Existing law requires the owner of a vehicle of a type required to be registered under the Vehicle Code to submit an application for the original or renewal registration of that vehicle to the Department of Motor Vehicles upon the appropriate form furnished by the department.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 222 (Achadjian) - Vehicle records: confidential home address

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 222 would add specified employees of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the spouses and children of these persons, to the list of persons who may request an additional level of confidentiality from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Fiscal Impact:

• To the extent approximately 4,700 psychiatric technicians, nurse practitioners, health services specialists, and medical directors at DSH and CDCR, and their family members could apply in the first year and/or annually thereafter, accounting for changes to vehicle ownership, the DMV would incur additional staffing costs to process these applications as the system is administered manually, including a significant portion requiring follow-up inquiries. First-year costs are estimated at about $187,000 and ongoing costs of $44,000 (Special Fund*).

• Potential reduction in state and local tolls, parking fees, and fines to the extent that current law makes it difficult for local parking and toll agencies to collect tolls and fines from additional persons protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes.

*Motor Vehicle Account

Background:

Under existing law the residential address of certain public employees and their families are confidential. (Vehicle Code (VC) §§ 1808.4 and 1808.6.)

Existing law states that all residential addresses in any record of the DMV are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as otherwise authorized. (VC § 1808.21.)

Existing law provides that the release of such confidential information is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or by up to one year in county jail. (VC § 1808.45.)

According to the Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of this measure:

Vehicle Code section 1808.4 was added by statute in 1977 to provide confidentiality of home addresses to specified public employees and their families. In 1989, Vehicle Code section 1808.21 was added to make all residence addresses contained within the DMV files confidential. Vehicle Code section 1808.21(a) states the following:

The residence address in any record of the department is confidential and cannot

be disclosed to any person except a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as authorized in Sections 1808.22 or 1808.23.

This section was further amended in 1994 to allow individuals under specific circumstances to request that their entire records be suppressed. Any individual who is the subject of stalking or who is experiencing a threat of death or great bodily injury to his or her person may request their entire record to be suppressed under this section.

Upon suppression of a record, each request for information about that record has to be authorized by the subject of the record or verified as legitimate by other investigative means by the DMV before the information is released.

A record is suppressed for a one-year period. At the end of the one year period, the suppression is continued for a period determined by the department and if the person submits verification acceptable to the department that he or she continues to have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is the subject of stalking or that there exists a threat of death or great bodily injury to his or her person.

DMV has long maintained that all residence addresses are suppressed and only persons authorized by statute can access this information.

Proposed Law:

This bill would add the following persons to those who may request an additional level of confidentiality from the DMV:

• Employees of the CDCR and the DSH specified in Government Code (GC) § 20407, which lists the following classifications of state safety members in forensic facilities: pre-licensed psychiatric technicians, psychiatric technicians, senior psychiatric technicians, nurse practitioners, health services specialists, and medical program directors.

• The spouse or child of a person listed above, regardless of the spouse’s or child’s place of residence.

Related Legislation:

SB 372 (Galgiani) 2015 would have added code enforcement officers, parking control officers, and non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance to the list of persons eligible to enroll in the DMV Confidential Records Program. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this Committee.

AB 2687 (Bocanegra) Chapter 273/2014 allows Licensing Program Analysts from the Department of Social Services to enroll in the DMV Confidential Records Program.

SB 767 (Lieu) 2014 would have added code enforcement officers to those eligible to enroll in the DMV Confidential Records Program. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Transportation.

Over the past 10 years, a number of bills proposing to expand the statutory confidentiality list, including for code enforcement officers, have either failed in committee or have been vetoed.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 222 Hearing Date: June 9, 2015

Subject: Vehicle Records: Confidential Home Address

HISTORY

Source: California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

Prior Legislation: SB 767 (Lieu) (as amended in the Assembly) failed Assembly

Transportation, 2014

AB 2687 (Bocanegra) Chapter 273, Stats. 2014

AB 1270 (Eggman) – failed Assembly Appropriations, 2013

AB 923 (Swanson) – failed Assembly Appropriations, 2009

AB 529 (Lowenthal) – failed Assembly Appropriations, 2009

AB 1958 (Swanson) – failed Assembly Appropriations, 2008

AB 1311 (Berryhill) – not heard Assembly Transportation, 2007

AB 1706 (Strickland) – failed Assembly Transportation, 2005

AB 2012 (Chu) – section amended out of the bill, 2004

AB 130 (Campbell) – not heard Assembly Transportation, 2003

AB 246 (Cox) – not heard Assembly Transportation, 2003

AB 1775 (Ortiz) – no vote in Senate Public Safety, 2002

AB 84 (Hertzberg) – Ch. 809, Stats. 2001

AB 1029 (Oropeza) – Ch. 486, Stats. 2001

AB 151 (Longville) – vetoed, 2000

AB 298 (Battin) – held in Assembly Transportation, 2000

AB 1310 (Granlund) – vetoed, 2000

AB 1358 (Shelley) – Ch. 808, Stats. 2000

AB 1864 (Correa) – held Assembly Appropriations, 2000

SB 171 (Knight) – vetoed, 1998

AB 1941 (Bordonaro) – Ch. 880, Stats. 1996

AB 191(Cannella) – died in Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996

AB 3033 (Baca) – died in Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996

AB 3391 (Ducheny) – never heard, 1996

AB 688 (Frusetta) – died in Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996

AB 1396 (Poochigian) – died in Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure,

1996

AB 1931 (Conroy) – Ch. 77, Stats. 1994

AB 3454 (Speier) – Ch. 395, Stats. 1994

AB 3161 (Frazee) – Ch. 838, Stats. 1994

AB 1268 (Martinez) – Ch. 1268, Stats. 1993

AB 2367 (Polanco) – Ch. 1291, Stats. 1993

SB 274 (Committee on Transportation) – Ch. 1292, Stats. 1993

SB 602 (1992) – Chaptered

AB 1779 (1989) – Chaptered

Support: California College and University Police Chiefs

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to add specified employees of state hospitals and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to those who may request an additional level of confidentiality from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Under existing law the residential addresses of certain public employees and their families are confidential. (Vehicle Code §§ 1808.4 and 1808.6 - began in 1977.)

Existing law states that all residence addresses in any record of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as authorized in section 1808.22 of the Vehicle Code. (Vehicle Code §§ 1808.21 - added in 1989.)

Existing law states that any person may seek suppression of any DMV registration or driver’s license record if he or she can show that he or she is the subject of stalking or a threat of death or great bodily injury. The suppression will be for a period of one year renewable for two more one year periods. (Vehicle Code § 1808.21(d).)

Existing law provides that the home address of specified persons which appear in the records of DMV is confidential upon the request of the person and that it not be disclosed except as specified. (Vehicle Code §§ 1808.4 and 1808.6.)

Existing law provides that the willful, unauthorized disclosure of this information as it relates to specified law enforcement (peace officers, employees of city police departments, and county sheriffs’ offices and their families) that results in the bodily injury to the individual or individuals whose specified information was confidential, is a felony. (Vehicle Code §§ 1808.4.)

Existing law provides that the release of such confidential information, for all other persons specified, is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or by up to one year in a county jail. (Vehicle Code § 1808.45.)

This bill would add the following officers and employees with the Department of State Hospitals and the CDCR: prelicensed psychiatric technician; psychiatric technician; senior psychiatric technician; nurse practitioner; health services specialist and program director-medical, to those who can request an additional layer of confidentiality from the DMV.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,

• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;

• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and

• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

AB 222 would add psychiatric technicians at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and at the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to the list of professions eligible for enhanced confidentiality of home address information stored by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Psychiatric Technicians are the largest classification of direct level of care providers at DHS, which currently operates five state hospitals, and CDCR which operates 33 prisons throughout California.

Currently, nearly every employee classification employed by CDCR is eligible for enhanced confidentiality at DMV with the exception of psychiatric technicians. Furthermore, SDH treats many of the same serious and violent offenders at its facilities, including Sexually Violent Predators at Coalinga State Hospital.

2. Background of DMV Confidentiality

Vehicle Code section 1808.4 was added by statute in 1977 to provide confidentiality of home addresses to specified public employees and their families.

In 1989, Vehicle Code section 1808.21 was added to make all residence addresses contained within the Department of Motor Vehicle files confidential. Vehicle Code section 1808.21(a) states the following:

The residence address in any record of the department is confidential and cannot

be disclosed to any person except a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23.

This section was further amended in 1994 to allow individuals under specific circumstances to request that their entire records be suppressed. Any individual who is the subject of stalking or who is experiencing a threat of death or great bodily injury to his or her person may request their entire record to be suppressed under this section.

Upon suppression of a record, each request for information about that record has to be authorized by the subject of the record or verified as legitimate by other investigative means by the DMV before the information is released.

A record is suppressed for a one-year period. At the end of the one year period, the suppression is continued for a period determined by the department and if the person submits verification acceptable to the department that he or she continues to have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is the subject of stalking or that there exists a threat of death or great bodily injury to his or her person.

DMV has long maintained that all residence addresses are suppressed and only persons authorized by statute can access this information.

Under sections 1808.4 and 1808.6 the home addresses of specific individuals are suppressed and can only be accessed through the Confidential Records Unit of the Department of Motor Vehicles while under section 1808.21, the residence address portion of all individuals’ records are suppressed but can be accessed by a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency or other authorized persons.

3. The Department of Motor Vehicles

There have been a number of bills adding or attempting to add various public employees to the enhanced confidentiality provisions of the Vehicle Code.

According to a Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis for June 11, 1996 of AB 1941 (Bordonaro):

According to a letter dated June 9, 1995 from the Department of Motor Vehicles concerning related measures initially set for hearing last year (AB 191, AB 688,

AB 1396) on this issue, AB 1941 “is just one of four bills slated for the Criminal Procedure Committee hearing on June 13 which seek to include various professions within the category of confidential records that have historically been reserved for law enforcement personnel. When names are added to this special category, they cannot be accessed except through a telephone procedure utilized in one particular file security area in the DMV’s Sacramento headquarters location. Currently, we estimate that this file contains close to half a million individual records which must be manually entered and individually retrieved when access is authorized.

The DMV has stated that approximately 1000 requests for confidentiality of home addresses are made each week. The Confidential Records Unit of the DMV consists of 12 people and only two of these people review these forms to determine whether the individuals requesting confidentiality are in fact qualified to do so.

According to the DMV, a majority of these requests are granted due to the fact that the DMV restricts the release of the request forms to qualifying agencies and individuals only. The Confidential Records Unit of the DMV updated “5900 records in May 1995 and only 273 applications were rejected.”

4. Adding Psychiatric Technicians and Other State Hospital and CDCR Employees

This bill would add the following officers and employees with the Department of State Hospitals and the CDCR: prelicensed psychiatric technician; psychiatric technician; senior psychiatric technician; nurse practitioner; health services specialist and program director-medical to the provision that suppresses residence information that can only then be accessed by the Confidential Records Unit.

The sponsor notes that:

Many psych techs have been threatened and even stalked by paroling inmates and discharged patients. In several cases, the inmate/patients were able to obtain the psych techs home address. This bill provides an extra level of protection to our members from being stalked or harmed by paroled inmates or released patients with a history of mental illness.

In spite of the legitimate concerns about the safety of these state employees, since a member of the public can never access anyone’s information from DMV, is the expansion of those in the additional suppression section, which adds to the workload of DMV, necessary?

5. Similar Legislation

SB 372 (Galgiani) which passed this Committee on April 28, 2015 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. That bill would have added code enforcement officers, parking control officers, non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance (DOI), and the spouses and children of these persons to the list of persons who may request an additional level of confidentiality from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis notes:

• To the extent up to 6,500 code enforcement officers, DOI investigators, parking control officers, and their family members could apply in the first year and/or annually thereafter, accounting for changes to vehicle ownership, the DMV would incur additional staffing costs to process these applications as the system is administered manually, including a significant portion requiring follow-up inquiries. First-year costs are estimated at about $350,000 and ongoing costs of $85,000 (Motor Vehicle Account Special Fund)

• Potential reduction in state and local tolls, parking fees, and fines to the extent that current law makes it difficult for local parking and toll agencies to collect tolls and fines from additional persons protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes.

6. San Diego Union Tribune Editorial

An editorial by Steven Greenhut in the San Diego Union Tribune discussing this bill and SB 372(Galgiani) pointed to a history of questions raised by the expanded confidentiality program and whether either bill is even necessary:

Seven years ago, a newspaper investigation found that a little-known state program designed to protect police and judges from the public disclosure of their home addresses had expanded into a massive database of 1.5 million public employees and their family members, few of whom face any on-the-job dangers to merit the protection.

Because of this Confidential Records Program, “Vehicles with protected license plates can run through dozens of intersections controlled by red light cameras and breeze along the 91 toll lanes with impunity,” according to the Orange County Register report. They evade parking citations and even get out of speeding tickets because police officers realize “the drivers are ‘one of their own’ or related to someone who is.”

The whole purpose of the confidential database has long been deemed irrelevant. “State law now bars the DMV from disclosing home addresses for any of its licensees to anyone except for those with legitimate business reasons like financial institutions, insurance companies and toll-road agencies,” reported the Sacramento Bee in a 2010 editorial. The newspaper called on the state to dump this list for “privileged” workers and their kin (Greenhut, Steven, “Growing List Let Workers Snub Traffic Laws” San Diego Union Tribune May 11, 2015 http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/11/legislature-state-workers-confidential-licenses/all/?print)

--END --

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 222

Author:(Achadjian) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes employees of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in specified classifications, and their spouses and children, to enroll in the DMV Confidential Records Program (CRP).

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. About 4,600 employees and their family members would become eligible to enroll in the CRP. Based on the cost estimate for recent, similar legislation that would have made over 100,000 code enforcement officers and their family members eligible, DMV's annual costs to implement AB 222 should be minor (up to $50,000). [Motor Vehicle Account]

2. Potential reduction in state and local tolls, parking fees, fines, to the extent that current law makes it difficult for local parking and toll agencies to collect tolls and fines from additional persons protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Until 1989, DMV records were considered public records, unless state law specifically made them confidential, as was the case for peace officers' addresses. Therefore, until 1989, home addresses were not considered confidential, and any person who gave a reason that DMV deemed legitimate, and could present to DMV a person's driver's license number or license plate number, could obtain address information on that individual. In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and killed. The murderer obtained her address from a private investigation agency doing business in Arizona. The private investigation agency acquired her address through a subcontractor agent in California, who obtained it from DMV. In response, the Legislature enacted AB 1779 (Roos)/Chapter 1213 of 1989, which made everyone's home addresses in DMV records confidential, except under limited circumstances.
   
   

Under current law, over 20 classes of persons, primarily those in law enforcement fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, may request that their home addresses be held confidential by DMV. The home address of these persons may only be disclosed to a court, a law enforcement agency, the state Board of Equalization (BOE), or any governmental agency legally required to be furnished that information. For all other individuals, home addresses contained within DMV records are confidential and may only be disclosed with the same exceptions as for the classes of persons above, plus limited disclosure for financial institutions, insurance companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical research.

2. Purpose. AB 222 adds certain employees of the DSH and CDCR, including psychiatric technicians, to the list of those eligible to request that DVM hold their addresses confidential via the CRP. According to the sponsor, the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, while most employees of CDCR are already eligible for the CRP, psychiatric technicians are not. In addition, DSH, which also employs psychiatric technicians, treats many of the same serious and violent offenders as CDCR at its facilities. The author and sponsor state that many psychiatric technicians have been threatened and even stalked by paroling inmates and discharged patients, and in several cases the inmate or patient was able to obtain a psychiatric technician's home address.
   
   

3. Prior Legislation. Over the past 12 years, several bills proposing to expand the statutory confidentiality list have either died or have been vetoed. The one exception was AB 2687 (Bocanegra)/Chapter 273 of 2014, which added licensing program analysts within the Department of Social Services. As with AB 222, AB 2687 involved a relatively small cohort, and its costs were minor.
   
   

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 222

Author:(Achadjian) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2015

SUBJECT: Vehicle records: confidential home address

SUMMARY: Adds certain employees of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the list of persons who can request that their home address be held confidential by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Lists 23 classes of persons, primarily in law enforcement fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, that may request that their home addresses be held confidential by DMV. The home addresses of these persons may only be disclosed to a court; a law enforcement agency; the State Board of Equalization (BOE); an attorney in a civil or criminal action who demonstrates to a court the need for the home address, if the disclosure is made pursuant to a subpoena; and any governmental agency legally required to be furnished the information.

2. Makes confidential the home addresses of all individuals contained within DMV records. These provisions similarly allow for disclosure to courts, law enforcement agencies, and other governmental agencies, but also allow for limited disclosure to financial institutions, insurance companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical research.

3. Grants DMV the authority to suppress all records for at least one year for persons who are under threat of death or bodily injury. Under these circumstances, the entire record, including the address, is rendered inaccessible.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Until 1989, DMV records were considered public records unless state law specifically made them confidential, as was the case for the addresses of peace officers and certain other officials thought to be at risk. Because home addresses were not considered confidential, any person who gave a reason that DMV deemed legitimate and could present to DMV a person's driver's license number or license plate number could obtain address information on that individual.

In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and killed. The murderer obtained her address from a private investigation agency doing business in Arizona. The private investigation agency acquired her address through a subcontractor agent in California, who obtained it from DMV. In response, the Legislature enacted AB 1779 (Roos), Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989, which made all home addresses in DMV records confidential, with limited exceptions. AB 1779 left in place existing confidentiality provisions that applied only to peace officers and certain other officials. The list of those to whom the pre-AB 1779 confidentiality provisions apply, generally referred to as the confidential records program (CRP), now includes 23 classes of persons. DMV is not aware of any instances since the implementation of AB 1779 where confidential home address information has been used for physical harm or for violent criminal purposes.

AB 222 proposes to add certain employees of the DSH and CDCR, including psychiatric technicians, to the list of those persons eligible to request that DVM hold their addresses confidential via the CRP. According to the sponsor, the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, while most employees of CDCR are already eligible for the CRP, psychiatric technicians are not. In addition, DSH, which also employs psychiatric technicians, treats many of the same serious and violent offenders as CDCR at its facilities. The author and sponsor state that many psychiatric technicians have been threatened and even stalked by paroling inmates and discharged patients, and in several cases the inmate or patient was able to obtain a psychiatric technician's home address.

Given that DMV records are universally confidential, with limited exceptions, and the fact that DMV is not aware of any instances since the implementation of AB 1779 in which DMV home address information has been used for physical harm or for violent criminal purposes, the need for this bill is unclear. While it may appear that the CRP provides a greater level of confidentiality than is available to the general public, functionally the level of confidentiality is the same. People seeking confidential information about others generally do not look to DMV records for personal data since those records are so carefully protected and the same information is much more easily obtainable via the internet and social media. While there is no doubt that many state employees, including psychiatric technicians, work with potentially dangerous populations and have faced serious threats as a result of their work, there is no reason to believe adding them to the list of persons eligible for the CRP will afford them a greater level of protection.

Prior legislation: Over the past 12 years, there have been a number of bills proposing to expand the list of those eligible to apply for the CRP, only one of which was chaptered, including:

AB 2687 (Bocanegra), Chapter 273, Statutes of 2014, added Licensing Program Analysts with the Department of Social Services to the list.

SB 767 (Lieu) of 2014, would have added code enforcement officers and would have required eligible persons requesting confidentiality for their spouse or child to disclose whether the spouse or child had been convicted of a crime and or was on mandatory supervision or post release community supervision at the time of the request for confidentiality. SB 767 was referred to this committee but was not heard at the request of the author.

AB 1270 (Eggman) of 2013, would have added code enforcement officers and their spouses and children. AB 1270 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.

AB 923 (Swanson) of 2009, would have added BOE members, code enforcement officers, and certain veterinarians. AB 923 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.

AB 592 (Lowenthal) of 2009, would have added BOE staff who are designated to exercise limited peace officer authority and duties. AB 592 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.

AB 1958 (Swanson) of 2008, would have added firefighters, code enforcement officers, and certain veterinarians. AB 1958 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.

AB 1311 (Berryhill) of 2007, would have added community service and public service officers employed by police departments. AB 1311 was referred to this committee but was not heard at the request of the author.

AB 1706 (Strickland) of 2005, would have added fraud investigators, park rangers, emergency dispatchers, and DMV employees who test new drivers. AB 1706 was referred to this committee but was not heard at the request of the author.

AB 2012 (Chu) of 2004, would have added court-appointed attorneys, their investigators, and social workers assigned to child abuse cases. These provisions were eventually amended out of the bill.

AB 130 (Campbell) of 2003 and AB 246 (Cox) of 2003, both bills would have added members of Congress. Both bills were referred to this committee but neither was heard.

Other legislative efforts have aimed to address program and public safety abuses associated with the CRP. For example, AB 3 (Miller) of 2011 and AB 2097 (Miller) of 2010 would have required CRP participants to update their records in order improve the ability to identify toll evaders. AB 3 was held on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and
AB 2097 was held on the suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Additionally,
SB 938 (Huff), Chapter 280, Statutes of 2010, removed CRP confidentiality protections for certain individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (Sponsor)

California College and University Police Chiefs

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093