Supreme Court broadens plaintiff access to traffic data.

Opening previously restricted documents to plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court recently limited the rights of municipalities to withhold routine traffic safety information from the public.

A unanimous Court in Pierce County v. Guillen ruled that 23 U.S.C. [section] 409, which provides federal funds for traffic safety improvements, was not intended to "make plaintiffs worse off than they would have been had [the statute] never existed." (123 S. Ct. 720 (Jan. 14, 2003).)

The statute says material "compiled or collected for ... the safety enhancement of potential accident sites" cannot be used in state or federal litigation. Municipalities had argued that public dissemination of data obtained under [section] 409 would create a catch-22: It would expose them to liability for accidents and therefore create a disincentive for them to participate in the improvement program.

County officials in Tacoma, Washington, used that argument to block efforts by the family of Clementina Guillen-Alejandra to obtain accident data about the intersection where she died in a car crash in 1996.

Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas struck a middle ground between municipal officials who sought a blanket restriction on traffic data--including routine information like police accident reports gathered for other reasons--and plaintiff lawyers who argued that the statute violates Tenth Amendment principles of federalism by interfering with the business of state courts.

The Court rejected the Tenth Amendment argument set forth in ATLA's amicus brief for the plaintiffs. In reversing the ruling of the Washington Supreme Court--which agreed with ATLA that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing the statute--and remanding the case, the justices largely endorsed the lower court's conclusions, if not its reasoning.

The statute "protects only information compiled or collected" for purposes of the program, not data gathered earlier for other reasons, Thomas wrote. The municipalities' interpretation "gives the statute too broad a reach," according to the opinion.

"It seems to me that [the Guillens] are going to get most of the material they requested," said Kevin Worthen, associate dean at the Brigham Young University Law School, who has been following the case. "The Court's interpretation was one [the Guillens] said was reasonable. The opinion was a clear rejection of the position put forth by the county."

Jeffrey White, senior amicus counsel for ATLA, said the effect of the ruling would be strongest in those states that previously enforced broad restrictions on a wide range of documents. "ATLA members have faced this for years," White said. "The Court's interpretation should mean our members who represent victims of dangerous railroad crossings and hazardous roadways can discover and introduce more documents than they could before the ruling."

Nonetheless, White called the decision a "lost opportunity" for the Court to curtail congressional encroachment on states' rights to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure for state courts.