BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 222


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 22, 2015


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair


          AB  
          222 (Achadjian) - As Amended March 23, 2015


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Transportation                 |Vote:|14 - 0       |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:


          This bill authorizes employees of the Department of State  
          Hospitals (DSH) and the Department of Corrections and  
          Rehabilitation (CDCR) in specified classifications, and their  
          spouses and children, to enroll in the DMV Confidential Records  








                                                                     AB 222


                                                                    Page  2





          Program (CRP).


          FISCAL EFFECT:





          1)About 4,600 employees and their family members would become  
            eligible to enroll in the CRP. Based on the cost estimate for  
            recent, similar legislation that would have made over 100,000  
            code enforcement officers and their family members eligible,  
            DMV's annual costs to implement AB 222 should be minor (up to  
            $50,000). [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.



          COMMENTS:


          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  








                                                                     AB 222


                                                                    Page  3





            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 everyone's home addresses in DMV  
            records confidential, except under limited circumstances.

            Under current law, over 20 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 classes of persons above, plus limited  
            disclosure for financial institutions, insurance companies,  
            attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing  
            statistical research.

          2)Purpose. AB 222 adds certain employees of the DSH and CDCR,  
            including psychiatric technicians, to the list of those  
            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.
          
          3)Prior Legislation. Over the past 12 years, several bills  
            proposing to expand the statutory confidentiality list have  
            either died or have been vetoed. The one exception was AB 2687  
            (Bocanegra)/Chapter 273 of 2014, which added licensing program  
            analysts within the Department of Social Services. As with AB  








                                                                     AB 222


                                                                    Page  4





            222, AB 2687 involved a relatively small cohort, and its costs  
            were minor.
          
          Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081