BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1311 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Glazer |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 5, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicles: Confidential Home Address
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association
Prior Legislation:SB 372 (Galgiani) 2015 this version held in
Senate Appropriations
SB 767 (Lieu) (as amended in the Assembly) failed
Assembly
Transportation, 2014
AB 2687 (Bocanegra) - Ch. 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
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
2 of ?
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
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
NOTE: Analysis reflects amendments the author agreed to accept
in the Transportation
and Housing Committee which will be taken in this
Committee.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provides that DMV shall
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
3 of ?
discontinue holding a home address under the enhanced
confidentiality provision if a child or spouse of a person of
someone eligible for enhanced confidentiality is convicted of a
felony in this state or is convicted of an offense in another
jurisdiction that if committed in California would be a felony.
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.)
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 provides that DMV shall discontinue holding a home
address under the enhanced confidentiality provision if a child
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
4 of ?
or spouse of a person of someone eligible for enhanced
confidentiality is convicted of a felony in this state or is
convicted of an offense in another jurisdiction that if
committed in California would be a felony.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Vehicle Code Section 1808.4 allows persons who fall
into certain statutorily designated employment classes
(e.g. judges, public sector attorneys, peace officers,
and local elected officials) to have their home
addresses shielded from inspection, including when a
peace officer queries DMV databases for information by
running a person's license plate. In addition to the
persons who hold the specific jobs referenced in
statute, the protection extends to their spouse or
child, regardless of where the spouse or child resides.
While this protection is necessary for people who work
in positions that put them in harm's way, it is too
difficult to remove this status - even in situations
where public safety may be at risk. When a peace
officer stops a car and receives incomplete information
or information that provides a false sense of security,
officer safety is jeopardized. Despite their authority
to authorize confidentiality, law enforcement agencies
are unable to rescind this status.
Home address license plate confidentiality cannot be
discontinued until at least three years have passed
from the person's termination of employment that
originally qualified him or her for this status, unless
the person is convicted of a crime. This problem is
exacerbated by the fact that the program covers
children and spouses of protected officers.
Certain individuals should not be permitted to continue
to enjoy this protection for as long as current law
allows because of inappropriate activity that falls
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
5 of ?
short of a criminal conviction.
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.
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
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
6 of ?
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. Removal from enhanced confidentiality if a felony is
committed
As noted above, while everyone's DMV information is confidential
there are some categories of people who receive enhanced
confidentiality. This additional confidentiality extends to the
qualified person's spouse and child and there is no current
mechanism to remove the spouse or child for any reason.
As proposed to be amended, by amendments agreed upon in the
Transportation and Housing Committee, this bill provides that
DMV shall discontinue the enhanced confidentiality of the child
or spouse of a qualified person if that child or spouse is
convicted of a felony.
4. Support
According to the sponsor the California Sheriffs' Association:
Existing law, Vehicle Code Section 1808.4, provides
specific home address confidentiality for records held
by the DMV. Even though all DMV records are now
confidential, Section 1808.4 allows persons who fall
into certain statutorily designated employment classes
(e.g. judges, public attorneys, peace officers, and
local elected officials) to have their home addresses
shielded from inspection, including when a peace
officer queries DMV databases for information by
running a person's license plate. In addition to the
persons who hold the specific jobs referenced in VC
1808.4, the protection extends to any such officer's
spouse or child, regardless of where the spouse or
child resides.
While this protection is necessary for certain people
who work in positions that put them in harm's way,
there are limited ways to end this protection. An
SB 1311 (Glazer ) Page
7 of ?
officer or law enforcement employee's child or spouse
who is convicted of a felony should not continue to
receive this protection, and SB 1311 makes this change.
As proposed to be amended, the bill comports with
existing provisions that end or prevent this special
protection if an officer is terminated because of a
criminal conviction or a family member is on active
parole or probation.
6. Amendments to be Taken in Committee
The following amendments will be taken in Committee, as agreed
upon in the Transportation and Housing Committee:
Delete page 5 lines 1-11 and lines 26- 30
Insert on page 4 line 5:
(D) The department shall discontinue holding a home address
confidential pursuant to subdivision (a) if a person
specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) who is the child or
spouse of a person described in paragraph (9), (11), (13),
or (22) is convicted of a felony in this state or is
convicted of an offense in another jurisdiction that, if
committed in California, would be a felony.
-- END -