ILNews

ACLU of Indiana files proposed class action against BMV

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Marion County to require the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to reinstate a woman’s suspended license. The ACLU of Indiana claims that the BMV randomly selected Lourrinne White from a “Previously Uninsured Motorist Registry” and suspended her license for not having insurance, even though she did not have a working car titled in her name at that time.

The lawsuit says that Indiana law doesn’t require licensed drivers to have insurance or other proof of financial responsibility if they aren’t driving a vehicle. White’s license was suspended in 2010 for driving without insurance. The suspension ended in April 2010. According to the lawsuit, even though she owned a van in 2012, she never titled it because it did not work when she bought it and she never drove it. She sold it in March 2012 and bought a Dodge Neon and obtained insurance.

The BMV issued a notice on March 5 requiring her to show that she had insurance on that date. She says she never received it and didn’t respond, so the BMV suspended her license for a year. White says even though she told the BMV after receiving notice of her suspended license that she didn’t have a car titled in her name on March 5 and that she wasn’t driving, the BMV said she was supposed to have insurance on that date.

White’s name was selected randomly by the BMV from the “Previously Uninsured Motorist Registry,” which the General Assembly created in 2010. The BMV was supposed to issue regulations to make it work but has not, the suit alleges, but began issuing notices of license suspensions to people in 2011.

The ACLU of Indiana claims the BMV’s actions are contrary to law and violate due process under the 14th Amendment. Demanding that people show financial responsibility in the absence of the regulations required by Indiana Code 9-25-10-5 isn’t allowed by Indiana law and is a void and unlawful action pursuant to a non-promulgated rule in violation of the Indiana Administrative Rules and Procedures Act and under I.C. 9-25-10-5, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also seeks class-action status on behalf of the possibly thousands of people subject to this BMV action.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT