Tim Evans

tim.evans@indystar.com

What's the difference between the words HATER and HATERS?

Nothing other than the letter "s" — unless you ask the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

The BMV denied a personalized license plate request for "HATER" but approved one that said "HATERS."

It also denied "SXY" but approved "BIGGSXY." "FOX LIES" was rejected, but "FOX NEWS" was given a thumbs-up. "CNCR SUX" was a no-no, but "WNTR SUX" was A-OK.

Such arbitrary, and unexplainable, action in approving personalized license plate requests was deemed unconstitutional Wednesday by Marion Superior Court Judge James Osborn. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by Greenfield police officer Rodney Vawter, who was denied when he requested to renew a license plate that said "0INK."

Osborn's ruling came down in favor of Vawter and other Hoosier motorists who were denied what the BMV deemed to be "objectionable" or "derogatory" messages on personal plates. The judge said some of the standards the BMV used to assess the appropriateness of personalized license plates were so vague that they violated the First Amendment. He also ruled that the policy had not been properly reviewed and adopted according to state law.

"The First Amendment prevents arbitrary decision making when it comes to expression," said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which represented Vawter and other Hoosiers in the class-action lawsuit. "The court properly recognized that the BMV does not have in place adequate, lawful and constitutional standards to assess personalized license plates."

Falk said Indiana law requires that agency procedures that affect the public as laws do must be published, held up for public comment and reviewed by the attorney general.

BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie said the agency was still reviewing the decision and has not made a decision as to the next steps it would take.

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal complications for the BMV. In a $30 million class-action lawsuit settlement last year, the BMV agreed to repay Hoosiers after overcharging for driver's licenses. Another lawsuit filed in February alleges millions of additional dollars in overcharges. Last year, the agency agreed to restore the specialty plate for the Indiana Youth Group, which supports gay, bisexual, transgender and sexually questioning youths, after a monthslong controversy over whether the state's specialty license plate program was influenced by political pressure.

In the most recent dispute, the agency suspended its personal license plate program in July, about two months after Vawter's lawsuit was filed.

The court order said the former general counsel for the BMV "was unable to explain the seeming inconsistencies in the approval and denial," such as why "HATERS" was approved and "HATER" was rejected. Similarly, the attorney could not say why the BMV denied "JEWJEW" but allowed "BLKJEW."

The court's order said the BMV attorney reported that the reason "could be different people on the committee's opinions."

For three years, Vawter had a license plate that read "0INK," with a zero in place of the letter O, but when he tried to renew it in March 2013, it was rejected.

The lawsuit says Vawter considers the plate's verbal pig snort "an ironic statement of pride in his profession."

"Corporal Vawter selected the phrase '0INK' for his license plate because, as a police officer who has been called 'pig' by arrestees, he thought it was both humorous and also a label that he wears with some degree of pride," the lawsuit states.

The BMV told Vawter the plate was inappropriate and cited a state statute that allows the BMV to refuse to issue a plate that officials believe carries "a connotation offensive to good taste and decency" or "would be misleading."

In his ruling, Osborn ordered the BMV to:

• Immediately reinstate the personalized license plate program.

• Allow Vawter to obtain the "0INK" plate if he reapplies and not deny another plaintiff, Jay Voigt, a plate that says "UNHOLY."

• Properly establish rules for the review of a plate request.

• Inform customers who had a request denied or revoked in the past of the new ruling and how to reapply.

The judge also ordered the BMV to pay attorney fees for the plaintiffs.

Call Star reporter Tim Evans at (317) 444-6204. Follow him on Twitter: @starwatchtim.

Specialty plates

For an extra fee, Hoosier vehicle owners can get a personalized plate that includes up to eight letters and/or numbers. The plates must be renewed each year, and their content also must be approved on an annual basis.

When an application is received, it is automatically checked by a computer against a list of already rejected plates, called an "objectionable" table. If there is a match, the application is automatically denied. If no match is found, the computer generates a report that goes to a BMV committee.

The committee reviews the requests to determine, individually, which ones it thinks are in violation of the policy.

The state's policy cites nine categories that may be prohibited:

• References to sexual acts or eliminatory functions, "including but not limited to breasts, genitalia, the pubic area, and/or buttocks."

• References to, or that suggest, drugs, drug use, alcoholic beverages and paraphernalia.

• References to race, religion, deity, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political party or government entity or official "in a manner that is offensive to good taste and decency."

• Messages deemed defamatory, profane, obscene, vulgar or derogatory.

• Messages that express or suggest violence or endangerment to the public welfare.

• Messages that duplicate another license plate.

• Number and letter combinations that would substantially interfere with plate identification for law enforcement purposes.

• Messages that involve linguistics, numbers, phonetics, translations from foreign languages or upside-down or reverse reading to reference any other prohibited numeric and letter combination.

• Messages that use or refer to a trademark, trade name, service mark, copyright or other proprietary right.

Source: Marion Superior Court ruling