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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT