BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2263 (Baker)
Version: May 23, 2016
Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Protection of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or
stalking, and reproductive health care service providers:
address confidentiality
DESCRIPTION
This bill would standardize the confidentiality protections for
Safe at Home (SAH) program participants, regardless of whether
their participation is based on their status as victims of
domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, or on their
status as a patient, employee, or volunteer at a reproductive
health care clinic; and would require the Secretary of State
(SOS) to provide SAH enrollees with information about how to
protect their privacy on real property records.
BACKGROUND
With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the
Legislature established the SAH within the Office of the
Secretary of State (SOS) to allow victims of domestic violence
to apply for a substitute address to be used in public records
in order to prevent their assailants, or potential assailants,
from finding their work or home address. Through subsequent
legislation, the program has been expanded to include victims of
sexual assault, stalking, elder abuse, and reproductive health
care service providers, employees, volunteers, and patients.
(See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000), AB 205 (Leach, Ch.
33, Stats. of 2000), AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002), and
AB 849 (Garcia, Ch. 676, Stats. 2013.).)
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 2 of ?
This bill would standardize the protections available to program
participants and seeks to enhance participants' ability to
maintain anonymity on real property records by requiring the SOS
to provide participants with specified information.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes an address confidentiality (or Safe at
Home) program within the Office of the Secretary of State in
order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and
respond to requests for public records without disclosing the
changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or stalking. Existing law permits any such adult
victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or
incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based
victims' assistance program to have an address designated by the
Secretary of State as his or her substitute mailing address.
(Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.) Similarly, existing law allows
reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and
patients to participate in the SAH address confidentiality
program, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et seq.)
Existing law provides that no person, business, or association
shall knowingly and intentionally publicly post or publicly
display on the Internet the home address, home telephone number,
or image of a program participant or other individuals residing
at the same home address with the intent to threaten the
participant or cause the participant, or co-resident, harm, as
specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6208.1.)
Existing law prohibits the SOS from disclosing a program
participant's name change or address, other than the designated
address, unless it is requested by, and disclosed to, law
enforcement, or directed by a court, or if the participant's
certification has been canceled. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206, 6206.4
and 6208)
Existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from
knowingly posting or displaying on the Internet the home
address, home telephone number, or image of any provider,
employee, volunteer, or patient of a reproductive health service
facility, with the intent to incite a third person to cause
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 3 of ?
imminent bodily harm to a person protected by this provision.
Permits a person whose personal information is posted to bring
an action for injunctive relief of damages, as specified.
Provides that no person shall post or display on the Internet
any personal information about a person protected by this
provision if the person has requested that the information be
removed, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6218.)
This bill would specify that no person, business, or association
shall publicly post or display on the Internet the address of an
SAH program participant, as specified, who has made a written
demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose
the home address of the program participant.
This bill would specify that no person, business, or association
shall knowingly post the home address of an SAH program
participant, as specified, or of the program participant's
residing spouse or child, on the Internet, knowing that person
is a program participant and intending to cause imminent great
bodily harm or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm
to the program participant or his or her residing spouse or
child. However, this provision does not apply to an interactive
computer service or access software provider, as defined, unless
the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great
bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause
imminent great bodily harm to a program participant.
This bill would require the SOS to post on its Internet Web site
and provide new SAH enrollees information about how to protect
personal privacy on real property records as follows:
a notice that the participant may request to use his or her
SOS SAH address on real property deeds, change of ownership
forms, and deeds of trust when purchasing or selling a home;
a notice that the participant may wish to protect his or her
home address from disclosure in real property transactions by
creating a trust and placing his or her real property into the
trust;
a notice that the participant may wish to legally change his
or her name in order to protect his or her anonymity; and
a list of contacts for entities, such as county bar
associations, legal aid societies, domestic violence
prevention organizations, or other state or local nonprofits
who can provide more information and legal services to create
a trust or accomplish a name change.
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 4 of ?
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Unfortunately, there is one gaping loophole in the Safe at
Home Program: the title to property recorded in local
Assessor's Offices. As a result, victims of domestic violence
and other Californians intended to be protected by Safe At
Home can be found by perpetrators who go to the Assessor's
Office to locate them and track them down.
The ability to access information freely on the Internet can
be dangerous for victims. If a victim owns property, the title
of the property is available as a public document at the
county's Assessor's Office. The victim's abuser can freely
access the property information, potentially exposing the
victim to further harm.
2.Standardizes treatment of participants in SAH
Under existing law victims of specified abuse (i.e., domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault) are protected by SAH.
In addition, patients, employees, or volunteers at a
reproductive health care center may enroll in the program. Both
groups of participants enjoy the restrictions on disclosures by
public agencies that help maintain the participants'
confidentiality, but victims of domestic violence, stalking, and
sexual assault have one additional protection: a private person,
business, or association is prohibited from posting or
displaying on the Internet the home address of an SAH
participant if the SAH participant has demanded that the person,
business, or association remove the home address. In addition,
existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from
posting the SAH participant's home address online with the
knowledge and intent to cause that person imminent harm.
Although similar protections are afforded to patients and
reproductive health care providers under other statutes, the
author believes that consolidating all participants under one
SAH framework will clarify the legislative intent to provide
both groups with privacy protections.
In opposition, the California Right to Life Committee writes,
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 5 of ?
"this bill may be protecting domestic violence victims and
others with an alternate and approved address, but it appears to
single out family planning personnel who, basically, are
abortion providers and would provide them with an additional
cloak of privacy. Other healthcare providers who are not
providing abortion and abortion related services are not
included in this proposed protection of personal information.
Agencies that provide services and are considered anti-abortion
should merit equal protection and confidentiality of their
personal information."
The author responds, "AB 2263 standardizes the confidentiality
protections for existing enrollees in the SAH program, and
requires the SOS to provide SAH enrollees with information about
how to protect their privacy on real property records. This bill
also extends to all SAH enrollees the protections law
enforcement and elected officials currently have by specifying
that no person, business, or association shall publicly post or
display on the Internet the address of a SAH program participant
who has made a written request that the home address not be
disclosed. This bill covers only existing categories of SAH
enrollees. It does not expand access to the SAH program to any
new categories of enrollees, nor does it single out any category
of enrollee for special treatment. AB 2263 ensures uniform
protections for those who are already currently eligible for the
program, including anyone who is a victim of stalking of
violence, regardless of profession."
3.Provides SAH participants with information about how to
protect confidentiality with respect to real property
transactions
This bill would require the SOS to provide to SAH participants
information about how to keep his or her address and/or name
anonymous on specified real property records. In support, the
California State Sherriff's Association writes:
Current law provides that state and local agencies may use a
Secretary of State designated address when creating public
records for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking as well as reproductive health care service
providers. Unfortunately, this protection does not prevent a
county assessor's office from publishing certain records,
which creates a loophole in maintaining the victim's
confidentiality. Consequently, potential predators are able
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 6 of ?
to access a victim's private home address by using the county
assessor records.
Staff notes that when California became a state in 1850, one of
the first acts of the Legislature was to institute a system for
recording interests in real property. By providing for evidence
of title to be collected and made available at central
locations, recording statutes protect buyers against secret
conveyances and interests and make real property readily and
freely transferable. The recording statutes provide that, after
being acknowledged, any instrument or judgment affecting real
property may be recorded. Prohibitions against recording
contained in documents that could otherwise be recorded would be
considered contrary to public policy, and the document may be
recorded in spite of the attempted prohibition.
Thus, the Legislature has repeatedly determined that regarding
real property, public policy requires a clean chain of title to
prevent fraud and protect individual interests in land. That
being said, methods of protecting confidentiality in real
property records have been created. For example, individuals
who wish to protect their street address from disclosure have
been advised to create a revocable living trust and place their
real property into the trust. Staff notes that this method of
keeping a street address private is, by and large, only
available to individuals with sufficient means to hire an
attorney to establish a revocable living trust.
Further, this bill would require the SOS provide participants
with a list of contact information for entities that the program
participant may "contact to receive information on, or receive
legal services for, the creation of a trust to hold real
property or obtaining a name change, including county bar
associations, legal aid societies, state and local agencies, or
other nonprofit organizations that may be able to assist program
participants." How the SOS would determine which organizations
to include on this list is not outlined in the bill, but
including any specific organizations could arguably advantage
some companies over others in the form of free advertising. As
a matter of public policy, such favoritism could be seen as
contrary to the role of a neutral governmental body.
Accordingly the author may wish to remove this provision from
the bill. Further the author may wish to consider how to
educate SAH participants about the availability of
confidentiality options, regardless of the participant's
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 7 of ?
economic ability to establish a living trust.
Support : California State Sheriffs' Association; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Community Action Fund of
Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties; Contra
Costa County District Attorney's Office; Crime Victims United of
California; Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Santa Barbara,
Ventura, & San Luis Obispo Counties; Planned Parenthood Action
Fund of the Pacific Southwest; Planned Parenthood Advocacy
Project Los Angeles County; Planned Parenthood Advocates
Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley; Planned Parenthood Mar Monte;
Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund
Opposition : California Right to Life Committee
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 849 (Garcia, Ch. 676, Stats. 2013.) See Background.
AB 2483 (Blumenfield, Ch. 102, Stats. 2012) removed the
requirement that victims alleging stalking as the basis of their
eligibility for the address confidentiality program provide
specific evidence attached to the application.
SB 1082 (Corbett, Ch. 270, Stats. 2012) made a number of changes
to the SAH, including requiring applicants and participants of
the program to be domiciled in California, and authorizing a
minor participant to renew his or her participation upon
reaching 18 years of age.
AB 906 (Galgiani, 2012) would have authorized witnesses who have
testified in murder trials to participate in the SAH. This bill
died on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
AB 454 (Silva, Ch. 101, Stats. 2011) required notice regarding a
request to cancel or modify a protective order be given by
service on the Secretary of State when a protected party is
AB 2263 (Baker)
Page 8 of ?
registered with the SAH.
SB 1062 (Bowen, Ch. 639, Stats. 2006) added victims of sexual
assault to the list of eligible SAH participants.
AB 792 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002) See Background.
SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000) See Background.
AB 205 (Leach, Ch. 33, Stats. 2000) See Background.
SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 11,
Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************