ILNews

BMV policy change case gets transfer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging the state's Bureau of Motor Vehicle's invalidation of licenses or identification cards only on the basis of mismatched records. The high court granted transfer Oct. 29 to Lyn Leone, et al. v. Indiana BMV Commissioner, No. 49S02-0910-CV-505.

Lyn Leone and others received letters from the BMV notifying them that their information on record didn't match that from the Social Security Administration and their driver's licenses or ID cards would be revoked if the BMV records weren't updated. The class sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the policy. The trial court denied the injunction, as did the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The appellate court ruled the plaintiffs showed the BMV's policy violated constitutional guarantees of due process, but a preliminary injunction wouldn't be in the public's best interest because of the threat of identify theft.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented, arguing the plaintiffs were being hassled by the new policy and the BMV should approach the legislature to amend Indiana Code to allow for the new policy.

The Supreme Court also granted transfer to three additional cases - Andrew King v. State of Indiana, No. 49S04-0911-CR-507; Steven W. Everling v. State of Indiana, No. 48S05-0911-CR-506; and Subhen Ghosh v. Indiana State Ethics Commission and the Office of the Inspector General, No. 32S01-0910-CV-504.

In King, the appellate court affirmed Andrew King's felony convictions of child solicitation and attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors. It concluded that impossibility isn't a defense to the crime of attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors and that the legislature couldn't have intended to foreclose prosecution under Indiana Code Section 35-49-3-3 when the defendant erroneously believes the victim is a minor.

In Everling, the Court of Appeals upheld Steven Everling's felony convictions of child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor. He claimed he didn't receive a fair and impartial trial, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The appellate court disagreed, finding the testimony of his witnesses, which were excluded based on a motion from the state, wouldn't have likely affected the outcome of the trial. His trial counsel's performance was deficient, but based on the record the Court of Appeals couldn't determine if Everling was prejudiced.

In Ghosh, the appellate court affirmed the Ethics Commission conclusion that an Indiana Department of Environmental Management employee violated a provision of the ethics code when he bought gas with a state-issued credit card at a gas station he partly owned. Ghosh argued he didn't "participate in any decision" per statute by using the credit card because participate implies more than one person is involved in the decision. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument and remanded on the issue of the monetary sanction he was ordered to pay.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT