BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 372 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Galgiani |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 24, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Department of Motor Vehicles: Records:
Confidentiality
HISTORY
Source: California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
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
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
2 of ?
AB 130 (Campbell) - not heard Assembly
Transportation, 2003
AB 246 (Cox) - not heard Assembly
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
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
3 of ?
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 Public Parking Association; County of San
Diego; Glendale City Employees Association;
Organization of SMUD Employees; San Bernardino Public
Employees Association; San Luis Obispo County
Employees Association
Opposition:None Known
THIS ANALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHORS AMENDMENTS TO BE TAKEN IN
COMMITTEE. (SEE COMMENT #5)
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add code enforcement officers,
parking enforcement officers and non-sworn investigators with
the Department of Insurance 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).)
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
4 of ?
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.)
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 code enforcement officers, parking
enforcement officers and non-sworn investigators with the
Department of Insurance 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.
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
5 of ?
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
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.
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
6 of ?
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Code enforcement officers are responsible for
enforcing code compliance, and sometimes drug
trafficking and gang-related enforcement efforts in
local governments and are frequently required to deal
with hostile, non-compliant persons. Under current
law, Code Enforcement Officers are not among the
included persons whose DMV information is classified
as confidential. Ironically, if a Code Enforcement
Officer is employed under their local police
department, their information will fall under the DMV
confidentiality requirement. This puts Code
Enforcement Officers at risk and potentially could put
the officer and his/her families in danger.
This bill will extend the option for a Code
Enforcement Officer to enroll in the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) confidentiality protections,
specifically to protect their home addresses.
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
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
7 of ?
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.
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,
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
8 of ?
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
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 Code Enforcement Officers to Enhanced DMV
Confidentiality
This bill adds Code Enforcement Officers, parking enforcement
officers and non-sworn investigators to the Department of
Insurance to the provision that suppresses residence information
that can only then be accessed by the Confidential Records Unit.
In argument for their addiction the Code Enforcement Officers
state:
Senate Bill 372 will definitively provide that Code
Enforcement Officers will have their Department of
Motor Vehicle Information protected and confidential.
Currently, some Code Enforcement Officers are
protected and some are no. For example, in some
jurisdictions Code Enforcement Officers are under the
aegis of their police agency. Those Code Enforcement
SB 372 (Galgiani ) Page
9 of ?
Officers are protected under current law. On the
other hand, Code Enforcement Officers who make up a
free standing agency-which happens in other cities-are
not protected. To further complicate matters, those
Code Enforcement Officers whose duties involve parking
enforcement are protected, but those whose duties
involve slum housing enforcement are not.
Senate Bill 372 is about more than achievement of
statutory, symmetry; the fact is that Code Enforcement
Officers face clear and present dangers in the
fulfillment of their mission. Eight Code Enforcement
Officers have been murdered in the line of duty,
countless Code Enforcement Officers have been the
victim of physical assaults, and in an incalculable
number have received credible threats aimed either at
themselves or at their families.
In spite of the legitimate concerns about the safety of these
officers, 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. Amendment
The author will take an amendment to add parking enforcement
officers and non-sworn investigators with the Department of
Insurance to this bill.
-- END -