The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office is an important victory for privacy rights, even though the Court rejected the specific claim made in the case, that the arrested driver’s privacy would be violated by release of the MVRs of her arrest.

How can an opinion rejecting a privacy claim be a win for privacy interests? Because the Court expressly stated that as a general matter, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in MVRs. The Court made clear that in all cases involving the potential release of such a video, the privacy interests of the individuals shown must be considered.

With this language, the Court corrected the problematic Appellate Division opinion in the Paff case. The appellate court had held that people have no privacy interest whatsoever with regard to MVRs, stating: “Drivers and passengers in vehicles operating on public roadways do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an MVR recording.” Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not leave in place this erroneous conclusion, and instead issued an opinion that appropriately protects the privacy rights of people shown in police videos.

The driver in the Paff case failed to satisfy her specific claim of privacy because she presented no explanation for her position. But the key point is that the Court recognized that those shown in MVRs can make legitimate claims that their privacy may be harmed by disclosure of the video.