2) the asserted right is not so vague and amorphous that its enforcement would strain judicial competence; and (3) the provision clearly imposes a mandatory obligation upon the states.’ ” Midwest Foster Care & Adoption Ass’n v. Kincade, 712 F.3d 1190, 1195 (8th Cir.2013) (citation omitted). A statute that meets these criteria is presumed to be enforceable under § 1983. Id. at 1195-96 (citing Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997)). However, “[a defendant] can rebut this presumption by showing either that Congress explicitly foreclosed a remedy under § 1983 or implicitly did so, ‘by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement’ ” under § 1983. Id. at 1196 (quoting Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353); see Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1011 (8th Cir.1999) (“Courts should presume that Congress intended that the enforcement mechanism provided in the statute be exclusive.”). According to the United States Supreme Court, “a private means of redress in the statute itself is ordinarily an indication that Congress did not intend to leave open a more .expansive remedy under § 1983.” City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 121, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005) (citations omitted).

Even if Plaintiff was able to demonstrate that the DPPA constitutes a pro-tectable “right” under the relevant three-prong test and, therefore, that it is presumptively enforceable under § 1983, that presumption is rebutted because Congress has explicitly foreclosed a remedy under § 1983 by creating a comprehensive DPPA enforcement scheme. The DPPA makes the following remedies available in a civil action: (1) actual damages (not less than liquidated damages of $2,500); (2) punitive damages; (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and (4) other appropriate equitable relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 2724(b). It also provides for criminal fines and civil penalties. Id. § 2723.

In addition, the private remedy contained in the DPPA’s comprehensive enforcement scheme is more restrictive than that provided under § 1983, in terms of the category of persons from whom a plaintiff may seek a remedy and the period of time in which a plaintiff may seek a remedy. First, like the DPPA, § 1983 allows for recovery of damages and injunc-tive relief, as well as costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee, in a private cause of action. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988(b). However, while an individual may seek injunctive relief under § 1983 against a state official acting in his official capacity, the DPPA expressly precludes civil suits against states and state agencies. See Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 427 F.3d 525, 530 (8th Cir.2005) (finding, in a § 1983 case, that there is an exception to sovereign immunity for state officials acting in their official capacity “where the relief sought is prospective and not compensatory”); 18 U.S.C.'§ 2724(a) (stating that a “person” who violates the Act shall be liable); id. § 2725(2) (stating that, for purposes of the DPPA, “ ‘person’ means an individual, organization or entity, but does not include a State or agency thereof’).

Second, as discussed in more detail below, DPPA claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. On the other hand, § 1983 actions “brought in Minnesota are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.” See McKenzie v. Fabian, No. 08-cv-164 (PAM/JSM), 2008 WL 5122118, at *7 (D.Minn. Nov. 21, 2008) report and recommendation adopted, No. 08-cv-164(PAM/JSM), 2009 WL 259726 (D.Minn. Feb. 3, 2009) aff'd, 359 Fed.Appx. 684 (8th Cir.2010) (citing Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 618, n. 3 (8th Cir.1995)). Thus, allowing Plaintiff to pursue her DPPA claims through § 1983 would allow her to enlarge the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, the DPPA cannot be enforced through § 1983.

This Court’s determination that Plaintiff may not use § 1983 to enforce her rights under the DPPA aligns with decisions from several other courts, including multiple district courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See, e.g., Roberts v. Source for Public Data, 606 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1046 (W.D.Mo.2008) (dismissing plaintiffs’ claim because, “[g]iven [the DPPA’s] comprehensive remedial scheme, the [e]ourt must presume that Congress intended that the enforcement scheme it created in the DPPA would be the exclusive remedy, for violations, precluding resort to § 1983”); Nelson v. Jesson, No. 13-cv-340 (RHK/JJK), 2013 WL 5888235, at *7 (D.Minn. Nov. 1, 2013) (noting that “the DPPA’s remedial scheme, which is both comprehensive and more restrictive than § 1983, expresses Congress’s intent to preclude other means of enforcement,” and therefore, finding that state officials acting in their official capacity cannot be held liable for injunc-tive relief under the DPPA); see also Kiminski v. Hunt, No. 13-cv-185 (JNE/TNL), 2013 WL 6872425, at *14 (D.Minn. Sept. 20, 2013) (holding that the DPPA precludes a § 1983 action because the inability to sue state officials in their official capacity under the DPPA is “significant, especially in light of the statute’s overall comprehensive remedial scheme.”).

Plaintiff urges the Court to follow two cases in which the courts have determined that the DPPA is separately enforceable under § 1983: Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.2007), and Arrington v. Richardson, 660 F.Supp.2d 1024 (N.D.Iowa 2009). (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Ramsey County at 21-24 [Doc. No. 57].) In Collier, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the relief provided under the DPPA and § 1983 is “complementary” rather than “conflicting.” 477 F.3d at 1311. The court did not examine the nature of the available remedies; instead, it merely stated generally that the DPPA did not create so many statutory remedies as to make it unlikely that Congress intended to preserve a § 1983 claim. Id. In Arrington, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa similarly found that the remedial schemes of the two statutes are complementary. 660 F.Supp.2d at 1035. In fact, that court found that the DPPA actually provides “more extensive” remedies than those available under § 1983. Id. at 1032. Thus, the court noted that Congress did not preclude a plaintiff from obtaining a remedy under the DPPA that is otherwise available under § 1983. Id. at 1035.

This Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning set forth in Collier and Ar-rington because neither court addressed the fact that, under the DPPA, a plaintiff is precluded from obtaining relief from state officials acting in their official capacity (as opposed to the limited availability of such relief under § 1983). Nor did either court address the difference between the statutes of limitations applicable to each cause of action. As noted above, the Court finds that these considerations, along with the comprehensive, nature of the DPPA’s remedial scheme, demonstrate Congress’ intent to foreclose a remedy under § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, as stated in Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint, fail to the extent that they are based on underlying DPPA violations.

b. Federal constitutional bases

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims also fail to the extent that they are based on alleged violations of her constitutional rights. The Court’s reasoning that follows is also based upon its holding in Rasmusson. See 991 F.Supp.2d at 1074-77.

“The essential elements of a constitutional claim under § 1983 are (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that the alleged wrongful conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected federal right.” L.L. Nelson Enters., Inc. v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 673 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.2012) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that each individual Defendant, acting under color of state law, violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, as well as her Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unconstitutional search, by obtaining her personal driver’s license information without a legitimate purpose. (See Compl. ¶¶ 841-44 [Doc. No. 1].) However, the facts alleged by Rollins do not raise a right to relief under either basis.

The Eighth Circuit explained in Van Zee v. Hanson that “to violate the constitutional right of privacy,” which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment:

“the information disclosed must be either a shocking degradation or an egregious humiliation ..., or a flagrant bre[a]ch of a pledge of confidentiality which was instrumental in obtaining the personal information.”.... “To determine whether a particular disclosure satisfies this exacting standard, [the court] must examine the nature of the material ... to assess whether the person had a legitimate expectation that the information would remain confidential while in the state’s possession.”

630 F.3d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.2011) (internal citations omitted). Thus, the “protection against public dissemination of information is limited and extends only to highly personal matters representing ‘the most intb mate aspects of human affairs.’ ” Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620, 625 (8th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). According to the Eighth Circuit, these standards “set a high bar ... and many disclosures, regardless of their nature, will not reach the level of a constitutional violation.” Cooksey v. Boyer, 289 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir.2002). Similar to the Fourteenth Amendment standards, “[a] search occurs under the Fourth Amendment when ... ‘the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.’” Arnzen v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 369, 372 (8th Cir.2013) (quoting Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-33, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001)).

The few courts that have analyzed these standards in the context of driver’s license information have found that an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in such information. For example, in Travis v. Reno, the court concluded that there is no legitimate expectation of confidentiality — and, therefore, no constitutional right to privacy — in an individual’s name, address, telephone number, photograph, social security number, driver identification number, and medical or disability information. 12 F.Supp.2d 921, 925 (W.D.Wis.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 163 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.1998); see also Pryor v. Reno, 171 F.3d 1281, 1288 n. 10 (11th Cir.1999) (stating that “there is no constitutional right to privacy in motor vehicle record information”), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 1111, 120 S.Ct. 929, 145 L.Ed.2d 807 (2000); Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453, 464 (4th Cir.1998) (stating that motor vehicle record information “is the very sort of information to which individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy”), rev’d on other grounds, 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587 (2000).

Similarly, in Kiminski v. Hunt, a judge within this District determined that “[n]one of that data qualifies as so extremely personal as to trigger constitutional — as opposed to statutory — privacy protections.” 2013 WL 6872425, at *15 (noting that “[n]ot even statutory protection existed for [driver’s license record information] until 1994, when Congress passed the DPPA”); see also Nelson, 2013 WL 5888235, at *5 (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the plaintiff alleged was contained in his motor vehicle records, which included his name, date of birth, driver’s license number and status, address, photograph, weight, height, and eye color).

Plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Maracich v. Spears, — US. -, 133 S.Ct. 2191, 186 L.Ed.2d 275 (2013), demonstrates “the importance of the privacy rights created by the DPPA.” (See Pl.’s Resp. to Ramsey County at 19-21 [Doc. No. 1].) In that case, the Court considered whether an attorney’s solicitation of clients constituted -a permissible purpose for disclosure under the DPPA. See Maracich, 133 S.Ct. at 2195-96. In doing so, it noted that:

If (b)(4) were read to permit disclosure of personal information whenever any connection between the protected information and a potential legal dispute could be shown, it would undermine in a substantial way the DPPA’s purpose of protecting an individual’s right to privacy in his or her motor vehicle records.

An additional reason to hold that (b)(4) does not permit solicitation of clients is because the exception allows use of the most sensitive kind of information, including medical and disability history and Social Security numbers. To permit this highly personal information to be used in solicitation is so substantial an intrusion on privacy it must not be assumed, without language more clear and explicit, that Congress intended to exempt attorneys from DPPA liability in this regard.

Id. at 2200, 2202. However, Maracich is not dispositive because the Court did not address whether an individual has a constitutional right to privacy in driver’s license record information. That issue was not before the Court, and the statements regarding privacy that the Court did make cannot be understood to refer to a constitutional right rather than to a statutory right.

While the Eighth Circuit has not ruled on this exact issue, it has determined that the disclosure of similar information is insufficient to state a claim for a violation of the constitutional right to privacy. In McCaslin v. Campbell, the court determined that the plaintiff had not asserted a constitutional violation despite allegations that her driver’s license information, social security number, bank account numbers, criminal record, previous landlords, previous names, and personal references were disclosed without her consent. No. 95-4041, 1997 WL 148824, at *1 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 1997). The court found that much of the information was public record and that “the remaining information did not involve the most intimate aspects of human af-. fairs.” Id. at *2. Therefore, the' court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at *1; see also Cooksey, 289 F.3d at 516 (finding that disclosure of the fact that an individual was receiving psychological treatment for stress was “neither shockingly degrading [n]or egregiously humiliating”); Eagle, 88 F.3d at 628 (explaining that “[b]ecause [the plaintiff] has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his criminal history file, [the court] cannot agree that the officers violated his constitutional right when they engaged in an unwarranted search of this material.”).

In this case, Plaintiff alleges a privacy interest in her driver’s license information. Plaintiff claims that her address, color photograph, date ■ of birth, weight, height, eye color, driver identification number, and driving record were improperly accessed. (Compl. ¶ 164 [Doc. No. 1].) With the exception of Plaintiffs driving record, all of this information is included on the face of a driver’s license, and individuals show their driver’s licenses to strangers on a daily basis. Moreover, much of this information can be obtained by looking at an individual or by reviewing public records. Thus, the disclosure of this information cannot be considered shockingly degrading or egregiously humiliating. Nor could Plaintiff, based on the public nature of this information, legitimately expect that it would remain confidential. Accordingly, as determined in Travis, Kiminski, and McCaslin, this information does not warrant constitutional protection because an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in it.

However, Plaintiff argues that, in addition to the information mentioned above, Minnesota driver’s license records contain an individual’s medical information and social security number. (Compl. ¶ 164 [Doc. No. 1].) Specifically, Plaintiff explains that the records include highly confidential medical information such as seizure, diabetes, and vision information, and that such information has long been recognized as protected. (See PL’s Resp. to Ramsey County at 17 [Doc. No. 57].)

Although the Court doubts whether this information could even create a recognizable privacy interest, Plaintiffs claim still fails because she does not allege that such specific medical information was obtained about her. In fact, she states that Defendants accessed her social security number and medical information merely “upon information and belief.” (Compl. ¶ 164 [Doc. No. 1].) Rollins does not offer any allegations, facts, or affidavits to substantiate her “belief’ that Defendants accessed her social security number and medical information. Therefore, Rollins’ Complaint fails to “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

As noted above, in Count III, Plaintiff also seeks to impose supervisory liability under § 1983 on the “entity” and “supervisor” Defendants for an alleged failure to monitor and enforce the rules or to train, supervise, and impose proper discipline. (See Compl. ¶¶ 352-74 [Doc. No. 1].) However, because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for an underlying constitutional violation by any individual Defendant, Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim as to the entity and supervisor Defendants. See Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, Arkansas, 503 F.3d 667, 673 (8th Cir.2007) (noting that a county sheriff could not be held individually liable under § 1983 on a supervisory theory where the allegations did not establish an underlying constitutional violation by the county deputy); McCoy v. City of Monticello, 411 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir.2005) (“[I]n order for municipal liability to attach, individual liability first must be found on an underlying substantive claim.”). For the same reason, Plaintiffs claim in Count IV fails against the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS Does. (See Compl. ¶¶ 375-92 [Doc. No. 1].) Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for an underlying constitutional violation by any individual Defendant, Plaintiff failed to state a claim as to the Commissioner Defendants and the DPS Does. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs § 1983 claims, as stated in Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint, are based on an underlying constitutional violation, those claims are dismissed.

c. Minnesota state law bases

Finally, Plaintiffs § 1983 claims in Counts II, III, and IV, which are grounded on violations of Minnesota state law, also fail. Again, the Court’s reasoning that follows mirrors its Rasmusson holding. See Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1077. Plaintiff does not identify in her Complaint which of “the laws of the State of Minnesota” she seeks to enforce through § 1983. (Compl. ¶ 344 [Doc. No. 1].) However, as noted by the Eighth Circuit, “a violation of state law, without more, does not state a claim under the federal Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Bagley v. Rogerson, 5 F.3d 325, 328 (8th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). For the foregoing reasons, Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiffs Complaint, fail to state a claim for relief and must be dismissed.

2. Count V: Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Plaintiff also alleges a claim for common law invasion of privacy — namely, that Defendants intruded upon her seclusion. (See Compl. ¶¶ 393-98 [Doc. No. 1].) In Minnesota, intrusion upon seclusion occurs when one “intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns ... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn.1998). “The tort has three elements: (a) an intrusion; (b) that is highly offensive; and (c) into some matter in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Swarthout v. Mutual Service Life Insurance Co., 632 N.W.2d 741, 744 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) (citation omitted).

Generally, what is “highly offensive” is a question of fact for the jury, and becomes a question of law only “if reasonable persons can draw only one conclusion from the evidence.” Id. at 745. In determining whether an intrusion is offensive, courts consider “the degree of intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the-intrusion as well as the intruder’s motives and objectives, the setting into which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded,” and “the number and frequency of the intrusive contacts.” Bauer v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 149 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1109 (D.Minn.2001). The interference must be a “substantial one, of a kind that would be highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable [person], as the result of conduct to which the reasonable [person] would strongly object.” Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (emphasis added). Therefore, while an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in nude photographs of herself or in her private medical information, she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in discussing termination of her employment. See Lake, 582 N.W.2d at 235 (stating that “[o]ne’s naked body is ... generally known to others only by choice” and “is a type of privacy interest worthy of protection”); Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (reversing summary judgment on an intrusion upon seclusion claim involving private medical information); Groeneweg v. Interstate Enters., Inc., No. A04-1290, 2005 WL 894768, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 19, 2005) (holding that an individual had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with co-workers in which her termination was discussed). .

In Nelson, Rasmusson, and Kampschroer v. Anoka County, this Court analyzed the viability of a claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Minnesota law in the context of an alleged DPPA violation. In Nelson and Rasmusson, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants intruded upon their seclusion by accessing, or allowing access to, their motor vehicle records. Nelson, 2013 WL 5888235, at *8; Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1078-79. In both cases the Court found that the expectation of privacy in, and the sensitive nature of, driver’s license information is low because individuals frequently show their driver’s license to strangers and because most of the information contained in driver’s license records is public. For instance, the Nelson Court explained that “a person can ascertain another’s likeness, height, weight, and eye color upon viewing him or her and may be able to ascertain another’s driver’s license status or address through public records.” 2013 WL 5888235, at *8. Since the plaintiffs in either case did not allege that the records at issue contained a social security number or financial or medical information, the Court held that “no reasonable person could consider the intrusion ... highly offensive.” Id.; Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1078-79.

In Kampschroer, the plaintiffs claimed that in addition to their “home address, color photographs, dates of birth, eye col- or, heights, weights, driver identification numbers,” the defendants accessed their “medical and social security information.” No. 13-CV-2512 (SRN/TNL), 2014 WL 4988405, at *15 (D.Minn. Oct. 7, 2014). Similar to this Court’s holding in Nelson and Rasmusson, in Kampschroer it held that “[n]o reasonable person could find that the alleged access of a home address, photographs, dates of birth, eye color, heights, weights, and driver identification numbers meets the ‘highly offensive’ threshold.” Id. As for the medical information and social security number, the Court explained that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to adequately allege access of this data. Id. The Court emphasized that “[m]erely alleging [that such information was accessed] ‘on information and belief [was] insufficient.” Id.

Analogous to the plaintiffs’ allegations in Kampschroer, here, Rollins alleges that Defendants accessed her home address, color photograph, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, driver identification number, and medical and social security information. (Compl. ¶ 164 [Doc. No. 1].) As noted above, the tort for intrusion of privacy has three elements: (a) an intrusion; (b) that is highly offensive; and (c) into some matter in which a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy. Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 744. Plaintiff contends that Defendants intruded on her privacy by impermissibly accessing her private data. (See generally Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) She claims that she submitted her private data “because of the promise of confidentiality made by DPS.” (Compl. ¶273 [Doc. No. 1].)

The Court begins by addressing Plaintiffs claim based on her home address, color photograph, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, driver identification number. The Court finds that no reasonable person could have a legitimate expectation of privacy in this data. Nelson, 2013 WL 5888235, at *8; Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1078-79. Nor does the alleged access of this data meet the “highly offensive” standard. See id. This information is not particularly sensitive in nature, and individuals routinely turn over such information when they show their driver’s license. And, much of'this information is apparent from looking at an individual or through public documents. See, e.g., Nelson, 2013 WL 5888235, at *8; Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1077-78; Kampschroer, 2014 WL 4988405, at *14-15, Bass v. Anoka County, et al., 998 F.Supp.2d 813, 825 (D.Minn.2014); Mallak v. Aitkin County, et al., 9 F.Supp.3d 1046, 1065 (D.Minn.2014).

As for Rollins’ medical information and social security number, while Plaintiff may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in it, the Complaint does not adequately allege such accesses. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants accessed her social security number and medical information “upon information and belief.” (Compl. ¶ 164 [Doc. No. 1].) It is insufficient to merely allege that this information was accessed “on information and belief.” Kampschroer, 2014 WL 4988405, at *15. Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges that the DPS databases include a driver’s social security number and health information (Compl. ¶¶ 234-35 [Doc. No. 1]), the Office of the Legislative Auditor report, which Plaintiff submitted, demonstrates that the DVS or BCA systems do not display an individual’s social security number or sensitive medical information. (See Kaczor Aff., Ex. 1 “Law Enforcement’s Use of State Databases” at 21, 22 [Doc. No. 23-1]) (showing through illustrations that the only “medical” information that is visible through the DVS system is an individual’s commercial driver’s license medical certification information, and the “medical” information that is visible through the BCA system is whether an individual wears glasses and is an organ donor.)

Although Plaintiffs Complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to meet this threshold with respect to her allegations about Defendants viewing her social security number and medical information. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for common law invasion of privacy, and dismisses this claim against all Defendants.

3. Count I: DPPA Claim

Since the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs Counts II, III, IV, and V, the only remaining claim to address is Plaintiffs Count I. Below, the Court addresses each Defendant’s motion and arguments individually.

a. Defendant Hennepin County

Plaintiff alleges that Hennepin County officers accessed her private data seven times. (Compl. ¶ 109 [Doc. No. 1].) To support her allegations, Plaintiff attached to her Complaint an excerpt from the DVS audit. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 62; Compl., Ex. A [Doc. No. 1-1].) The excerpt lists only a single obtainment by Hennepin County. (Id.) However, this excerpt is just that — an excerpt. (Compl. ¶ 62 [Doc. No. 1].) Therefore, Hennepin County may have accessed Rollins’ information via the DVS system more times, but Plaintiff chose not to include those obtainments in the excerpt she presented to the Court. Plaintiff also attached to her Complaint a copy of the BCA audit. (Compl., Ex. B [Doc. No. 1-1].) Several Defendants note, and the Court agrees, that the BCA search results are exceedingly difficult to comprehend. Nonetheless, Plaintiff is not required to support her allegations in her Complaint with a readable exhibit detailing each Defendant’s accesses. Therefore, the Court assumes that the complete DVS and BCA search results indicate that Hennepin County accessed Plaintiffs data a total of seven times.

Defendant Hennepin County argues that Rollins’ DPPA claim must be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiffs claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) her Complaint fails to plead a plausible claim against Hennepin County; and (3) the unnamed individual and supervisor Defendants from Hennepin County are entitled to qualified immunity. (See Def. Hennepin County’s Mem. at 6 [Doc. No. 22].) The Court addresses each of these arguments below.

(1) Statute of Limitations

“[W]hen it ‘appears from the face of the complaint itself that the limitation period has run,’ a limitations defense may properly be asserted through a- Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). The DPPA does not contain its own statute of limitations provision, and the parties agree that 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)’s general four-year limitations period for civil actions arising under federal law applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a); (Def. Hennepin County’s Mem. at 6 [Doc. No. 22]; Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 3 [Doc. No. 56].)

However, the parties dispute when a DPPA cause of action accrues for purposes of determining when the four-year limitations period begins to run. Defendant asserts that the standard, or injury-occurrence, rule should apply, while Plaintiff argues that the discovery rule should apply. Under the standard rule, “a claim accrues “when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.’” Gabelli v. S.E.C., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 1220, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007)). The discovery rule, on the other hand, “delays accrual of a. cause of action until the plaintiff has ‘discovered’ it.” Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 644, 130 S.Ct. 1784, 176 L.Ed.2d 582 (2010). According to the Supreme Court’s holding in Gabelli the discovery rule is an exception to the standard rule, applied only when a defendant’s deceptive conduct prevents a plaintiff from even knowing that she or he has been defrauded. Gabelli, 133 S.Ct. at 1221.

Although the Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit have not ruled on which accrual rule to apply in a DPPA case, lower courts have addressed this issue.' Courts in this District have resoundingly held that the standard rule for accrual applies, such that a DPPA cause of action accrues at the time the improper access of information occurs. See, e.g., Mallak, 9 F.Supp.3d at 1053-55; Sheila Potocnik v. Carlson, 9 F.Supp.3d 981, 993-94 (D.Minn.2014); Bass, 998 F.Supp.2d at 819-20; Brian Potocnik v. Anoka County, No. 13-cv-1103 (DSD/TNL), 2014 WL 683980, at *2 (D.Minn. Feb. 21, 2014); McDonough v. Al’s Auto Sales, Inc., No. 13-cv-1889 (DSD/FLN), 2014 WL 683998, at *2 (D.Minn. Feb. 21, 2014); Rasmusson, 991 F.Supp.2d at 1079; Kampschroer, 2014 WL 4988405, at *5-6; Kost v. Hunt, 983 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1126-30 (D.Minn.2013) (finding that the exceptional nature of the discovery rule, the text and structure of § 1658, and the substantive area covered by the DPPA, all support application of the standard rule).

Those courts’ holdings are consistent with the Supreme Court’s description of when the discovery rule should be applied. In TRW Inc. v. Andrews, the Supreme Court iimited application of the discovery rule to a few contexts: fraud or concealment, latent disease, and medical malpractice. See 534 U.S. 19, 27, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001). Accordingly, here, the Court applies the standard rule for accrual to Plaintiffs DPPA claims.

Despite this precedent, Plaintiff argues that the Court should apply the discovery rule because “Congress provided no directive on the applicability of the discovery or injury-occurrence rules when referring to § 1658(a).” (See PL’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 5 [Doc. No. 56].) She argues that because § 1658 applies the discovery rule in subsection (b)(1), and the injury-occurrence rule in subsection (b)(2), then Congress must not have intended the injury-occurrence rule to be the default rule for § 1658(a). (Id. at 6.) Rollins misreads § 1658.' As this Court explained in Rasmusson, Congress amended § 1658 by adding only subsection (b), which incorporates the discovery rule. 991 F.Supp.2d at 1082. However, when subsection (b) was added, Congress did not additionally ■amend subsection (a). Id. Since subsection (b) expressly incorporates the discovery rule and subsection (a) does not, through amending § 1658, Congress demonstrated that subsection (a) does not incorporate the discovery rule. Id. (citing Gross v. Max, 906 F.Supp.2d 802, 812-13 (N.D.Ind.2012)).

Plaintiff raises numerous arguments in an attempt to distinguish her case and argue that the discovery rule applies to DPPA claims. First, Plaintiff argues that the applicability of TRW Inc. is highly limited since the precise language of the statute at issue in that case, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), differs from § 1658. (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 12 [Doc. No. 56].) Rollins contends that TRW Inc. is irrelevant to this Court’s interpretation of § 1658, because the FCRA’s statute of limitations uses the term “arises,” as opposed to § 1658, which uses the term “accrues.” (Id.) The Court finds Plaintiffs distinction inapposite because the Court relies on TRW Inc. insofar as it stands for the principle that the discovery rule is only applicable in a limited number of contexts involving fraud.

Additionally, Rollins contends that courts construing general statutes of limitation apply the discovery rule unless Congress manifests a different intent. (See id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff relies in part on this Court’s decision in In re Weldeabzghi, 2013 WL 717755 (D.Minn. Feb. 27, 2013). (See id. at 18.) Plaintiffs reliance on this case is misplaced. In In re Weldeabzghi this Court cited to Eighth Circuit precedent establishing that claims accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) “when the plaintiff ‘either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that [he or she] had a claim.’” 2013 WL 717755, at *6 (quoting Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 558 F.3d 751, 759 (8th Cir.2009)). However, as discussed herein, Congress manifested a different intent in the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a). The Court disagrees with Plaintiff that by amending subsection (b), and not subsection (a), “Congress was silent on the discovery or injury-occurrence rule.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 19, n. 5 [Doc. No. 56].) In fact, in TRW Inc., the Supreme Court stated that a directive from Congress need not be explicit — it may also be implied from the text or structure of a particular statute. TRW Inc., 534 U.S. at 27-28, 122 S.Ct. 441 (holding that the text and structure of the Fair Credit Report Act demonstrates that “Congress implicitly excluded a general discovery rule by explicitly including a more limited one”).

Plaintiff also claims that Maverick Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Administrative Review Bd. supports her position that § 1658(a) incorporates the discovery rule. 739 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir.2014). In Maverick Transp., the Eighth Circuit found “no indication Congress intended to exclude a version of the general discovery accrual rule from the [Surface Transportation Assistance Act].” Id. at 1154. Here, however, the Court has already demonstrated how Congress’ amendment of § 1658 demonstrated that it indeed intended to exclude the discovery accrual rule from subsection (a). Thus, Maverick Transp. does not support Rollins’ position and is distinguishable.

Finally, Plaintiff mischaracterizes the Supreme Court’s holding in Gabelli and her own experience of allegedly being “defrauded” by Defendants. In Gabelli the Supreme Court applied the standard rule because there was a “lack of textual, historical, or equitable reasons to graft a discovery rule onto the statute of limitations [in 28 U.S.C. § 2462],” which governs many penalty provisions. See Gabelli, 133 S.Ct. at 1224. Rollins correctly states that the Gabelli Court refused to apply' the discovery rule in the context of an SEC enforcement action because: (1) the SEC was dissimilar from a typical defrauded plaintiff, since it had powerful tools at its disposal to combat fraud; and (2) the SEC was not seeking typical relief, since it was seeking penalties as opposed to damages. (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 7 (citing Gabelli 133 S.Ct. at 1222-23) [Doc. No. 56].) However, Rollins incorrectly characterizes herself as a typical defrauded Plaintiff. (See id. at 7-8, 11.)

The nature of the injury addressed by the DPPA — the obtaining of motor vehicle record information for an impermissible purpose — is not in the same category as fraud, concealment, latent disease, or medical malpractice because there is no similarly deceptive conduct or concealment. Rather, the violation occurs from accessing the information without a permissible purpose, which* is more akin to the type of injury the FCRA is meant to address. Moreover, although Plaintiff describes the accesses as “surreptitious, concealed, and hidden,” these characterizations misstate, the relevant facts. (Compl. ¶ 239 [Doc. No. 1].) Plaintiff received her DPS audit in a timely fashion after she requested it in 201S. (Id. ¶¶ 249, 251.) Thus, neither Hennepin County, nor any of the other Defendants, concealed their accesses. While it is true that a plaintiff may not be aware of accesses of her personal data unless she requests an audit, not knowing about the lookups does not equate to fraud or purposeful concealment. Hennepin County correctly notes, “[t]he fraudulent concealment doctrine does not apply simply because a plaintiff was not affirmatively informed of an alleged wrong.” (Def. Hennepin County’s Reply at 6 [Doc. No. 67].) As a judge in this District noted in Mallak, “[mjerely being unknown is insufficient, the information must also be unknowable.” 9 F.Supp.3d at 1054-55 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff incorrectly analogizes her case to a series of cases that involve defendants who “wrongfully concealed] material facts.” (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Hennepin County at 15-16 [Doc. No. 56].) Simply because the purpose of the DPPA is to protect basic privacy rights does not mean that the discovery rule applies, or that the accesses of Plaintiffs information were concealed from her. (Cf. id. at 14.) Therefore, the substantive area governed by the DPPA does not require application of the discovery rule.

Based on the foregoing, the standard rule for accrual applies to Plaintiffs DPPA claims. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 31, 2014, so Plaintiffs DPPA claims that are based on allegations of improper conduct occurring more than four years prior to that date — i.e., prior to January 31, 2010 — are barred. Accordingly, the Court finds that at least one of Hennepin County’s accesses falls outside the statute of limitations. The DVS audit excerpt shows that a Hennepin County officer accessed Rollins’ information on May 8, 2007. (See Compl., Ex. A at 2 [Doc. No. 1-1].) This access occurred before January 31, 2010, and thus, is not actionable. However, because Plaintiff did not specify when the other six accesses by Hennepin County occurred, the Court is unaware of how many more of Plaintiffs DPPA claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Insofar as any additional accesses by Hennepin County occurred prior to January 31, 2010, claims based on those accesses are also time-barred. '

(2) Plausibility

Assuming Hennepin County officers accessed Plaintiffs private data after January 31, 2010, the Court continues by addressing Defendant Hennepin County’s second basis for dismissing Plaintiffs DPPA claims. To state a claim under the DPPA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a defendant knowingly obtained, disclosed, or used personal information; (2) from a motor vehicle record; (3) for a purpose not permitted. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a). Here, Plaintiff and Hennepin County dispute whether the third element of the claim is pled sufficiently: whether a Hennepin County official obtained Plaintiffs private data “for a purpose not permitted.”

' Hennepin County contends that “Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would plausibly suggest Hennepin County’s alleged accesses] [were] conducted for an improper purpose.” (Def. Hennepin County’s Mem. at 12 [Doc. No. 22].) Hen-nepin County argues that Rollins’ Complaint “must include factual allegations of an impermissible purpose.” (Id. at 14-15.) In her response, Plaintiff contends that she need not prove an impermissible purpose for each obtainment. (See Pl.’s Resp. to Def. Ramsey County at 9-11 [Doc. No. 57].) Rather, Plaintiff claims that she only needs to plausibly allege that “for whatever purpose Defendant obtained or used her information, it was not a permitted purpose under the statute.” (Id. at 12.) The Court agrees.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hennepin County, and the other individual and entity Defendants, did not access her information for any purposes permitted by the DPPA. (See Compl. ¶¶ 109-112 [Doc. No. 1].) Furthermore, sufficient facts exist for the Court to infer that Plaintiffs personal information was obtained for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA. The Complaint alleges that:

• Plaintiff has a tenuous relationship with her mother and uncle, both of whom are involved in state and local government entities. (Compl. ¶¶ 47-50 [Doc. No. 1.])

• Rollins has additional family members who are also employed by law enforcement within Minnesota. (See id. ¶ 48, 55.)

• Plaintiff fears that her mother, her uncle, or other family members employed by state and local agencies, and those associated with those family members, have been obtaining her information for purposes not permitted by the DPPA. (Id. ¶ 55.)

• Plaintiffs personal information was searched not by license plate number, but rather, by her name. (Id. ¶ 3.)

• Officers and personnel from dozens of different departments and agencies accessed Rollins’ private information approximately 574 times from 2003 to 2013. (Id. ^2.)

• Rollins has never been advised that she was a suspect or even an interested party in any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding. (Id. ¶¶ 69-160, 255.)

• Rollins has not been stopped for a traffic violation since approximately 2011; and has only been stopped one time since her early twenties. (Id. ¶ 256.) Taking into account these traffic stops, the audit Rollins requested did not include any license plate or driver’s license number look ups. (Id. ¶ 252.)

Under Iqbal and Twombly, a complaint ■ must contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Here, Plaintiffs cause of action is not supported by “mere concluso-ry statements.” Cf. id. Rather, the facts listed above, altogether, suggest that Defendant Hennepin County’s lookups of Plaintiffs private information did not occur in the course of typical law enforcement functions.

These facts, therefore, distinguish this case from others in this District in which the courts found that the plaintiffs failed to state a DPPA claim. In some of these cases, the plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that a sheer number of accesses created a reasonable inference of a violation. E.g., Bass, 998 F.Supp.2d at 821; McDonough, 2014 WL 683998, at *3. And, in Traub v. City of Saint Paul, the plaintiff relied on the lookups, her contemporaneous involvement in some publicized activity, and the absence of direct interaction with any defendant, to infer, that the lookups were for an improper purpose. Traub v. City of Saint Paul, Civ. No. 13-3017 (MJD/JJK), 2014 WL 2881484, at *4 (D.Minn. June 25, 2014). The Court, however, rejected such an inference, noting that:

A total of twelve lookups have been alleged against eight Defendants; one look-up is alleged with respect to five Defendants; no more than three accesses are alleged by any one Defendant; and none of the motor vehicle record searches was conducted at a “questionable” time of day or night. There is no allegation that Plaintiffs records were accessed by name rather than license plate number, and there is no significant cluster of locations or law enforcement agencies making the record requests.

Id. Unlike these cases, the Plaintiff in this case alleges that her information was accessed by name and she also identified two government employees, her family members, who may have a potential motive to improperly access her private data. These tenuous family relationships, in combination with Plaintiffs claim that she has never been an interested party in any law enforcement matter, support the inference that a permissible purpose for the lookups did not exist. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. At this early stage of litigation, Plaintiff need not plead — and indeed, does not know without discovery— the precise impermissible purpose for which her information was accessed. See Smythe v. City of Onamia, No. 12-cv-3149 (ADM/LIB), 2013 WL 2443849, at *6 (D.Minn. June 5, 2013) (noting that “a person may still violate the DPPA if he retrieves motor vehicle records and does not misuse the information; simply retrieving records without a permitted purpose is a violation”).

Defendant Hennepin County argues that Plaintiffs allegations about her family members’ motives are “wholly unconnected to Hennepin County” because “Plaintiff does not allege any concert of action among Defendants.” (See Def. Hennepin County’s Mem., at 16 [Doc. No. 22].) The Court disagrees. Reading Plaintiffs Complaint as a whole, Rollins pleads sufficient facts to allege that Defendants acted jointly in their allegedly impermissible lookups. Although Plaintiff does not directly allege in her Complaint that Defendants acted in concert with one another, she states that she “fears that her mother or uncle, and those associated with her mother or other family, have been obtaining, using, or disclosing her information for purposes not permitted by the DPPA.” (Compl. ¶ 55 [Doc. No. 1].) Construing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court reads Plaintiffs Complaint as alleging that Rollins’ family members “associate” with individuals employed by Hennepin County. Morton, 793 F.2d at 187. Therefore, because Plaintiff sufficiently pled that her personal information was knowingly obtained for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA, dismissal of the DPPA claims against Hennepin County is inappropriate.

(3) Qualified Immunity

Finally, the Court considers whether Hennepin County and its officers and supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs DPPA claims that are not barred by the statute of limitations. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from [personal] liability and the burdens of litigation ... unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir.2013). Thus, determining whether qualified immunity applies involves consideratio