Court Opinion

ID: 9702799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:24:46.070763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:41.731050
License: Public Domain

ELDRIDGE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the Circuit Court erred in failing to render a declaratory judgment. I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that, after the petitioner presented his driver’s license *704and a major credit card, it was “reasonable” to require the petitioner’s thumbprint as identification.
Today, honest citizens attempting to cope in this world are-constantly being required to show or give drivers’ licenses, photo identification cards, social security numbers, the last four digits of social security numbers, mothers’ “maiden names,” 16 digit account numbers, etc. Now, the majority takes the position that it is “reasonable” for banks and other establishments to require, in addition, thumbprints and fingerprints. Enough is enough. The most reasonable thing in this case was petitioner’s “irritation with the Bank of America’s Thumbprint Signature Program.” (Majority opinion at p. 679).
Chief Judge Bell has authorized me to state that he joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.