BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 222        Hearing Date:    June 9, 2015    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Achadjian                                            |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |March 23, 2015                                       |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|MK                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                Subject:  Vehicle Records: Confidential Home Address 



          HISTORY

          Source:   California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

          Prior Legislation:SB 767 (Lieu) (as amended in the Assembly)  
          failed Assembly 
                         Transportation, 2014
                         AB 2687 (Bocanegra) Chapter 273, Stats. 2014
                           AB 1270 (Eggman) - failed Assembly  
          Appropriations, 2013
                           AB 923 (Swanson) - failed Assembly  
          Appropriations, 2009
                           AB 529 (Lowenthal) - failed Assembly  
          Appropriations, 2009
                           AB 1958 (Swanson) - failed Assembly  
          Appropriations, 2008
                           AB 1311 (Berryhill) - not heard Assembly  
          Transportation, 2007
                           AB 1706 (Strickland) - failed Assembly  
          Transportation, 2005
                           AB 2012 (Chu) - section amended out of the  
          bill, 2004
                           AB 130 (Campbell) - not heard Assembly  
          Transportation, 2003
                           AB 246 (Cox) - not heard Assembly  







          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          2 of ?
          
          
          Transportation, 2003
                           AB 1775 (Ortiz) - no vote in Senate Public  
          Safety, 2002
                           AB 84 (Hertzberg) - Ch. 809, Stats. 2001
                           AB 1029 (Oropeza) - Ch. 486, Stats. 2001
                                      AB 151 (Longville) - vetoed, 2000
                                      AB 298 (Battin) - held in Assembly  
          Transportation, 2000
                                      AB 1310 (Granlund) - vetoed, 2000
                                             AB 1358 (Shelley) - Ch. 808,  
          Stats. 2000
                                              AB 1864 (Correa) - held  
          Assembly Appropriations, 2000
                                              SB 171 (Knight) - vetoed,  
          1998
                                            AB 1941 (Bordonaro) - Ch. 880,  
          Stats. 1996
                                            AB 191(Cannella) - died in  
          Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
                                            AB 3033 (Baca) - died in Sen.  
          Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
                                      AB 3391 (Ducheny) - never heard,  
          1996
                                             AB 688 (Frusetta) - died in  
          Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
                                             AB 1396 (Poochigian) - died  
          in Sen. Committee on Criminal Procedure,                          
            
                                             1996
                          AB 1931 (Conroy) - Ch. 77, Stats. 1994
                                          AB 3454 (Speier) - Ch. 395,  
          Stats. 1994
                                          AB 3161 (Frazee) - Ch. 838,  
          Stats. 1994
                                          AB 1268 (Martinez) - Ch. 1268,  
          Stats. 1993
                                          AB 2367 (Polanco) - Ch. 1291,  
          Stats. 1993
                                         SB 274 (Committee on  
          Transportation) - Ch. 1292, Stats. 1993
                                         SB 602 (1992) - Chaptered
                                            AB 1779 (1989) - Chaptered

          Support:  California College and University Police Chiefs








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          3 of ?
          
          

          Opposition:None known

          Assembly Floor Vote:                 77 - 0


          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to add specified employees of state  
          hospitals and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation  
          to those who may request an additional level of confidentiality  
          from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
          
          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 Department of Motor Vehicles (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 home address of specified persons  
          which appear in the records of DMV is confidential upon the  
          request of the person and that it not be disclosed except as  
          specified.  (Vehicle Code §§ 1808.4 and 1808.6.)

          Existing law provides that the willful, unauthorized disclosure  
          of this information as it relates to specified law enforcement  
          (peace officers, employees of city police departments, and  
          county sheriffs' offices and their families) that results in the  
          bodily injury to the individual or individuals whose specified  
          information was confidential, is a felony.  (Vehicle Code §§  
          1808.4.)
           








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          4 of ?
          
          
          Existing law provides that the release of such confidential  
          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.)

          This bill would add the following officers and employees with  
          the Department of State Hospitals and the CDCR: prelicensed  
          psychiatric technician; psychiatric technician; senior  
          psychiatric technician; nurse practitioner; health services  
          specialist and program director-medical, to those who can  
          request an additional layer of confidentiality from the DMV.




                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          5 of ?
          
          
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

              Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed  
               to reducing the prison population;
              Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;
              Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
              Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and
              Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.











          COMMENTS

          1.  Need for This Bill
          
          According to the author:

               AB 222 would add psychiatric technicians at the  








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          6 of ?
          
          
               California Department of Corrections and  
               Rehabilitation (CDCR) and at the Department of State  
               Hospitals (DSH)  to the list of professions eligible  
               for enhanced confidentiality of home address  
               information stored by the Department of Motor  
               Vehicles.

               Psychiatric Technicians are the largest classification  
               of direct level of care providers at DHS, which  
               currently operates five state hospitals, and CDCR  
               which operates 33 prisons throughout California.

               Currently, nearly every employee classification  
               employed by CDCR is eligible for enhanced  
               confidentiality at DMV with the exception of  
               psychiatric technicians. Furthermore, SDH treats many  
               of the same serious and violent offenders at its  
               facilities, including Sexually Violent Predators at  
               Coalinga State Hospital.

          2.  Background of DMV Confidentiality
           
          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 contained within the Department of Motor  
          Vehicle files confidential.  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. 
           








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          7 of ?
          
          
          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.
           
          DMV has long maintained that 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  
          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.  The Department of Motor Vehicles

          There have been a number of bills adding or attempting to add  
          various public employees to the enhanced confidentiality  
          provisions of the Vehicle Code.

          According to a Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis for  
          June 11, 1996 of AB 1941 (Bordonaro):
           
               According to a letter dated June 9, 1995 from the  
               Department of Motor Vehicles concerning related  
               measures initially set for hearing last year (AB 191,  
               AB 688, 
               AB 1396) on this issue, AB 1941 "is just one of four  
               bills slated for the Criminal Procedure Committee  
               hearing on June 13 which seek to include various  
               professions within the category of confidential records  
               that have historically been reserved for law  
               enforcement personnel.  When names are added to this  








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          8 of ?
          
          
               special category, they cannot be accessed except  
               through a telephone procedure utilized in one  
               particular file security area in the DMV's Sacramento  
               headquarters location.  Currently, we estimate that  
               this file contains close to half a million individual  
               records which must be manually entered and individually  
               retrieved when access is authorized.
                
               The DMV has stated that approximately 1000 requests for  
               confidentiality of home addresses are made each week.   
               The Confidential Records Unit of the DMV consists of 12  
               people and only two of these people review these forms  
               to determine whether the individuals requesting  
               confidentiality are in fact qualified to do so.
                
          According to the DMV, a majority of these requests are granted  
          due to the fact that the DMV restricts the release of the  
          request forms to qualifying agencies and individuals only.  The  
          Confidential Records Unit of the DMV updated "5900 records in  
          May 1995 and only 273 applications were rejected."

          4.  Adding Psychiatric Technicians and Other State Hospital and  
          CDCR Employees

          This bill would add the following officers and employees with  
          the Department of State Hospitals and the CDCR: prelicensed  
          psychiatric technician; psychiatric technician; senior  
          psychiatric technician; nurse practitioner; health services  
          specialist and program director-medical to the provision that  
          suppresses residence information that can only then be accessed  
          by the Confidential Records Unit.
          





          The sponsor notes that:

               Many psych techs have been threatened and even stalked  
               by paroling inmates and discharged patients.  In  
               several cases, the inmate/patients were able to obtain  
               the psych techs home address.  This bill provides an  
               extra level of protection to our members from being  








          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          9 of ?
          
          
               stalked or harmed by paroled inmates or released  
               patients with a history of mental illness.

          In spite of the legitimate concerns about the safety of these  
          state employees, since a member of the public can never access  
          anyone's information from DMV, is the expansion of those in the  
          additional suppression section, which adds to the workload of  
          DMV, necessary?

          5.  Similar Legislation

          SB 372 (Galgiani) which passed this Committee on April 28, 2015  
          was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  That bill  
          would have added code enforcement officers, parking control  
          officers, non-sworn investigators with the Department of  
          Insurance (DOI), and the spouses and children of these persons  
          to the list of persons who may request an additional level of  
          confidentiality from the Department of Motor Vehicles.  The  
          Senate Appropriations Committee analysis notes:

                 To the extent up to 6,500 code enforcement officers, DOI  
               investigators, parking control officers, and their family  
               members could apply in the first year and/or annually  
               thereafter, accounting for changes to vehicle ownership,  
               the DMV would incur additional staffing costs to process  
               these applications as the system is administered manually,  
               including a significant portion requiring follow-up  
               inquiries. First-year costs are estimated at about $350,000  
               and ongoing costs of $85,000 (Motor Vehicle Account Special  
               Fund) 

                 Potential reduction in state and local tolls, parking  
               fees, and 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. 

          6.  San Diego Union Tribune Editorial
          
          An editorial by Steven Greenhut in the San Diego Union Tribune  
          discussing this bill and SB 372(Galgiani) pointed to a history  
          of questions raised by the expanded confidentiality program and  
          whether either bill is even necessary:









          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          10 of ?
          
          


               Seven years ago, a newspaper investigation found that  
               a little-known state program designed to protect  
               police and judges from the public disclosure of their  
               home addresses had expanded into a massive database of  
               1.5 million public employees and their family members,  
               few of whom face any on-the-job dangers to merit the  
               protection.





               Because of this Confidential Records Program,  
               "Vehicles with protected license plates can run  
               through dozens of intersections controlled by red  
               light cameras and breeze along the 91 toll lanes with  
               impunity," according to the Orange County Register  
               report. They evade parking citations and even get out  
               of speeding tickets because police officers realize  
               "the drivers are 'one of their own' or related to  
               someone who is."


              The whole purpose of the confidential database has long  
              been deemed irrelevant. "State law now bars the DMV  
              from disclosing home addresses for any of its licensees  
              to anyone except for those with legitimate business  
              reasons like financial institutions, insurance  
              companies and toll-road agencies," reported the  
              Sacramento Bee in a 2010 editorial. The newspaper  
              called on the state to dump this list for "privileged"  
              workers and their kin (Greenhut, Steven, "Growing List  
              Let Workers Snub Traffic Laws" San Diego Union Tribune  
              May 11, 2015  
              http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/11/legislature-s 
              tate-workers-confidential-licenses/all/?print)


                                      --END --











          AB 222  (Achadjian )                                       Page  
          11 of ?