BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1270
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1270 (Eggman) - As Introduced: February 22, 2013
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:14-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill allows code enforcement officers and their spouses and
children to enroll in the DMV's Confidential Records Program.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)The DMV estimates up to 125,000 code enforcement officers and
their family members could apply in the first year and 25,000
annually thereafter, accounting for changes to vehicle
ownership. There will be additional staffing costs to process
these applications, including a significant portion requiring
follow-up inquiries. First-year costs are estimated at about
$800,000 and ongoing costs at $180,000. [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.
An 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
previous five years. Parking and toll agencies throughout the
state, including those in San Diego and San Francisco, have
experienced similar abuses.
COMMENTS
AB 1270
Page 2
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 home addresses in DMV records
confidential, with specified exceptions.
Under current law, 24 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 24 classes above, plus limited
disclosure for financial institutions, insurance companies,
attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing
statistical research.
2)Purpose . This bill has been introduced on behalf of the
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. According
to the author, in recent years "code enforcement officers have
been murdered in the line of duty, thousands have been
assaulted, and more have been subject to credible threats."
The author further asserts that 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.
3)Prior Legislation . Over the past 10 years, a number of bills
AB 1270
Page 3
proposing to expand the statutory confidentiality list,
including for code enforcement officers (AB 1958, Swanson of
2008) have either died or have been vetoed.
4)Outdated Statute . Given that DMV records are universally
confidential, with limited exceptions, and the fact that DMV
is not aware of any instances since the enactment of AB 1779
where DMV home address information has been used for physical
harm or for violent criminal purposes, the need for this bill
is unclear. Moreover, since the enactment of AB 1779
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 and
social media.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081