Opinion ID: 852218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Procedural Due ProcessAscertainable Standards

Text: A driver's license is a property right that cannot be taken away unless procedural due process is provided. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971); Mitchell v. State, 659 N.E.2d 112, 114 (Ind.1995). Due process requires such things as notice and an opportunity to be heard, but Appellants here argue that the Bureau fell short on its requirement that government decisions be made pursuant to ascertainable standards. (Appellants' Br. at 20.) Due process requires that standards should be written with sufficient precision to give fair warning as to what the agency will consider in making its decision. Worman Enters., Inc. v. Boone County Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369, 378 (Ind.2004). In assessing whether a standard is sufficiently ascertainable to withstand a challenge for vagueness, we determine if it is so indefinite that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Id. Appellants contend that the policy at issue was implemented without any regulations or formal rules indicating how and why residents' entitlement to a license or identification card is now linked to SSA records. (Appellants' Br. at 21.) The Bureau responds that the statute already requires applicants to provide accurate names and Social Security numbers and requires the Bureau to maintain accurate records. (Appellee's Br. at 20.) As we have already noted, the Code requires the Bureau to maintain accurate records and to collect Social Security numbers, putting Appellants on notice that their records could be scrutinized based on Social Security's records and their documents revoked. Furthermore, in addition to existing regulations and statutes, the Bureau distributed the letters between November 2007 and February 2008 asking their recipients to reconcile their records. These letters provided additional descriptions of what the Bureau requires. While these letters did not outline the steps required to update Appellants' records, they did provide formsboth online and enclosed in the letterto do so. Further, while they did not direct Appellants about which records to alterthe Bureau's or Social Security'sthis presumably was to give the recipient discretion over his or her recorded name rather than requiring a change to one or the other. The first letter makes clear that the issue arose because the names the Bureau had on file did not match Social Security's records, meaning changing one to match the other would remedy the problem. The second letter stated that the recipient's records must be updated immediately pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 9-24-9-2 or X-XX-XX-X.5, which list what is required on an application for a license or card. (App. at 41.) The letters also stated that the discrepancy between the two records could not remain. The first letter informed recipients that your name in our records does not match what is on file with the SSA, and required them to update this information to resolve the discrepancy. (App. at 36.) The second letter reminded recipients that your name listed in BMV records does not match what is on file with the SSA and must be updated immediately pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 9-24-9-2 or X-XX-XX-X.5. (App. at 41.) The third letter reminded recipients of the two requests from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to update your personal information so that it matches the information on file with the Social Security Administration (SSA). (App. at 42.) Although the letters do not go into great detail about what updating one's information would require, all three letters clearly communicate that the required resolution was for the information held by the Bureau and Social Security to match. As for communicating the consequences of not updating the information, the first letter stated that failure to update could result in the invalidation of your license or identification card. (App. at 36.) The second stated failure to comply would mean that the card must be invalidated. (App. at 41.) The final notice stated your license will be revoked effective a specified date. (App. at 42.) Though not identical, these all make clear that without a resolution to the discrepancy between the records, the Bureau would likely revoke the license or identification card. The first two letters contained different language regarding the required documentation to update records with the Bureau. (App. at 36, 41.) The first letter received by Appellants told them to bring a certified copy of your birth certificate and any appropriate court papers documenting your full legal name, along with your Social Security Card, a Numident report issued by the SSA, or a verification letter from the SSA. (App. at 10, 36.) The second letter said to visit a branch with a certified copy of your birth certificate and any appropriate court papers documenting you[r] full legal name. (App. at 10, 41.) The Bureau sent this second letter to a more general list of recipients, so the description is less specific. (App. at 10.) Although it describes the appropriate documentation as court papers, someone who received the first letter, as all the Appellants did, would have a respectable idea of what documentation would suffice. Taken together, the first two letters indicated what the recipients needed to show, and they provide other sources for any clarification they might require. The final notice, which required a visit to a license branch, similarly referred back to these two letters in describing the necessary proof with the proper documentation outlined in the letters that you have received. (App. at 42.) The final notice also notified Appellants of their right to appeal through an administrative hearing. [13] (App. at 42.) Nevertheless, a person could presumably show the documentation listed in the first letter to prove that Social Security and Bureau records actually did match.