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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT