ILNews

BMV policy needed to prevent identity theft

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The inconvenience of a few Hoosiers outweighs the very real threat of identity theft, so the trial court was correct in denying a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Motor Vehicle's verification of records using Social Security Administration data, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. Judge Patricia Riley dissented, believing the BMV needs to have legislation amended before it can institute its policy.

Although the class of affected plaintiffs showed the BMV's challenged policy violates constitutional guarantees of due process, a preliminary injunction wouldn't be in the public's interest, wrote Judge Cale Bradford for the majority in the interlocutory appeal of Lyn Leone, et al. v. Commissioner, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, et al., No. 49A02-0804-CV-377. The plaintiffs - a class of people who received letters from the BMV notifying them that their information on record didn't match that from the Social Security Administration - sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the policy of revoking licenses or ID cards if the BMV records aren't updated.

While the class appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction was pending, the BMV filed Indiana Administrative Code Title 140, Rule 7-1.1-2, which appears to adopt the policy of verifying records against data from the SSA.

The majority determined the BMV's new policy doesn't violate Indiana law, and there's no authority that explains why requiring a person to update information with the SSA or BMV violates the law, wrote Judge Bradford. The public interest in preventing identity theft requires that one must "bear the consequences, including the inconveniences, of changing one's name."

The new policy does violate due process because the BMV acted without ascertainable standards for current license and ID holders. Nowhere in the first two letters is the concept of "updating" information with the BMV explained, wrote Judge Bradford, and the notices are inconsistent. In addition, the majority believed the rule promulgated by the BMV after the litigation began only serves to increase the confusion. Although the BMV can require a match between its and the SSA's information, it failed to give the class members fair notice regarding this requirement, he wrote.

The motion for preliminary injunction failed because it would clearly disserve the public interest in preventing and detecting identity theft. Suspending the program would have the effect of restoring a well-known avenue for fraud and identity theft.

"We simply cannot agree that the inconvenience of a few Hoosiers (which is really all the record before us shows) outweighs the very real threat that identity theft poses to all of us," he wrote. "We do not doubt that the loss of a driver's license or identification card could be highly inconvenient, but we imagine that, as a general rule, being the victim of identity theft would be far worse."

Judge Patricia Riley in her dissent wrote the majority ignored the "factual history" of the plaintiffs that are being "hassled" by the BMV's policy shift. The three named plaintiffs of the class in this case had used the names the BMV had on file for numerous years and in different records, such as on the Roll of Attorneys or to pay bills. They all had valid drivers' licenses at the point the BMV sent them letters threatening to revoke them because of discrepancies. According to I.C. Sections 9-24-11-5(a)(1) and 9-24-16-3(b)(1), the plaintiffs provided their "full legal names" to the BMV.

"If the BMV now thinks that in the day and age of identity theft that applicants for drivers licenses or identification cards should provide their name as it appears in the SSA database, then the BMV has the opportunity to approach our legislature and seek an amendment to Indiana Code Sections 9-24-11-5(a)(1) and 9-24-16-20 3(b)(1)," she wrote.

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT