Judge says Indiana BMV wrongly pulled '0INK' plate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A police officer has the right to buy a vanity license plate reading "0INK," an Indiana judge has said in a ruling that extends far beyond one plate.

Marion County Judge James Osborn ruled Wednesday that the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles violated Greenfield police Officer Rodney Vawter's freedom of speech rights when it revoked his plate after three years, saying its content was "offensive or misleading."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a class action lawsuit against the BMV based on Vawter's case in May 2013. Now, the BMV must do much more than simply allow Vawter to have his "0INK" plate.

"They have to start handing out vanity plates again and they have to change their standards to fit the Constitution," ACLU Indiana legal director Ken Falk said Thursday.

The BMV stopped offering vanity plates last July until the case was decided.

The judge said the BMV had no formal regulations in place for evaluating the content of vanity plates and ordered it to create formal standards that meet constitutional requirements within six months. It can use the old standards in the meantime, within limits such as barring profanity.

"That's to avoid the chaos that would ensue if there were no standards," Falk said.

The BMV also must inform of the ruling all the people whose plates were denied or revoked, or who would have applied for vanity plates if the agency had not suspended issuing them. The BMV must allow those people to reapply.

The BMV had cited a state statute that allowed it to refuse to issue a plate that officials deem to contain arranged letters and numbers that carry "a connotation offensive to good taste and decency" or that "would be misleading."

The court found the agency's use of its own standards was inconsistent and biased. For example, the agency revoked an "UNHOLY" vanity plate but allowed vanity plates such as "B HOLY" and "HOLYONE." The BMV also rejected the vanity plate "HATER" but accepted "HATE" and "HATERS."

And while revoking Vawter's "0INK" plate, it allowed plates reading "OINKS" or "OINKER."

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, which represented the BMV, said it would review the ruling with the bureau before deciding whether to file an appeal.

A BMV spokesman didn't immediately return a phone call from the Associated Press seeking comment Thursday.

The case is among several cases involving the content of vanity plates that have been filed across the country.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of a man with a "COPSLIE" plate. In a unanimous decision, the court agreed with the arguments of David Montenegro, who wanted the vanity plate to protest what he calls government corruption.


  • Vanity = Vain
    Clearly the BMV standards for rejection or acceptance were arbitrary, undefined and not unilaterally enforced...indeed they appear to be the whim of the person judging the content. While I agree with DG the best way to avoid this is to not allow these individual expressions to be memorialized in the first place. I am guessing to that to not offer vanity plates at all would impact the bottom line to some extent, otherwise the BMV would already have done that. Now they will have to eat the additional income, or come up with standards that any employee and customer can follow. Not an easy task when you have people who can't resist the temptation to memorialize something risqué, or anti-government, or pro or anti religion, or political in nature...the Star just had an article recently about a guy who enjoys sneaking his vanity plate configurations past the BMV, which he had successfully done numerous times...some people don't have a lot to do I guess...
  • Easy Solution
    Don't offer vanity plates. That avoids the whole issue on either side.

    Post a comment to this story

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ