By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 5, 2013//
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Civil
Torts — invasion of privacy
An invasion of privacy claim is precluded by sec. 995.50(2)(c) if the information was available to the public as a matter of public record.
“Dumas claims that this statute requires her name to be kept confidential because the bus companies were ‘required to pay prevailing wages’; however, she does not support her argument with any authority. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not consider undeveloped arguments); see also Tam v. Luk, 154 Wis. 2d 282, 291 n.5, 453 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1990) (court of appeals has neither duty nor resources to ‘“sift and glean the record”’ for facts supporting a party’s argument) (citation omitted); see also Atlas Transit, 249 Wis. 2d 242, ¶¶20-23 (explaining that no state or federal law prevents disclosure of bus drivers’ names upon public records request). Moreover, Dumas points to no authority overruling Atlas Transit. We therefore conclude that Atlas Transit, not WIS. STAT. §19.36(12), applies here.”
“Therefore, because Atlas Transit, not WIS. STAT. §19.36, governs the case before us, we conclude Dumas’ name was a matter of public record. Because the information published in Koebel’s report—including Dumas’ name and arrest history—was a matter of public record, we must affirm the grant of summary judgment on Dumas’ invasion of privacy claim. See WIS. STAT. §995.50(2)(c).”
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Witkowiak, J., Curley, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Schulz, Richard H., Milwaukee; Schulz, Peter Jon, San Diego, Calif.; For Respondent: Dreps, Robert J., Madison