BILL ANALYSIS
AB 923
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 923 (Swanson) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill adds Board of Equalization members, zoo veterinarians,
employees of certain animal control shelters, and code
enforcement officers, to the list of peace officers and other
public officials who may request the DMV to provide enhanced
confidentiality to their home addresses.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Direct one time cost of up to $75,000 (for one additional
position) to DMV to modify its public official confidentiality
process and to add several hundred names to the
confidentiality list (Motor Vehicle Account).
2)Significant cost pressure - potentially exceeding several
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Numerous groups are
currently seeking enhanced confidentiality status. Passage of
this bill would create considerable pressure for the
Legislature to approve the enhanced status to potentially tens
of thousands of individuals in various occupational groups.
3)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 those protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes
(see discussion below).
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The sponsor of this bill contends that BOE
members, in rendering decisions regarding tax issues, could be
AB 923
Page 2
faced with challenges to their personal safety as a result of
those decisions. Similarly, veterinarians may face threats by
virtue of their euthanization of captured animals for public
safety reasons or their reporting of suspected dog fights.
Supporters also point out that code enforcement officers have
been murdered in the line of duty over the past several years.
2)Background . Until 1989, DMV records were generally considered
public records and any person who had a legitimate reason to
seek a home address of a particular person in the DMV files
could obtain it simply by producing the relevant driver's
license number or a license plate number. In 1986,
legislation was enacted creating a list of public officials
whose home addresses were to be kept confidential by the DMV.
Under this legislation, the home addresses of peace officers
and others on the statutory list may only be disclosed to a
court, a law enforcement agency, the BOE, or any governmental
agency legally required to be furnished that information. As a
matter of practice, DMV records for these individuals only
show the individual's employer's address. Home addresses may
be retrieved only through a time consuming manual process.
The original list of persons whose home addresses are to be
kept confidential by the DMV, included the Attorney General
and Department of Justice attorneys, the State Public Defender
and deputy defenders, members of the Legislature, judges or
court commissioners, district attorneys and their deputies,
public defenders, and peace officers and their families.
Since then, the list has expanded to encompass tens of
thousands of other public employees and their families.
In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and killed by a
man who obtained her address through a private investigator
who, in turn, obtained her address from the DMV. In response
to this murder, the Legislature enacted AB 1779 (Roos) -
Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989, which made confidential the
home addresses of all individuals with records at the DMV.
The level of confidentiality is similar to that enjoyed by
public officials protected by the 1986 legislation, except
that disclosures may also be made, in limited circumstances,
to financial institutions, insurance companies, attorneys,
vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical research.
Despite the fact that all home addresses are kept confidential
by the DMV, the Legislature has considered and enacted several
AB 923
Page 3
bills since 1990 adding select categories of persons to the
public official confidentiality process.
3)Opposition . The DMV opposes expansion of the enhanced
confidentiality statutes, stating that, given current
protection afforded in law to everyone, such legislation is
not necessary. DMV also contends that (a) adding new
categories will encourage a proliferation of requests from
other occupational group to be included, and (b)
administration of the program is a manual, labor intensive
process and due to the state's fiscal situation and current
furlough program, the resources of the DMV are very limited.
4)Other concerns . A recent investigation by the Orange County
Register revealed thousands of unpaid violations and tolls
accrued by a number of peace officers and other individuals
whose DMV records are afforded enhanced confidentiality.
These unpaid tolls and fines cost agencies in Orange County
over $5 million over the past five years. Parking and toll
agencies throughout the state, including those in San Diego
and San Francisco, have experienced similar abuses. When
parking agencies or toll road operators (who are not exempted
from the enhanced confidentiality statutes) attempt to collect
fines from such individuals, DMV is precluded from providing
the information under the special confidentiality statutes,
and the agencies must then seek information through a request
from law enforcement agencies. Given these hurdles and
statutes of limitations, local agencies have been precluded
from collecting fines and tolls. AB 996 (Spitzer), of 2008,
would have addressed this situation by allowing toll and
parking enforcement agencies access to records of those
covered by the special confidentiality statutes, was vetoed by
the Governor last year.
5)Alternative Action . Since the enactment of AB 1779 in 1989
eliminates the need for the separate home address
confidentiality protections afforded to public officials and
employees under Vehicle Code sections 1808.2, 1808.4, and
1808.6, a more appropriate course of action would be to repeal
these three outdated sections. Most persons seeking
confidential information about others no longer even look to
DMV records for the data since those records are so carefully
protected and much more easily obtainable via the internet.
DMV is not aware of any instance since the enactment of AB
1779 where DMV home address information has been used for a
AB 923
Page 4
criminal purpose.
6)Similar legislation . This bill is similar to AB 1958
(Swanson), introduced in 2008. That bill was held on this
committee's suspense file. AB 592 (Lowenthal), also before
this committee today, would extend enhanced DMV
confidentiality to Board of Equalization investigators.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081