(1)Existing law prohibits the disclosure of the home addresses of certain public employees and officials that appear in records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, except to a court, a law enforcement agency, an attorney in a civil or criminal action under certain circumstances, and certain other official entities.

This bill would extend that prohibition, subject to those same exceptions, to the disclosure of the home addresses of investigators employed by the Department of Insurance, code enforcement officers, as defined, and parking control officers, as specified.

(2)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 362 (Galgiani) - Department of Motor Vehicles: records: confidentiality

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

Bill Summary:

SB 362 would add code enforcement officers, parking control officers, non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance (DOI), as well as their spouses and children, to the list of persons who may request an additional level of confidentiality from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Fiscal Impact:

• DMV estimates first-year costs of approximately $360,000 and ongoing costs of approximately $90,000 to handle manual data entry processing of confidentiality requests within the Confidential Records Unit. (Motor Vehicle Account)
  
• 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.

Background:

Existing law specifies that the residential addresses of certain public employees, as well as the spouses and children of those persons, that are contained in DMV records are confidential, if the qualified person requests confidentiality of that information. (Vehicle Code (VC) §§ 1808.4 and 1808.6.)

Existing law states that all residence addresses in any DMV record are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as otherwise authorized under specified circumstances. (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 confidentiality of a home address that appears in DMV records:

• A code enforcement officer, as specified.
• A parking control officer employed by a city, county, or city and county, university, college, public hospital, public airport, special district, or other public agency to monitor and enforce state laws and ordinances related to parking.
• An investigator employed by the Department of Insurance.
• The spouse or child of a person listed above, regardless of the spouse’s or child’s place of residence.

Related Legislation:

Both SB 1131 (Galgiani), which was held on this Committee’s Suspense File in 2016, and SB 372 (Galgiani), which was held on this Committee’s Suspense File in 2015, were identical to this measure. SB 372 was subsequently amended to address an unrelated subject, but never heard in its amended form.

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

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

Over the past 20 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.

Staff Comments:

DMV indicates that it would incur one-time costs of approximately $360,000 and ongoing costs of approximately $90,000 as a result of this bill, based on an estimated 9,400 code enforcement officers, DOI investigators, parking control officers, and their family members who could apply for home address confidentiality protections. DMV segregates protected home address information within its Confidential Records Unit and records must be manually entered and individually retrieved when access is authorized or when records are updated.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 362 Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

Subject: Department of Motor Vehicles: Records: Confidentiality

HISTORY

Source: California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

Prior Legislation: SB 1131 (Galgiani) Held Senate Appropriations 2016

SB 372 (Galgiani) 2015 this version held in Senate Appropriations

SB 767 (Lieu) (as amended in the Assembly) failed Assembly

Transportation, 2014

AB 2687 (Bocanegra) Ch. 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 Department of Insurance

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to add code enforcement officers, parking control officers and non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance 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 code enforcement officers, parking enforcement officers and non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance to those who can request an additional layer of confidentiality from the DMV.

COMMENT

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Existing law prohibits the disclosure of the home addresses of certain public employees and officials that appear in records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, except to a court, a law enforcement agency, an attorney in a civil or criminal action under certain circumstances. The home addresses of everyone else may be disclosed, in limited circumstances, to financial institutions, insurance companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical research.

This bill will extend the option for a Code Enforcement Officer, Parking Control Officers and Non-Sworn Investigators at the Department of Insurance to enroll in the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) confidentiality protections, specifically to protect their home addresses.

Code enforcement officers are on the front line of code compliance, and sometimes drug trafficking and gang-related enforcement efforts in local governments and are frequently required to deal with hostile, non-compliant persons. It is not uncommon for citizens to become angry when a Code Enforcement Officer takes action to enforce regulations as they see it as an unnecessary intrusion of their private property.

Ironically, if a Code Enforcement Officer or Parking Enforcement Officer is employed under their local police department, their information will fall under the DMV confidentiality requirement.

Parking control officers also face clear and present danger in the fulfillment of their job duties and have received credible threats and have been victims of physical assaults.

Non-sworn investigators at the Department of Insurance regularly conduct investigations of licensees and non-licensees which may result in administrative action. About 50-60% of their cases is criminal casework, and so these investigators have frequent contact with those involved with criminal activity. Many times these investigations result in license revocation or possible incarceration and therefore there is a potential for violence or retribution.

These Investigators should be afforded the same protections from potential retaliation.

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.”

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 362 Hearing Date: 4/18/2017

SUBJECT: Department of Motor Vehicles: records: confidentiality.

DIGEST: This bill adds Department of Insurance investigators, code enforcement officers, and parking control officers to the list of categories for which the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) must hold home addresses confidential.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any residence address in any DMV record is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, as specified. Authorizes a financial institution, insurance company, and specified other parties licensed to do business in California, to request an individual’s record from DMV if it has obtained a waiver from the individual.
2. Authorizes an individual to 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, a death threat, or a threat of great bodily injury. The suppression shall be for a period of one year and renewable for two additional one-year periods.
3. Requires the home addresses of specified individuals, including peace officers, members of the Legislature, and nearly two dozen other specified categories, which appear in DMV records to remain confidential upon request of the individual. Provides that this information shall not be disclosed except to a court, a law enforcement agency, the State Board of Equalization, an attorney in a civil or criminal action as specified, or a government agency.
4. Provides that the willful, unauthorized disclosure of confidential DMV information for specified law enforcement individuals that results in the bodily injury to that individual or those individuals, is a felony.
5. Provides that the release of such confidential information, for all other persons is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or by up to one year in a county jail.

This bill adds the following individuals to the existing law prohibition on disclosure of the home addresses in the DMV records of certain public employees and officials:

1. An investigator employed by the Department of Insurance.
2. A code enforcement officer, as specified.
3. A parking control officer employed by a city, county, city and county, university, college, public hospital, public airport, special district, or other public agency to monitor and enforce state laws and ordinances relating to parking.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author states that code enforcement officers are on the front line of code compliance, and sometimes drug trafficking and gang-related enforcement efforts, and are frequently required to deal with hostile, non-compliant individuals. Parking control officers also face clear and present danger in the fulfillment of their job duties and have received credible threats and have been the victims of physical assaults. Non-sworn investigators at the Department of Insurance regularly conduct investigations of licensees and non-licensees which may result in administrative action and/or criminal charges. These investigators should be afforded the same protections from potential retaliation. Their jobs put them at risk every day and could potentially put both them and their families in danger. This bill will classify their information as confidential, a protection that already exists for Licensing Registration Examiners at DMV, Museum Security Officers, Licensing Program Analysts at the Department of Social Services, and police dispatchers, to name a few.
2. Background on existing law. In 1977, the Legislature passed legislation to provide confidentiality of home addresses to specified public employees and their families. Aside from those individuals, DMV records were considered public records. In 1989, actress Rebecca Shaeffer was stalked and murdered. The murderer obtained her address from an out-of-state private investigation agency, who had obtained the address through a state subcontractor, who had obtained it from the DMV. In response, the Legislature passed AB 1779 (Roos, Chapter 1213, 1989), which required the DMV to make addresses in DMV records confidential. The DMV is unaware of any instances since 1989 in which DMV home address information has been used for physical harm or for violent criminal purposes.
3. The Volpe case. The author states that eight code enforcement officers have been murdered in the line of duty, and many others have been the victim of physical assaults and/or have received threats aimed at themselves or their families. The author cites the example of the murder of Code Enforcement Officer Cynthia Volpe in Bakersfield on August 19, 1992. Volpe, along with her husband and mother, were murdered in their home by Robert Courtney, to whom she had issued a citation. The author states that subsequent evidence revealed that Courtney had located Volpe by accessing DMV records. News articles about the murders indicated that certain parties involved “believed” that Courtney had accessed DMV records, but did not indicate that there was any evidence that DMV access had occurred.
4. Does this bill really solve the problem? Existing law requires the DMV to hold residence addresses confidential, with specified exceptions for courts, law enforcement agencies, or other specified government agencies. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a random individual contacting the DMV to obtain another individual’s home address. As stated in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis of SB 767 of 2014 (see Comment #5 below), “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.” For example, it is relatively simple to find a home address online for an individual who has purchased a home in California.
5. Trying again…and again. Many similar bills have failed passage in the Legislature just since 2000, including the following.
6. SB 1131 (Galgiani, 2016) — which was nearly identical to this bill, was held on suspense in Senate Appropriations.
7. SB 372 (Galgiani, 2015) — which was also nearly identical to this bill, was also held on suspense in Senate Appropriations (the bill was later amended to a different subject).
8. SB 767 (Lieu, 2014) — which applied only to code enforcement officers, died in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
9. AB 1270 (Eggman, 2013) — which also applied only to code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
10. AB 923 (Swanson, 2009) — which applied to veterinarians employed by a zoo or animal shelter as specified, as well as constitutional officers of the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
11. AB 592 (B. Lowenthal, 2009) — which would have applied to certain BOE employees, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
12. AB 1958 (Swanson, 2008) — which would have applied to veterinarians employed by a zoo or animal shelter as specified, as well as firefighters and code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
13. AB 1864 (Correa, 2000) — would have applied to certain police and sheriff’s department employees, died in Assembly Appropriations.
14. Successful efforts. Several bills addressing confidentiality of home addresses have been passed by the Legislature since 2000.
15. AB 2687 (Bocanegra, Chapter 273 of 2014) included Licensing Program Analysts at the Department of Social Services in confidentiality protections.
16. AB 84 (Hertzberg, Chapter 809 of 2001) included trial court employees and psychiatric social workers in confidentiality protections.
17. AB 1029 (Oropeza, Chapter 486 of 2001) included specified police and sheriff’s department employees in confidentiality protections.
18. Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

Related Legislation:

SB 1311 (Glazer, Chapter 889, 2016) — requires DMV to discontinue holding the home address of the child or spouse of a specified public safety employee confidential if the child or spouse is convicted of a felony in California or a crime in another state that would be a felony in California.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

April 12, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

Association of Deputy District Attorneys

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Department of Insurance

California Narcotic Officers Association

County of San Diego

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Riverside Sheriff’s Association

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

Senator Jim Beall, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 362 Hearing Date: 4/4/2017

SUBJECT: Department of Motor Vehicles: records: confidentiality

DIGEST: This bill adds Department of Insurance investigators, code enforcement officers, and parking control officers to the list of categories for which the state department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) must hold home addresses confidential.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that any residence address in any DMV record is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, as specified. Authorizes a financial institution, insurance company, and specified other parties licensed to do business in California, to request an individual’s record from DMV if it has obtained a waiver from the individual.
2. Authorizes an individual to 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, a death threat, or a threat of great bodily injury. The suppression shall be for a period of one year and renewable for two additional one-year periods.
3. Requires the home addresses of specified individuals, including peace officers, members of the Legislature, and nearly two dozen other specified categories, which appear in DMV records to remain confidential upon request of the individual. Provides that this information shall not be disclosed except to a court, a law enforcement agency, the State Board of Equalization, an attorney in a civil or criminal action as specified, or a government agency.
4. Provides that the willful, unauthorized disclosure of confidential DMV information for specified law enforcement individuals that results in the bodily injury to that individual or those individuals, is a felony.
5. Provides that the release of such confidential information, for all other persons is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or by up to one year in a county jail.

This bill adds the following individuals to the existing law prohibition on disclosure of the home addresses in the DMV records of certain public employees and officials:

1. An investigator employed by the Department of Insurance.
2. A code enforcement officer, as specified.
3. A parking control officer employed by a city, county, city and county, university, college, public hospital, public airport, special district, or other public agency to monitor and enforce state laws and ordinances relating to parking.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author states that code enforcement officers are on the front line of code compliance, and sometimes drug trafficking and gang-related enforcement efforts, and are frequently required to deal with hostile, non-compliant individuals. Parking control officers also face clear and present danger in the fulfillment of their job duties and have received credible threats and have been the victims of physical assaults. Non-sworn investigators at the Department of Insurance regularly conduct investigations of licensees and non-licensees which may result in administrative action and/or criminal charges. These investigators should be afforded the same protections from potential retaliation. Their jobs put them at risk every day and could potentially put both them and their families in danger. This bill will classify their information as confidential, a protection that already exists for Licensing Registration Examiners at DMV, Museum Security Officers, Licensing Program Analysts at the Department of Social Services, and police dispatchers, to name a few.
2. Background on existing law. In 1977, the Legislature passed legislation to provide confidentiality of home addresses to specified public employees and their families. Aside from those individuals, DMV records were considered public records. In 1989, actress Rebecca Shaeffer was stalked and murdered. The murderer obtained her address from an out-of-state private investigation agency, who had obtained the address through a state subcontractor, who had obtained it from the DMV. In response, the Legislature passed AB 1779 (Roos, Chapter 1213, 1989), which required the DMV to make addresses in DMV records confidential. The DMV is unaware of any instances since 1989 in which DMV home address information has been used for physical harm or for violent criminal purposes.
3. The Volpe case. The author states that eight code enforcement officers have been murdered in the line of duty, and many others have been the victim of physical assaults and/or have received threats aimed at themselves or their families. The author cites the example of the murder of Code Enforcement Officer Cynthia Volpe in Bakersfield on August 19, 1992. Volpe, along with her husband and mother, were murdered in their home by Robert Courtney, to whom she had issued a citation. The author states that subsequent evidence revealed that Courtney had located Volpe by accessing DMV records. News articles about the murders indicated that certain parties involved “believed” that Courtney had accessed DMV records, but did not indicate that there was any evidence that DMV access had occurred.
4. Does this bill really solve the problem? Existing law requires the DMV to hold residence addresses confidential, with specified exceptions for courts, law enforcement agencies, or other specified government agencies. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a random individual contacting the DMV to obtain another individual’s home address. As stated in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis of SB 767 of 2014 (see Comment #5 below), “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.” For example, it is relatively simple to find a home address online for an individual who has purchased a home in California.
5. Trying again…and again. Many similar bills have failed passage in the Legislature just since 2000, including the following.
6. SB 1131 (Galgiani, 2016) — which was nearly identical to this bill, was held on suspense in Senate Appropriations.
7. SB 372 (Galgiani, 2015) — which was also nearly identical to this bill, was also held on suspense in Senate Appropriations (the bill was later amended to a different subject).
8. SB 767 (Lieu, 2014) — which applied only to code enforcement officers, died in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
9. AB 1270 (Eggman, 2013) — which also applied only to code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
10. AB 923 (Swanson, 2009) — which applied to veterinarians employed by a zoo or animal shelter as specified, as well as constitutional officers of the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
11. AB 592 (B. Lowenthal, 2009) — which would have applied to certain BOE employees, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
12. AB 1958 (Swanson, 2008) — which would have applied to veterinarians employed by a zoo or animal shelter as specified, as well as firefighters and code enforcement officers, was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations.
13. AB 1864 (Correa, 2000) — would have applied to certain police and sheriff’s department employees, died in Assembly Appropriations.
14. Successful efforts. Several bills addressing confidentiality of home addresses have been passed by the Legislature since 2000.
15. AB 2687 (Bocanegra, Chapter 273 of 2014) included Licensing Program Analysts at the Department of Social Services in confidentiality protections.
16. AB 84 (Hertzberg, Chapter 809 of 2001) included trial court employees and psychiatric social workers in confidentiality protections.
17. AB 1029 (Oropeza, Chapter 486 of 2001) included specified police and sheriff’s department employees in confidentiality protections.
18. Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

Related Legislation:

SB 1311 (Glazer, Chapter 889, 2016) — requires DMV to discontinue holding the home address of the child or spouse of a specified public safety employee confidential if the child or spouse is convicted of a felony in California or a crime in another state that would be a felony in California.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,

March 29, 2017.)

SUPPORT:

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

Association of Deputy District Attorneys

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California College and University Police Chiefs Association

California Narcotic Officers Association

County of San Diego

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association

Los Angeles Police Protective League

Riverside Sheriff’s Association

OPPOSITION:

None received.

-- END --