A woman recently visited a local DMV branch to notify them of a change of address and requested an updated driver's license to indicate as such. What she got was much more than she bargained for.

When Sylvia English, 39, single, and no children, went to the East Asheville branch of the NC Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to update her driver's license she did not realize that she needed her social security card. Upon finding out, English says she vocalized her disapproval to the DMV examiner.

The examiner explained to her that all applicants seeking a driver's license, regardless of their record, are to provide their social security number as mandated by President Clinton's Executive Order 13019, issued on Sept. 28, 1996, supposedly designed to keep track of 'dead-beat' parents.

English did not have her social security card with her, so she had to return the next day with it. Upon English's second examination with the E. Asheville DMV, she claims she was asked questions which were agitating to her. English said DMV Examiner Creasman asked her in depth questions about her physical health, mental health, and if she was registered to vote.

Examiner Creasman abruptly ceased communication when contacted by The Asheville Tribune. However, Examiner Hyder from the West Asheville branch said that the DMV is required to ask all applicants if they suffer from any health problems. If the examiner is not too busy, Hyder said there is a list of specific questions regarding someone's health, as it relates to their ability to drive, that an examiner can choose to ask the applicant. Therefore, according to Hyder, it is not odd that Creasman asked English these questions.

Regardless, English says she answered all of the questions and provided all information and identification that was asked of her by Examiner Creasman. Though, she admits that she did so with obvious disgust because she felt the questioning to be invasive, and, after all, she only wanted to change her address.

Creasman granted English the updated license, but not without a hitch. On May 7, English received a letter from DMV officials in Raleigh instructing her to complete and return a ten-page medical evaluation within 30 days or else her license would be canceled due to a medical incapacity to drive safely.

Furthermore, completion of the report requires that she provide her signature. But the only place on the entire form that allows for English's signature succeeds the following paragraph:

"I hereby authorize Dr. ______________ to give any examination he deems necessary for the purpose of determining my physical fitness to operate a motor vehicle. I also authorize any other physicians who attended me, or any hospital or clinic in which I have been examined or treated, to give the Division of Motor Vehicles or its representative any information they m> request concerning my condition. I understand this authorization includes permission for this information to be reviewed by a panel of unidentified physicians for the purpose giving the Division a medical opinion on my case.

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT__________________"

English says she considers herself an 'open' person and has no problem allowing her doctor to conduct a physical exam to determine if she can drive a car safely. What English adamantly objects to is giving the DMV access to her entire medical history, to be freely scrutinized by a 'panel of unidentified physicians.'

When Examiner Hyder was asked if he would sign such a report, authorizing the DMV to view his complete medical history, he responded, "I would have no problem signing the medical report if I didn't have anything to hide."

English says she doesn't have anything to hide. According to English, she has no insurance points, has not been in an accident, and in 33 years of driving, has received only one ticket - a DUI in 1993. She received the required physical from her doctor, but she feels the DMV's evaluation is unreasonably invasive and unjust, and she does not understand why she must grant them permission to secretly peer into her entire life. Incidentally, the page requiring the signature also has an unidentified bar-code at the bottom.

Hyder explained that DMV appointed physicians who study an applicant's medical report are to remain unidentified to protect themselves from any possible danger in case they determine an applicant is unfit to have a driver's license. He guessed that the bar-code is probably a way to keep track of a person's file.

Legal expert Tim Hanley said he would not sign the form and added that he would look into suing the DMV examiner who recommended the medical report for deprivation of rights, Title 42, Section 1983 (Rights to Privacy). Hanley suggests that Creasman may be violating English's right in this regard since she has not committed an infraction and has not given Creasman nor the DMV a reason to issue the medical report.

But did English give Creasman a reason to recommend a DMV evaluation? According to Hyder, N.C. statutes 20-29.1 require a DMV examiner to request a medical evaluation if they are given any reason to question an applicant's ability to drive safely.

"The power given to (the examiner) from a five minute evaluation is not right," English said.

Hanley posed the question, "What makes this guy a medical authority?"

Wayne Herder, Director of Driver's License Certification for N.C. responded, "Our examiners are trained to look for any indication that would determine whether this driver is unsafe."

When English was asked why she thought the DMV questioned her ability to drive, she responded, "I'm not sure. I was in dirty clothes, made fun of certain things, and was effervescent." She admitted to being somewhat belligerent at the notion of answering some of Creasman's questions, which she believed infringed upon her privacy, but said she cooperated anyway.

Herder stated that the examiner must have a good reason to recommend an extensive evaluation for English. "I'd be very surprised if an examiner requested a medical report form out of spite. It has not happened, that I know of, in the five years I've been director."

Is English incapacitated in some way, physically, that would prevent her from driving safely? Her doctor does not think so. According to the exam, English has perfect eye sight and hearing, sound muscle control and reflexes, complete use of all her extremities, and suffers from no impairment or disorders to speak of.

And what about English's mental stability? According to long-time acquaintance Dr. Emir Neshat, "She's very reliable. If she has any mental health problems I don't know about it, and I've known her for at least fifteen years." Neshat goes on to say, "She is a very independent person and objects to prying. She's well-read and politically aware and that frightens some people."

Judy Whitley has known English for ten years and says that English is probably smarter than most and drives better than most of the people she knows. She adds that if English is deficient in any way then it is an intolerance for incompetence.

So, why is it the responsibility of a perfectly capable driver, with an almost flawless driving record, to prove to the DMV their ability to drive safely, and not the DMV's responsibility to prove that the driver is unsafe?

"Because under state law, driving is a privilege, not a right, and it's the state's job to ensure that drivers are capable," Herder stated.

Hanley confirmed that Herder's statement is correct. He explained that the only way a U.S. citizen could operate an automobile without a license would be to have no title (because a car title actually gives the state ownership of the car), remove the vehicle identification number and report to the state that there is a total loss. In that case, Hanley says someone could make the argument that the vehicle is their personal property used to exercise one's pursuit of happiness.

In questioning English's capability to drive, Herder said that the DMV examiner must give reasons why, in addition to answering a series of specific questions related to the applicant's ability to drive. However, only the particular applicant can request that information, and the examiner's evaluation of English was unavailable as of press time.

Meanwhile, time is dwindling for English, who agreed to the physical but refuses to give her signature to anything more. English says she is considering establishing residence in Tennessee so that she may attain a Tennessee driver's license. However, Hyder said that English would have to get a Tennessee license before the 30 days were up and when it came time for renewal she would be denied no matter what state she was in.

Copyright 1999
The Asheville Tribune.