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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT