ILNews

BMV tosses personalized license plate policy

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
  A federal lawsuit involving the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and how it handles personalized license plates may be settled in the next week, now that the state agency has thrown out the revised policy banning all religious or deity phrases.

BMV Commissioner Ron Stiver reversed a policy decision Nov. 25 that had taken effect Nov. 6 banning any requested personalized plate message carrying a religious or deity message. Now, an eight-person internal committee will review all requested messages the way the agency had operated for years.

Late last year, the agency had started reviewing about 230 internal policies and eventually decided to move away from the committee review. Instead, the agency would specifically ban anything that referred to drugs, alcohol, bodily functions or parts, political parties, violence, race, gender, religion, or a deity.

"From a legal perspective, we were concerned that if we accepted or approved anything perceived as pro-deity, we'd have to accept anything on the opposite end," BMV spokesman Dennis Rosebrough said. "If we rejected all references, we were on safe legal ground."

But that decision got a second look from the agency commissioner after scrutiny in the past month, resulting mostly from the Nov. 17 lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Ferris of Cambridge City. Ferris claimed her First Amendment rights to free speech were violated when the agency didn't allow her plate saying BE GODS, meaning "belong to God." Stiver allowed Ferris and three others to get plates a day after the suit was filed, and Rosebrough said the commissioner spent the next week more closely examining the policy through discussions with attorneys and public policy-makers here and outside Indiana.

"That new rule was well-intentioned and based on legitimate legal opinion, but at the end of the day he felt that we really ought to rely on common sense to guide us," Rosebrough said.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Theriot, who isn't an attorney of record on this case but works on the suit with lead counsel Erik Stanley, said Nov. 26 that this move goes a long way to help resolve the case. Counsel from both sides have been discussing potential settlements, but an agreement hadn't been reached prior to the Thanksgiving holiday.

"We have not made any final dispositions in this case, but we applaud the actions of the BMV and think this will help get everyone to a point where we can find a resolution," he said.

Those seeking personalized plates had until Oct. 31 to submit requests to receive plates in the spring, so the full impact of this policy decision will be on those wanting personalized plates for 2010, Rosebrough said. The BMV receives about 12,000 requests a year, and Rosebrough said motorists whose requests are rejected always have an option to appeal the agency's decisions.

"There really needs to be this vetting process from keeping some very not nice stuff off backs of people's cars," he said. "But this is a subjective process and there're always gray areas. That's why there's an appeal process."

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT