ILNews

BMV puts the brakes on enforcing uninsured motorist registry

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles agreed Monday to halt enforcement of the “Previously Uninsured Motorist Registry” and reinstate the driver’s licenses of thousands of Hoosiers.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is claiming a “win” in its ongoing litigation seeking to stop the BMV from demanding proof of auto insurance from individuals who are not required to have it.

Established by the Indiana General Assembly in 2010, the registry lists the names of Indiana drivers who have been convicted of operating a vehicle without insurance, according to a BMV spokesman. Then at unspecified times, the BMV contacts randomly selected people from the registry and asks that they provide proof of auto coverage. Individuals who cannot show proof of insurance are convicted again.

The ACLU contends that the “Previously Uninsured Motorist Registry” unlawfully suspended the driver’s licenses of people who had not violated any laws. Even thought the BMV never issued the rules regarding enforcement, the agency began to suspend driver’s licenses of randomly selected individuals.

In June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of those randomly selected people, charging the BMV’s actions violated state law and due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The case, Lourrinne M. White, et al. v Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 49D02-1206-PL-241716, was filed in Marion Superior Court.

Marion County Judge Theodore Sosin subsequently granted a preliminary injunction in August.

“I am hopeful that the BMV will go back to the General Assembly in 2013 to change this law so that Hoosiers are not again subject to unlawful and unconstitutional suspensions of their driving privileges,” Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director, stated in a press release.

The BMV has been trying to clarify and detail the implementation of the registry law as circumstances and issues not contemplated by the Legislature have arisen, said a BMV spokesman. Internal discussions regarding the regulations have included possibly turning to the General Assembly for a solution.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • whatever
    how about the people suspended PAY $100 a day to the BMV. It is a law to have insurance.
  • Civil Suit
    Everyone that was suspended should now sue for $100.00 a day for every day of suspension and the court should fin in favor of all then triple the damages!

    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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

    2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

    3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

    4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

    5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

    ADVERTISEMENT