BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1311
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
SB
1311 (Glazer) - As Amended May 17, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 36-2
SUBJECT: Vehicles: confidential home address
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to
discontinue holding a home address confidential for a child or
spouse of specified persons if the child or spouse is convicted
of a felony. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires DMV to discontinue holding a home address
confidential for a child or a spouse of the following persons,
living or deceased if killed in the line of duty, if the child
or spouse is convicted of a felony in this state or convicted
of an offense in another jurisdiction that, if committed in
California, would be a felony:
a) A non-sworn police dispatcher;
b) An active or retired peace officer;
SB 1311
Page 2
c) A non-sworn employee of a city police department, a
county sheriff's office, the Department of the California
Highway Patrol (CHP), a federal, state, or local detention
facility, or a local juvenile hall, camp, ranch, or home,
who submits agency verification that, in the normal course
of his or her employment, he or she controls or supervises
inmates or is required to have a prisoner in his or her
care or custody; and
d) A police or sheriff department employee designated by
the chief of police of the department or the sheriff of the
county as being in a sensitive position, as specified.
1)Requires DMV to comply with the above requirement upon
receiving notice of a disqualifying conviction from the agency
that employs or formerly employed the parent or spouse of the
convicted person, or as soon as DMV otherwise becomes aware of
the disqualifying conviction.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Lists 23 classes of persons, primarily in law enforcement
fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, that
may request that their home addresses be held confidential by
DMV. The home addresses of these persons may only be
disclosed to a court; a law enforcement agency; the State
Board of Equalization; an attorney in a civil or criminal
action who demonstrates to a court the need for the home
address, if the disclosure is made pursuant to a subpoena; and
any governmental agency legally required to be furnished the
information.
2)Provides that the child or spouse of any of the 23 designated
classes of persons may also request that their home address be
SB 1311
Page 3
held confidential, unless the child or spouse has been
convicted of a crime and is on active parole or probation
3)Provides that the confidentially provisions above terminate
three years after the end of that person's qualifying
employment.
4)Provides that if the termination or separation of employment
is the result of a criminal complaint, the confidentiality
protections shall apply during the time in which the
terminated individual may file an appeal from termination,
while an appeal from termination is ongoing, and until the
appeal process is exhausted, after which confidentiality shall
be at the discretion of the employing agency if the
termination or separation is upheld
5)Makes confidential the home addresses of all individuals
contained within DMV records. These provisions similarly
allow for disclosure to courts, law enforcement agencies, and
other governmental agencies, but also allow for limited
disclosure to financial institutions, insurance companies,
attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing
statistical research.
6)Authorizes DMV to suppress all records for at least one year
for persons who are under threat of death or bodily injury.
Under these circumstances, the entire record, including the
address, is rendered inaccessible.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: Until 1989, DMV records were considered public
records unless state law specifically made them confidential, as
SB 1311
Page 4
was the case for the addresses of peace officers and certain
other officials thought to be at risk. Because home addresses
were not considered confidential, any person who gave a reason
that DMV deemed legitimate and could present to DMV a person's
driver's license number or license plate number could obtain
address information on that individual.
In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and killed. The
murderer obtained her address from a private investigation
agency doing business in Arizona. The private investigation
agency acquired her address through a subcontractor agent in
California, who obtained it from DMV. In response, the
Legislature enacted AB 1779 (Roos), Chapter 1213, Statutes of
1989, which made all home addresses in DMV records confidential,
with limited exceptions, including to law enforcement officers
during the conduct of their duties. AB 1779 left in place
existing confidentiality provisions that applied only to peace
officers and certain other officials. The list of those to whom
the pre-AB 1779 confidentiality provisions apply now includes 23
classes of persons, plus the children and spouses of those
persons. To date, DMV is not aware of any instances since the
implementation of AB 1779 where DMV home address information has
been used for physical harm or for violent criminal purposes.
According to the California State Sheriff's Association, the
sponsors of SB 1311, the confidentiality provisions relating to
the designated protected classes extend to when a law
enforcement officer queries DMV databases for information by
running a person's license plate. In the case of a child or
spouse of a person whose address is held confidential, the
result that appears when the DMV database is queried displays
the address of the agency with whom the eligible person is
employed. For example, when running the license plate of a
child of an officer of the Sacramento Police Department, the
address that appears with the license plate record is the
address of the Department. According to the Sheriff's
Association, this can result in incomplete information and a
SB 1311
Page 5
false sense of security for officers when the person whose
information is shielded has a felony record and may be
dangerous.
By removing the confidentiality protections for children and
spouses of peace officers who are convicted of felonies upon
notification to the DMV of the disqualifying conviction, the
author intends to enhance the safety of law enforcement in
already dangerous situations, such as traffic stops and
pursuits.
Committee concerns: While a child or spouse of a peace officer
cannot request to have their address held confidential if they
have been convicted of a crime and is on active parole or
probation, SB 1311 would only remove someone's confidentiality
protections if they are reported as being convicted of a felony.
This seems to create two standards for being denied or losing
the confidentiality privilege: a crime, presumably of any level
of severity, precludes a child or spouse of a peace officer from
requesting confidentiality if they are on parole or probation,
while a person is only eligible to lose that privilege if they
already enjoy it when they are convicted of a felony.
Under existing law, a peace officer or other designated class of
person may lose their confidentiality protections upon the
termination of their employment at the discretion of the
employing agency, if the termination is a result of a criminal
complaint. The practical outcome of this existing process is
similar to the outcome of the process for removing a person's
confidentiality protections proposed by SB 1311, but there is
currently no automatic trigger for the employee to lose this
privilege as there is in this bill, specifically, conviction of
a felony. Inconsistent standards of what triggers the loss of
address confidentiality protections could be made uniform across
all classes of persons who enjoy that privilege.
SB 1311
Page 6
Furthermore, while the bill's sponsors argue the efforts of law
enforcement are furthered when an officer can access a person's
full driving record and that the existing confidentiality
provisions shield that record from law enforcement, existing law
clearly states that the confidential home address of a
designated person may be disclosed to law enforcement. It is
unclear why an officer could not avail him or herself of this
existing exemption.
Because DMV is not required to be alerted when a person is
convicted of a felony or of an offense committed out of state
that would be a felony in California, the department would
likely have to rely on the employing agency of the employee
whose child or spouse has been convicted to report the
disqualifying conviction. There is no requirement in SB 1311
for the employing agency to alert DMV of a disqualifying
conviction, creating the potential for an inconsistent standard
of when an agency alerts DMV.
Because SB 1311 would not remove any of the blanket
confidentiality provisions for DMV records, there does not
appear to be any significant risk of a person's information
falling into the hands of anyone outside of the law enforcement
community.
While the need for this bill is unclear, it seems reasonable to
restrict the privilege to a confidential address record if the
person enjoying that privilege poses a potential safety risk to
a peace officer.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 1311
Page 7
Support
California State Sheriff's Association (Sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093