Driver's License Requirement continued...

I have obtained some additional information about the statute requirement for signatures on affidavits about sexual offender regulations. See previous post here.

This appears to be the part of the statute that gives DMV the authority to request the affidavit. (1) If the Division finds that the person is currently registered as a sex offender in another state, the Division shall not issue a drivers license to the person until the person submits proof of registration pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes issued by the sheriff of the county where the person resides.(2) If the person does not appear on the National Sex Offender Public Registry, the Division shall issue a drivers license but shall require the person to sign an affidavit acknowledging that the person has been notified that if the person is a sex offender, then the person is required to register pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.(3) If the Division is unable to access all states' information contained in the National Sex Offender Public Registry, but the person is otherwise qualified to obtain a drivers license, then the Division shall issue the drivers license but shall first require the person to sign an affidavit stating that: (i) the person does not appear on the National Sex Offender Public Registry and (ii) acknowledging that the person has been notified that if the person is a sex offender, then the person is required to register pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. The Division shall search the National Sex Offender Public Registry for the person within a reasonable time after access to the Registry is restored. If the person does appear in the National Sex Offender Public Registry, the person is in violation of G.S. 20-30, and the Division shall immediately revoke the drivers license and shall promptly notify the sheriff of the county where the person resides of the offense.

I have lived in Raleigh for over five years. DMV had no reason whatsoever to request that I sign that form. Their systems were up and running when I was renewing my license.

It is my belief that if one is a convicted sexual offender he/she is the only one who should be subjected to any requirements of registering. The existing laws already cover this.

I do not believe that it is my duty to proclaim that I am not a sexual offender, or even be asked to sign a statement that I know what the law is. This requirement opens up the possibility that any government agency may be assigned to notify any citizen who goes to a government office of various laws or statutes. The citizen could be required to sign that he knew of a particular law and it may have nothing to do with the agency involved or his reason for going to a particular office.

Every law abiding citizen's rights are violated with this "assumption of guilt". I also maintain that this is not equal treatment due to the fact that every person who moves to North Carolina is not required to go to DMV and sign any document of this sort.

Unfortunately, it looks like we have senators and representatives who make laws with no regards to the rights of their constituencies. I will let them know why this statute needs to be repealed.

NC Senators vote to give sheriffs access to pharmacy records

In today's newspaper, an Associated Press article reports that North Carolina Senators approved a bill to allow the county sheriffs to review pharmacy records while investigating illegal use or sale of prescription drugs. Sheriffs could share the information with other law offices and federal SBI agents. I have sent an email to every state senator, representative and to the governor on my thoughts on this bill. I also wrote a letter to the News & Observer.

I am beginning to wonder if we have a single public official who realizes what their job really is.

Anyway, here is a close variation of the letters that I sent to our public officials.

"From my understanding of Senate Bill 4 (= H745), it appears that a sheriff or any other federal or SBI agent may review pharmacy records without anyone appearing before a judge or magistrate to determine that a search warrant is justified. I understand your desire to catch those illegally obtaining and selling drugs. But no one should be privy to such information without a search warrant. Medical records include information that is considered the most private personal information by most citizens.

When broad sweeps are done of reviewing pharmacy records without probable cause and a judge or magistrate has not authorized these searches, then everyone who is innocent has been stepped on. It does not matter that the authorities do not share the information with anyone except other law enforcement officials. It is wrong that anyone should be able to get this information without just cause.

I shall be sending this letter to the newspaper and to all of my representatives. I ask that you consider the consequences of this bill when it crosses your desk."