BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
9
3
8
SB 938 (Huff)
As Introduced February 2, 2010
Hearing date: April 13, 2010
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES:
RECORDS: CONFIDENTIALITY
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation: AB 2039 (Arambula) - Chapter 91, Statutes
2008
AB 1706 (Strickland) - not heard in Assm. Trans.
2005
AB 118 (Frommer) - as introduced 2003
AB 130 (Campbell) - not heard in Assm. Trans. 2003
AB 246 (Cox) - not heard in Assm. Trans. 2003
AB 184 (Lowenthal) - Chapter 720, Statutes 2003
AB 1675 (Longville) - Chapter 649, Statutes 2003
AB 84 (Hertzberg) - Chapter 809, Statutes 2001
AB 1029 (Oropeza) - Chapter 486, Statutes 2001
AB 151 (Longville) - vetoed 2000
AB 298 (Battin) - held in Assm. Trans.
2000
AB 1310 (Granlund) - vetoed 2000
AB 1358 (Shelley) - Chapter 808,
Statutes 2000
AB 1864 (Correa) - held Assm.
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageB
Appropriations 2000
SB 171 (Knight) - vetoed 1998
AB 1941 (Bordonaro) - Chapter 880,
Statutes 1996
AB 191(Cannella) - died in Senate
Committee on Criminal Procedure 1996
AB 3033 (Baca) - died in Senate
Committee on Criminal Procedure 1996
AB 3391 (Ducheny) - 1996; never heard
AB 688 (Frusetta) - died, Senate
Committee on Criminal Procedure 1996
AB 1396 (Poochigian) - died, Sen.
Committee on Criminal Procedure 1996
AB 1931 (Conroy) - Chapter 77,
Statutes 1994
AB 3454 (Speier) - Chapter 395,
Statutes 1994
AB 3161 (Frazee) - Chapter 838,
Statutes 1994
AB 1268 (Martinez) - Chapter 1268,
Statutes 1993
AB 2367 (Polanco) - Chapter 1291,
Statutes 1993
SB 274 (Committee on Transportation)
- Chapter 1292, Statutes 1993
SB 602 (1992) - Chaptered
AB 1779 (1989) - Chaptered
Support: San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office; Association for
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California State Sheriffs'
Association
Opposition: None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SPOUSE OR CHILD OF A PERSON WITH ENHANCED DMV
CONFIDENTIALITY NOT BE ABLE TO RETAIN THAT CONFIDENTIALITY IF HE OR
SHE WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND IS ON ACTIVE PAROLE OR PROBATION?
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageC
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to exempt from the enhanced DMV
confidentiality provisions the spouse or child of a listed
person if that spouse or child has been convicted of a crime and
is on active probation or parole.
Existing law provides except where a specific provision of law
prohibits the disclosure of records or information or provides
for confidentiality, all records of the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) relating to the registration of vehicles, other
information contained on an application for a driver's license,
abstracts of convictions, and abstracts of accident reports
required to be sent to DMV in Sacramento, except for abstracts
of accidents where, in the opinion of a reporting officer,
another individual was at fault, shall be open to public
inspection during office hours. All abstracts of accident
reports shall be available to law enforcement agencies and
courts of competent jurisdiction. (Vehicle Code 1808.)
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 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 release of such confidential
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageD
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.)
Existing law provides that a record of DMV containing a
confidential home address shall be open to public inspection as
provided in Vehicle Code Section 1808 if the address is
completely obliterated or otherwise removed from the record.
The home address shall be withheld from public inspection for
three years following the termination of office or employment
except with respect to a retired peace officer, his or her home
address shall be withheld from public inspection permanently
upon request of confidentiality at the time the information
would otherwise be opened. (Vehicle Code 1808.4 (e).)
Existing law provides that the spouse or child of a person
listed in Vehicle Code Section 1808.4 and the surviving spouse
or child of a peace officer who has died in the line of duty
regardless of their place of residence shall also have enhanced
confidentiality. (Vehicle Code 1808.4(a)(24).)
This bill provides that the address of a spouse or child of a
listed person should not have the enhanced confidentiality, if
the spouse or child has been convicted of a crime and is on
active parole or probation.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageE
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageF
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The
state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger
almost three years ago continues to this day,
California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and
inmates in the California prison system continue to
languish without constitutionally adequate medical and
mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Current law allows law enforcement and public officials
who may become targets to protect their home address
from disclosure, keeping their address confidential when
police run a license plate check. Confidentiality is
rightly extended to children, spouses and surviving
spouses of these individuals. However, there is no
provision to exempt those who have a criminal record.
The Lose Angeles County Sheriff's Station recently had a
-----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageG
reserve deputy who listed his adult son as one of the
persons who is covered under DMV confidentiality.
Although the son had served county jail and state prison
time, when he was stopped by the deputies and they ran
the vehicle plates, the return showed the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department address, indicating the
individual had confidentiality allowances.
This situation presented a critical officer safety issue
because the convicted criminal could not be identified
under DMV confidentiality privileges; officers were
unaware they were dealing with a convicted criminal.
When a license check at a routine traffic stop turns up
as confidential, deputies naturally assume they are in a
safe situation. Allowing convicted criminals to fall
under confidentiality blindly puts law enforcement in
harms way. Confidentiality was intended to protect some
public officials and their families, not to provide a
shroud from criminals who are on supervised release.
SB 938 will prohibit family members of certain public
officials and law enforcement officers from having
confidentiality plates if they are on active parole or
probations. This will give officers the ability to know
who they are dealing with when stopping a motorist and
keep criminals from abusing this safety provision.
2. Background of DMV Confidentiality
(More)
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 confidential within the Department of Motor
Vehicle files. 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.
According to the DMV, however, 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
(More)
SB 938 (Huff)
PageI
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. Spouses and Children With Enhanced Confidentiality
Under Vehicle Code section 1908.4, the spouses and children of
the persons listed for enhanced confidentiality may also have
their addresses have the additional confidentiality, as may the
spouse and children of a police officer killed in the line of
duty. As noted above, because everyone's address is
confidential at DMV, this additional suppression merely limits
the quick access of the information to law enforcement, the
court, etcetera. This bill provides that the spouse or child of
a person who is listed cannot get the additional confidentiality
if that spouse or child has been convicted of a crime and is on
probation or parole. Therefore, if one of these people is
stopped by law enforcement, law enforcement will know that they
are on probation or parole and not assume they are a person who
fits into one of the listed categories and therefore are safe to
deal with.
4. Is This Section Necessary?
According to DMV, the confidentiality provided for in sections
1808.2, 1808.4 and 1808.6 is a manually intensive process which
costs the department approximately $220,000 a year in personnel
costs. Since the enactment of AB 1779 in 1989 eliminated 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, members may wish to
consider repealing these three outdated sections thereby saving
DMV this unnecessary expenditure and give law enforcement all
the information they need about any person at any traffic stop.
***************
SB 938 (Huff)
PageJ