Research About Driver's License Data Encoding Techniques and Driver's License Swiping: Who is Swiping?| Is Swiping Happening in my State?| How do ID Card. Renew Indian passport in USA after 10 yrs with Cox & Kings. Steps to fill forms, document list & processing times. Total 6 photos required for reissue. ![]() UpdateStar is compatible with Windows platforms. UpdateStar has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, 2008, and Windows XP, 32 bit and 64 bit editions. Simply double-click the downloaded file to install it. UpdateStar Free and UpdateStar Premium come with the same installer. UpdateStar includes such as English, German, French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian and. You can choose your language settings from within the program. Ok, so in May I went to the DMV to get my drivers license renewed. The old lady there was having a really bad day, she asked for hte vision test and I asked, could you just skip to hte blinking light test? She got all upset, 'who let you do that before? Give me NAMES!!' She looks at the back of my license and sees the barcode is scratched off, so she casually asks me, ' why is the back of the license scratched?' Thinking she is a human being, I tell her. I explain that local bars have started scanning the back of the license and creating big databases of customers and selling that information to other companies and i don't like that so I scratched it off. She says, 'Hrmmph.' And I get my license and I figure that is the end of it. A month later, June 30th, I get a letter in the mail saying the DMV is suspending my license for 'Iowa Code 321.210(1)D - Administrative Suspension - Unlawful use of a license'. The letter said I had the right to request and appeal. Of course I had no idea what this meant, I had an inkling, but I wasn't sure. So I tromped on down to the local DMV office, stood in line for an hour and asked why my license was being suspended. They told me I had told them I scratched off the barcode and that was unlawful. I apologized, said I did not know that was illegal and asked them to remove my suspension. Of course they said I had to submit a formal appeal in writing. Then they preceded to tell me, that since my license was pending suspension, they would have to confiscate my license today, July 1st, but they would give me a piece of paper that said I could drive until july 28th. I was not happy. I went home, looked thru the law books for 5 hours and wrote them a little letter. 2 weeks later I got their reply, 'we have received your appeal and it is being reviewed, await furthur instructions.' Today, I got another letter from them, ' appeal has been denied'. I am not happy. Below is hte letter I sent the DMV earlier this month. I am considering hiring a lawyer to fight this just based on principle. This is the appeal contesting the suspension of driver's license for Versa, file number XXXX, sanction number XXXX, drivers license number XXXXXX. On June 30th 2005 Mr. Versa received in the mail a letter stating his drivers license would be suspended July 28th thru August 28th 2005 due to Iowa Code 321.210(1)D - Administrative Suspension - Unlawful use of a license. The letter stated Mr. Versa could appeal the decision before the suspension was enacted. Versa inquired on July 1st 2005 as to what unlawful activity he might have done which initiated the suspension; the staff at the drivers license station in Cedar Rapids took Mr. Versa's license and gave him a temporary driving permit valid until July 28th 2005 effectively revoking the license before a review of the appeal could be done. The staff also informed Mr. Versa that the suspension was due to 'unlawful use of a license', specifically that the license Mr. Versa had given them on June 6th 2005 in order to obtain a renewal, had scratches on the barcode of the license. The staff at the driver's license station informed Mr. Versa that scratching a license was illegal. The staff further claim that Mr. Versa when asked at the time of license renewal, June 6th 2005, had admitted that he had scratched the barcodes on purpose, that area businesses were scanning the information off of said barcodes to create databases which he did not approve. Versa was never read his Miranda rights and was not aware any comments he made at the time of his license renewal could be used against him in a court of law or the Department of Transportation. As such, any alleged accounts of said interview should be stricken from the record. The letter in question states that Mr. Versa's license shall be suspended under the provisions of Iowa Code 321.210(1)D which states 'Has permitted an unlawful or fraudulent use of the license.' Upon further research Iowa Code 321.216.1 states 'Unlawful use of license or nonoperator's identification card - penalty 1. To display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in the person's possession a canceled, revoked, suspended, fictitious, or fraudulently altered driver's license or nonoperator's identification card'. Also note that the barcode on the rear of the card only holds the same information as the front of the card, redundantly. If there were scratches on the license that had damaged the information on the barcode the same information would still be on the front of the card and as such would not constitute a fictitious drivers license, nor was anyone defrauded or lied to so the drivers license was not fraudulently altered. The license was neither suspended, revoked, nor canceled. This shows that the license was not used in an unlawful manner nor was it used in a fraudulent manner. That being the case the suspension should be repealed and Mr. Versa's license should be returned or he should be allowed to obtain a new license. Versa turned in his license July 1st 2005 his license was not in any way scratched. Versa believes that this appeal should clearly explain his position on the matter on why the suspension of his license is not valid. If upon official review of this appeal it should be determined that the suspension should go forward then Mr. Versa is prepared to pursue an official judicial review pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.19 upon further legal advice. Thank you for your time. If there were scratches on the license that had damaged the information on the barcode the same information would still be on the front of the card and as such would not constitute a fictitious drivers license, nor was anyone defrauded or lied to so the drivers license was not fraudulently altered It doesn't say 'altered in a way that miscistrues information' It says 'altered'. The only entity allowed to alter a drivers liscense legally is the DMV. Anyone else doing any alteration is doing do so fradulently. Send the information to the EFF and ask them to represent you. I'm not sure that a case has ever been decided on this issue, and it might be an interesting issue for them to take up. But, in addition to that, go get a lawyer or you are going to have to live with the suspension - they denied your appeal, your license is being suspended, and you have to do something further now. How long did they suspend it? What's a suspension going to do to your insurance rates (don't call your insurance company and ask!) over the next few years? I can't think of any Iowa attorneys off the top of my head who might take this just for fun unfortunately. James Edit: Emkorial - you are wrong, it wasn't fraudulently altered. That has a specific meaning, and this almost certainly doesn't meet that criteria. I'd go to DMV and talk to a supervisor. Then talk to the supervisor's supervisor. Go up as high as you can, and explain what's going on, apologize, tell them you didn't know it was illegal, and that you won't do it again. As you've already seen, state law doesn't mention the barcode at all, nor does it mention 'scratching' etc. Surely there's someone there who has a brain, and can understand what's going on. If it doesn't work there, maybe go to a different DMV office, in a different city? A pain, but perhaps worth a try. I'd go to DMV and talk to a supervisor. Then talk to the supervisor's supervisor. Go up as high as you can, and explain what's going on, apologize, tell them you didn't know it was illegal, and that you won't do it again. As you've already seen, state law doesn't mention the barcode at all, nor does it mention 'scratching' etc. Surely there's someone there who has a brain, and can understand what's going on. It's out of the DMV's hands now. It's in the courts. And that's really the only option now. That doesn't look promising though. Note to self to NOT be honest at DMV. Versa was never read his Miranda rights and was not aware any comments he made at the time of his license renewal could be used against him in a court of law or the Department of Transportation You weren't under arrest. They can use anything you said against you in a court of law, as it would be a civil case, not a criminal one. Just because he wasn't under arrest doesn't mean they can't use what he said. When he gets called to the stand (if it were to go to a trial), they would ask him if what's in the letter is true. He would, of course, say yes. Unlawful use of license or nonoperator's identification card - penalty 1. To display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in the person's possession a canceled, revoked, suspended, fictitious, or fraudulently altered driver's license or nonoperator's identification card'. You fraudently altered the liscense. I mean, it doesn't get much clearer than that. He altered it, but not fraudulently. There's nothing in the barcode (typically) that's not on the front of the license. The exception would be that the social security number is sometimes in the barcode, but not on the front. This is the case in DE, but it's encrypted. If there were scratches on the license that had damaged the information on the barcode the same information would still be on the front of the card and as such would not constitute a fictitious drivers license, nor was anyone defrauded or lied to so the drivers license was not fraudulently altered It doesn't say 'altered in a way that miscistrues information' It says 'altered'. The only entity allowed to alter a drivers liscense legally is the DMV. Anyone else doing any alteration is doing do so fradulently You can't honestly believe that. Should I have my license laminated so as to make sure that it doesn't accidentally get scratched? After all, having a scratched license constitutes fraudulent alteration. As you've already seen, state law doesn't mention the barcode at all, nor does it mention 'scratching' etc. Surely there's someone there who has a brain, and can understand what's going on. What does that matter? He altered the liscense. Does that mean I can slice open my liscense and replace the picture if I think it;s a bad one? Seriously, what are guys thinking? Scratching off the barcode is a far cry from replacing the picture. I think you need to get a dictionary and look up what 'fraudulent' means. Seriously, what are guys thinking? Like maybe we know what fraudulently means? Using the DMV could argue an intent to hinder a LEO's efforts to check Versa's info during a traffic stop by making it difficult/impossible to read the barcode. I'm not necessarily saying the law is well written, but I don't think Versa will have a lot of luck with getting this reversed. But nobody in their right mind would think that. That's what computers and radios are for. In DE (and I imagine pretty much everywhere else, too) all of that information is verified over computer or radio whenever the cop needs to use it. /edit: The only way they could argue fraud would be something like 'fraud by omission' and that wouldn't hold up either, because the exact same information is on the front. The exception being, as I noted earlier, the SSN is sometimes in the barcode and not on the front. But, a cop can get that quite easily using this new-fangled invention called a radio, or using a computer. Originally posted by MtDew: But nobody in their right mind would think that. That's what computers and radios are for. In DE (and I imagine pretty much everywhere else, too) all of that information is verified over computer or radio whenever the cop needs to use it. I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't alter the fact that Versa is dealing with the consequences of violating a (probably flawed) regulation; if the DMV decides to put barcodes on licenses they did so for a reason, no matter what that reason is or if it makes sense. One question I have because I don't go to many bars, at least none that scan: if the bar can't scan the license, do they still let you in? One question I have because I don't go to many bars, at least none that scan: if the bar can't scan the license, do they still let you in? I haven't seen them do it in bars, but I have seen them scan my license in liquor stores before. I just assumed they were checking the validity of the license. It never occurred to me that they were throwing my info into a database. In most states, I believe that would be illegal. Most states don't allow the lookup of driver's licenses except by law enforcement and DMV. Delaware allows some other agencies (but certainly not liquor stores), while New Jersey allows absolutely nobody access except law enforcement. Seriously, what are guys thinking? Like maybe we know what fraudulently means? Using the DMV could argue an intent to hinder a LEO's efforts to check Versa's info during a traffic stop by making it difficult/impossible to read the barcode. I'm not necessarily saying the law is well written, but I don't think Versa will have a lot of luck with getting this reversed. But nobody in their right mind would think that. That's what computers and radios are for. In DE (and I imagine pretty much everywhere else, too) all of that information is verified over computer or radio whenever the cop needs to use it. /edit: The only way they could argue fraud would be something like 'fraud by omission' and that wouldn't hold up either, because the exact same information is on the front. The exception being, as I noted earlier, the SSN is sometimes in the barcode and not on the front. But, a cop can get that quite easily using this new-fangled invention called a radio, or using a computer. Congratulations on your argument, Mt. One thing is clear: you are not a lawyer. Versa: Umm.sorry, mate, but too effing bad. You got zapped by a pissy clerk, but she was a pissy clerk with the law on her side. Hopefully you will talk to someone (eventually) with some sense, but if you do just know that they'd be bending the rule for you (or breaking it); you are in violation of the statute. Originally posted by Versa: Ok, assuming I was actually in violation of the statute. Can they legally prove it? I assume they no longer have the evidence (license) and that without my testimony they could not prove I broke the law. Ooooh I wouldn't go down that path. That's the dark side. Also that's probably the equivalent of saying 'is my car improperly parked now? It's not and it wasn't.' While argueing a parking ticket. Course you can go that route. And we can watch from a distance. While you continue on. Forgetting the fact you just tried to appeal the process and the *Ahem* documents in regards. Including one from you. Will probably just make it even worse for you. A fate by the way will probably gain you little sympathy here on Ars. Though you might get an occassional [Nelson] Ha Ha[/nelson] from the Peanut Gallery. Not that I'm sympathetic to your reasons. And I'm not going to tell you to stop going to the bar. But I will leave you with this. To follow, that might help. You could have pre-paid letters that requests said alchohol establishement (you can fill in the name) to remove your name from any 'Marketing' database. And though I'm not a lawyer I think they have to agree to it. Note they might have another reason. They are doing it. Maybe it's not for marketing but maybe the bars have to do it, to help track originating sale of alchohol to a dui. In case your state holds a bar partly responsible in case a dui incident involves injury/damage and or death. Anyway g'luck and don't follow the dark path. Cuz you'll make baby Yoda cry. Seriously, what are guys thinking? Like maybe we know what fraudulently means? + to the +, with added emphasis due to Emkorial's rather officious sounding delivery. Versa, I think you are just going to have to suffer until this crosses the desk of someone who actually a)Thinks about what they are penalizing you for and compares that to the law, and b)Has sufficient power to get you off the hook. I have no doubt that such a person will exist, but I think the challenge may be in getting your case to that person.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |