BILL ANALYSIS
SB 938
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 938 (Huff) - As Amended: June 10, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 34-0
SUBJECT : Home address confidentiality: driver's licenses and
registration
SUMMARY : Removes special confidentiality protections for
certain individuals who have been convicted of crimes.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Excludes from the categories of individuals whose home
addresses within the records of the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) are afforded enhanced confidentiality, the
spouses and children of peace officers and other enumerated
public officials, if those spouses or children have been
convicted of crimes and are on active parole or probation.
2)Specifies that DMV is not responsible for verifying that such
a spouse or child has been convicted of a crime and is not on
active parole or probation.
3)Repeals the requirement that the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) utilize the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS) when conducting background
checks on tow truck drivers and employers.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Lists 24 classes of persons, primarily in law enforcement
fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, and
allows them to 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.
2)Provides that these home addresses are to be withheld from
public inspection for three years following termination of
office or employment of a terminated individual except with
respect to retired peace officers, whose home addresses are to
SB 938
Page 2
be withheld from public inspection permanently upon request of
confidentiality at the time the information would otherwise be
opened.
3)Affords confidentiality for the home addresses of all other
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.
4)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.
5)Requires the CHP to conduct criminal history and driver
history screening of tow truck drivers and employers through
various means, including utilizing the CLETS.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill was withdrawn from the
Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
COMMENTS : 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, Statutes of
1989, which made home addresses in DMV records confidential,
with specified exceptions.
AB 1779 left in place, however, earlier confidentiality
provisions that applied only to peace officers and certain other
officials thought to be at risk. The home addresses of those on
SB 938
Page 3
the statutory list of such officials may only be disclosed to a
court, a law enforcement agency, the BOE, or any governmental
agency legally required to be furnished that information. The
home addresses of everyone else may also be disclosed, in
limited circumstances, to financial institutions, insurance
companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing
statistical research.
According to the author of SB 938, confidentiality is rightly
extended to children, spouses and surviving spouses of law
enforcement officials. However, there is no provision to exempt
those who have a criminal record.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station recently had a 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.
Regarding the bill's provision dealing with tow truck drivers
and CLETS, the author reports that this provision "is needed to
avoid litigation. The Department of Justice has requested that
CHP stop using CLETS because it conflicts with existing Penal
Code statutes. Unfortunately, because the Vehicle Code mandates
that CHP use CLETS for background checks, CHP needs to follow
the law until a court orders them to stop. This seems like a
waste of court resources, time, and expense, especially since
the CHP doesn't need to or want to continue using CLETS.
Fingerprint based background checks will be used, which are
already authorized by the existing statute. These checks are
more accurate because CLETS is simply a 'named based'
information system."
SB 938
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (sponsor)
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California State Sheriffs Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093