BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1311 Hearing Date: 4/12/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Glazer |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 5, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Randy Chinn |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Vehicles: confidential home address
DIGEST: This bill requires the DMV to discontinue holding the
home address of specified public safety employees confidential
if directed to do so by the head of the agency employing that
individual.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law makes every residence address in Department of
Motor Vehicle (DMV) records confidential except to a court,
government agency or law enforcement agency, as specified.
Existing law lists 23 categories of individuals who may also
have their residence address in DMV records confidential more
generally upon request. Among those categories:
1)Attorney General
2)State Public Defender
3)A member of the Legislature, a board of supervisors, or a
city council
4)A judge or court commissioner
5)A district attorney, public defender, or attorney employed by
the Department of Justice
6)An active or retired peace officer; a police or sheriff
department employee designated by the chief or sheriff as
being in a sensitive position; a nonsworn police dispatcher; a
nonsworn employee of a city police department, county
sheriff's office, the California Highway Patrol, a federal,
SB 1311 (Glazer) Page 2 of ?
state, or local detention facility, or a local juvenile hall,
camp, ranch, or home, as specified
Home addresses for spouses and children of these individuals may
also be kept confidential. In general, the confidentiality is
lifted three years after the termination of employment.
Confidentiality may also be lifted if the officer is terminated
as the result of a conviction of a criminal offense.
This bill requires the DMV to discontinue holding a home address
confidential for persons in category six above or their spouse
or children, upon receipt of written notification from the
sheriff, chief of police, or other head of an employing agency
of the employee and a hearing by the DMV where it concurs with
the request.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. The author believes that concealing an individual's
home address from inspection in the DMV databases is a necessary
protection for people who work in positions that put them in
harm's way, such as judges, peace officers, and local elected
officials. Public safety is at risk when undeserving
individuals have their home address concealed. When a peace
officer stops a car and receives incomplete information because
the home address is concealed, officer safety is jeopardized.
This bill authorizes the head of a law enforcement agency that
authorizes the concealment to direct the DMV to discontinue that
concealment after a hearing.
The problem. This bill is sponsored by the California State
Sheriffs' Association, which is concerned that home address
confidentiality cannot be discontinued until at least three
years have passed from the person's termination of employment,
unless that person is convicted of a crime. They believe that
certain individuals should not be permitted to continue to enjoy
the confidentiality protection if there is inappropriate
activity that falls short of a criminal conviction.
What happens when a car is pulled over. An officer pulling over
a car will run the license plates through the DMV database. If
the registered owner has a confidential home address, the
officer will see the name of the institution under which the
owner qualified for confidentiality (e.g., Sacramento Police
Department). According to the sponsor, in some cases that may
provide the officer with a false sense of comfort regarding the
SB 1311 (Glazer) Page 3 of ?
driver, thereby endangering the officer.
Potential for abuse. Opponents are concerned that this bill
could be abused and that sheriffs or chiefs of police could
threaten to take away an officer's address confidentiality for
personal or political purposes. An earlier version of the bill
gave the sheriffs or chiefs of police sole discretion to revoke
the confidentiality. However, recent amendments add a hearing
process, wherein the DMV would notify the individual whose
confidentiality is proposed to be revoked and hold a hearing, if
that individual responds and wishes to contest the request.
This bill appears overly broad as it allows a sheriff or chief
of police to discontinue the confidentiality for any reason.
Moreover, this bill does not establish criteria for the DMV to
use in its hearing. The author may wish to consider creating
allowable criteria for discontinuing the confidentiality (e.g.,
the spouse or child is convicted of a crime) and for the DMV to
use in its hearing (e.g., the public safety benefit of lifting
the confidentiality outweighs the confidentiality benefit to the
individual).
Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 6, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
California State Sheriffs' Association (sponsor)
California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
OPPOSITION:
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (prior version)
Peace Officers Research Association of California (prior
version)
SB 1311 (Glazer) Page 4 of ?
-- END --