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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT