When I was a checker, I often got an inadvertent, undetailed look at people’s wallets as they opened them up to pay for their purchase. There was one lady who, unfortunately, had a disfigured face (I’m guessing from a severe burn). When she opened her wallet, I caught a glance at her driver’s license, which had no photo. Instead, there seemed to be a blue box (the backdrop) with black text superimposed on it. I was, and am, rather curious about this, and of course I didn’t ask her personally.
What might this have been? It never occurred to me that exceptions happen with photos such as those used on driver’s licenses. I’m guessing they allowed her immunity from having a photo taken?
Wisconsin exempts the following persons from the requirement of having a photograph on their license document or ID:
Persons suffering from physical disfigurement who do not wish to be photographed.
I’d assume laws are similar for other states, but Wisconsin was the first one to pot up when I typed “photo ID disfigurement” into Yahoo.
I agree with Zagadka. I thought that the whole point of a drivers license was that you check to see that the guy in the picture is the same guy who has the card.
My father for years lived in North Carolina while a legal resident of FL. He was in the military. Anyway, when it came time to renew his license he did it through the mail. FL would send him back a license with a blue box where the photo goes. In the blue box there was writing that said “Valid with out photo or signature”.
This was about ten years ago. Rules may have changed since then.
Not having a photo is a risk and/or inconvenience that the driver/holder has to deal with. So, when you opt to not have a photo - for whatever reason - you assume the risk that goes along with it, and you are responsible for the i.d. card should you lose it, etc.
Don’t assume the risk is on someone else, AND many places require a photo i.d., so if you opt not to have one, they could counter that they don’t give a hoot, you’d better cough up a photo i.d., such as a passport.
The state that issues driver i.d.s and allows non-photo i.d.s accepts that it has to business this way and is willing to deal with the issues that arise out of i.d-ing people and traffic stops.
But if I own a business - say that sells alcohol - and I require a photo I.D., I could assume the position that I don’t give a rat’s ass that YOU chose not to have a photo i.d. You aasumed the problems that may arise - deal with them.
No. The whole point of a driver’s license is to show you have the permission to drive in that state. The use of license for ID came later.
And driver’s licenses didn’t always have photos on them. IIRC, New York didn’t require them until the 80s. (The movie “The Stunt Man” has the line, “Bert was from New York. There’s no photo on the ID.” When the film came out in 1980, that was still the case.)
i have seen several people without a photo on their license. the trend i noticed is that they are all much older, normally above the age of 60. i don’t really see how that could be a problem with alcohol. it’s very obvious that they’re of age.
but some of these people are the same ones that write check id on the backs of their credit cards. that i don’t understand. if some one has their wallet then what’s the point?
Can’t answer about the photo, but if by number you mean one other than your SSN, that’s done on request. Otherwise your SSN is the Drivers License number.
My sister has a driver’s license and a state ID and keeps them in separate places. While it’s illegal in Indiana to have two of either, it’s legal to have one of each.
Thus, when she loses one, it’s very easy to use the other to get a replacement.