BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2777
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2777 (Nazarian) - As Amended April 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Utilities and Commerce | |8 - 3 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Department of Justice (DOJ), upon request
of a Transportation Network Company (TNC), to provide a TNC with
the state criminal history and arrest information of its
employees and contractors. This bill provides DOJ with fee
authority.
AB 2777
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Fully reimbursable cost in the $3.2 million range if all TNCs
request criminal background checks for about 100,000 employees
and DOJ charges the usual $32 for background checks.
(Fingerprint Fees Account)
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, incidents of crimes against
passengers point to the need to allow TNCs to request a DOJ
background check. This bill gives TNCs another tool in its
toolbox to uncover criminal history not discovered through
traditional methods, prevent fraud and enhance its goal of
providing safe and reliable service.
2)Background. Beginning as early as 2009, a new model of
transportation known as TNCs allowed patrons to prearrange
transportation services through an online application on their
smartphone or computer. Although TNCs do not neatly fall into
the conventional definition of a charter party carriers
(CPCs), the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
believes that TNCs are currently providing passengers
transportation for compensation, and reasonably concludes that
TNCs are CPCs, therefore, falling under the CPUC's existing
jurisdiction over such services.
3)Criminal Background Checks: CPUC regulations require TNCs to
run criminal background checks on all hired drivers, but it
does not specify the parameters for which TNCs must go about
doing these background checks. As such, TNCs generally
contract with third party firms that they argue provide a more
comprehensive review necessary to ensure passenger safety.
For example, Uber argues that its background screening process
AB 2777
Page 3
checks primary sources and court records going back seven
years, in addition to other national databases.
However, news reports continue to identify situations in which
TNC drivers have been accused of criminal situations such as
rape, assault, kidnapping, among others. The CPUC currently
has a pending rulemaking process examining TNC regulations,
including whether or not to require fingerprints as part of
the TNC background checks.
4)Support. According to the California Labor Federation, " A
2015 report by researchers at City University of New York
recommended biometric fingerprint background checks for all
for-hire drivers, including TNCs, and that the public should
not rely on private companies 'self-regulating.'"
5)Opposition. According to the Internet Association and
TechNet, the proposed authorization is premature as the PUC
has already stated their intent to examine background checks
in Phase III of their TNC rulemaking process.
6)Related Legislation:
a) AB 1289 (Cooper) was substantially amended in the Senate
to require a TNC to conduct comprehensive criminal
background checks for each participating driver that
include local, state, and federal law enforcement records.
The bill would prohibit a transportation network company
from contracting with, employing, or continuing to retain a
driver if he or she has specified convictions. AB 1289 is
pending in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications
AB 2777
Page 4
Committee.
b) SB 1035 (Hueso), requires, among other things, the PUC
to study several driver background check protocols,
including the United States Department of Justice
background check, and to adopt any that would enhance
public safety by capturing records of any criminal offense.
SB 1035 failed passage in Senate Transportation and
Housing Committee.
1)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 1422 (Cooper), Chapter 791, Statutes of 2015,
requires transportation network companies to participate in
the Department of Motor Vehicles Employer Pull Notice
System to regularly check the driving records of a
participating driver.
b) AB 2404 (Eggman), Chapter 472, Statutes of 2014,
requires the DOJ to disseminate an applicant's sex offender
registration status whenever DOJ furnishes state or federal
summary criminal history information to specified entities
as a result of an employment, licensing, or certification
application.
c) AB 2343 (Torres), Chapter 256, Statutes of 2012,
requires that when state or federal summary criminal
history information is furnished to an agency, organization
or individual, a copy of the information be provided to the
person about whom the information relates if there is an
adverse employment, licensing, or certification decision.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 2777
Page 5