BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 222
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 222
(Achadjian) - As Amended March 23, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicle records: confidential home address
SUMMARY: Adds certain employees of the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH) and the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the list of persons who can request
that their home address be held confidential by the Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Lists 23 classes of persons, primarily in law enforcement
fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, that
may request that their home addresses be held confidential by
DMV. The home addresses of these persons may only be
disclosed to a court; a law enforcement agency; the State
Board of Equalization (BOE); an attorney in a civil or
criminal action who demonstrates to a court the need for the
home address, if the disclosure is made pursuant to a
subpoena; and any governmental agency legally required to be
furnished the information.
2)Makes confidential the home addresses of all individuals
contained within DMV records. These provisions similarly
AB 222
Page 2
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.
3)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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Until 1989, DMV records were considered public
records unless state law specifically made them confidential, as
was the case for the addresses of peace officers and certain
other officials thought to be at risk. Because home addresses
were not considered confidential, 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 all home addresses in DMV records confidential,
with limited exceptions. AB 1779 left in place existing
confidentiality provisions that applied only to peace officers
and certain other officials. The list of those to whom the
pre-AB 1779 confidentiality provisions apply, generally referred
to as the confidential records program (CRP), now includes 23
classes of persons. DMV is not aware of any instances since the
implementation of AB 1779 where confidential home address
information has been used for physical harm or for violent
AB 222
Page 3
criminal purposes.
AB 222 proposes to add certain employees of the DSH and CDCR,
including psychiatric technicians, to the list of those persons
eligible to request that DVM hold their addresses confidential
via the CRP. According to the sponsor, the California
Association of Psychiatric Technicians, while most employees of
CDCR are already eligible for the CRP, psychiatric technicians
are not. In addition, DSH, which also employs psychiatric
technicians, treats many of the same serious and violent
offenders as CDCR at its facilities. The author and sponsor
state that many psychiatric technicians have been threatened and
even stalked by paroling inmates and discharged patients, and in
several cases the inmate or patient was able to obtain a
psychiatric technician's home address.
Given that DMV records are universally confidential, with
limited exceptions, and the fact that DMV is not aware of any
instances since the implementation of AB 1779 in which DMV home
address information has been used for physical harm or for
violent criminal purposes, the need for this bill is unclear.
While it may appear that the CRP provides a greater level of
confidentiality than is available to the general public,
functionally the level of confidentiality is the same. 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. While there is no
doubt that many state employees, including psychiatric
technicians, work with potentially dangerous populations and
have faced serious threats as a result of their work, there is
no reason to believe adding them to the list of persons eligible
for the CRP will afford them a greater level of protection.
Prior legislation: Over the past 12 years, there have been a
number of bills proposing to expand the list of those eligible
AB 222
Page 4
to apply for the CRP, only one of which was chaptered,
including:
AB 2687 (Bocanegra), Chapter 273, Statutes of 2014, added
Licensing Program Analysts with the Department of Social
Services to the list.
SB 767 (Lieu) of 2014, would have added code enforcement
officers and would have required eligible persons requesting
confidentiality for their spouse or child to disclose whether
the spouse or child had been convicted of a crime and or was on
mandatory supervision or post release community supervision at
the time of the request for confidentiality. SB 767 was
referred to this committee but was not heard at the request of
the author.
AB 1270 (Eggman) of 2013, would have added code enforcement
officers and their spouses and children. AB 1270 was held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense file.
AB 923 (Swanson) of 2009, would have added BOE members, code
enforcement officers, and certain veterinarians. AB 923 was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense
file.
AB 592 (Lowenthal) of 2009, would have added BOE staff who are
designated to exercise limited peace officer authority and
duties. AB 592 was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee on the suspense file.
AB 1958 (Swanson) of 2008, would have added firefighters, code
enforcement officers, and certain veterinarians. AB 1958 was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense
file.
AB 222
Page 5
AB 1311 (Berryhill) of 2007, would have added community service
and public service officers employed by police departments. AB
1311 was referred to this committee but was not heard at the
request of the author.
AB 1706 (Strickland) of 2005, would have added fraud
investigators, park rangers, emergency dispatchers, and DMV
employees who test new drivers. AB 1706 was referred to this
committee but was not heard at the request of the author.
AB 2012 (Chu) of 2004, would have added court-appointed
attorneys, their investigators, and social workers assigned to
child abuse cases. These provisions were eventually amended out
of the bill.
AB 130 (Campbell) of 2003 and AB 246 (Cox) of 2003, both bills
would have added members of Congress. Both bills were referred
to this committee but neither was heard.
Other legislative efforts have aimed to address program and
public safety abuses associated with the CRP. For example, AB 3
(Miller) of 2011 and AB 2097 (Miller) of 2010 would have
required CRP participants to update their records in order
improve the ability to identify toll evaders. AB 3 was held on
the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and
AB 2097 was held on the suspense in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Additionally,
SB 938 (Huff), Chapter 280, Statutes of 2010, removed CRP
confidentiality protections for certain individuals who have
been convicted of crimes.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 222
Page 6
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (Sponsor)
California College and University Police Chiefs
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093