BILL ANALYSIS
AB 592
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
AB 592 (Bonnie Lowenthal) - As Introduced: February 25, 2009
SUBJECT : Department of Motor Vehicles records: confidentiality
SUMMARY : Adds certain Board of Equalization (BOE) employees to
the list of occupations whose records are granted enhanced
confidentiality by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
Specifically, this bill : Requires DMV to apply specified
confidentiality protections to the home addresses in their
records that are obtained from those BOE staff who are
designated to exercise limited peace officer authority and
duties.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Lists 24 classes of persons primarily in law enforcement
fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, and
allows them to request that their home addresses be held
confidential by DMV. The home address of these persons may
only be disclosed to a court, a law enforcement agency, the
BOE, or any governmental agency legally required to be
furnished that information.
2)Affords confidentiality for 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, vehicle dealers,
and persons doing statistical research.
3)Grants DMV the authority 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 : This bill has been introduced on behalf of the BOE
due to a perceived threat to their investigators who are
involved in criminal investigations, surveillance, providing
AB 592
Page 2
court testimony, and executing search and arrest warrants. The
author points out that under existing confidentiality provisions
regarding DMV records, the home addresses of these investigators
may be accessed by car dealers, attorneys, or financial
institutions that could potentially be under BOE investigation.
Until 1989, DMV records were considered public records, unless
state law specifically made them confidential, as was the case
for peace officers' addresses. Therefore, until 1989, home
addresses were not considered confidential, and 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 home addresses in DMV records confidential,
with specified exceptions.
Since that time, despite the fact that all home addresses are
afforded a high degree of confidentiality, the Legislature has
considered numerous bills proposing to add select categories of
persons to the confidentiality provisions that apply to peace
officers. (The home addresses of peace officers and others on
the statutory list may only be disclosed to a court, a law
enforcement agency, the BOE, or any governmental agency legally
required to be furnished that information. The home addresses
of everyone else may also be disclosed, in limited
circumstances, to financial institutions, insurance companies,
attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical
research.)
Historically, the Senate Committee on Public Safety had
jurisdiction over a number of the confidentiality bills that
have been introduced during recent legislative sessions. After
much testimony and debate, it was decided that adding more
groups to the list of those eligible for peace officer
confidentiality served no useful purpose and was simply another
administrative burden for state and local agencies. The
testimony indicated that a growing number of private sources
AB 592
Page 3
provide home addresses with little or no scrutiny.
In fact, most persons seeking confidential information about
others no longer look to DMV records for the data since those
records are so carefully protected and the sought-after
information is so much more easily obtainable via the internet.
DMV is not aware of any instance since the enactment of AB 1779
where DMV home address information has been used for a criminal
purpose.
Most recent bills proposing to expand the statutory
confidentiality list have either died or have been vetoed. In
2008, AB 1958 (Swanson) would have added firefighters, code
enforcement officers, and certain veterinarians. AB 1958 died
on Suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. In 2007,
AB 1311 (Berryhill) would have extended confidentiality
provisions to community service and public service officers
employed by police departments. That bill died in the Assembly
Transportation Committee after being withdrawn by its author.
In 2005, AB 1706 (Strickland) would have added fraud
investigators, park rangers, emergency dispatchers, and DMV
employees who test new drivers. That bill also died in
committee. In the 2003-04 Session, AB 130 (Campbell) and AB 246
(Cox) both would have added members of Congress to the existing
statutory list. Neither author ever took up his bill in
committee. AB 2012 (Chu) from that session would have made
court-appointed attorneys, their investigators and social
workers assigned to child abuse cases eligible for special
address confidentiality in the department's records. These
provisions were eventually amended out of that bill.
An additional factor in the issue of home address
confidentiality came to light last year as a result of an
investigation conducted by the Orange County Register. That
investigation revealed thousands of unpaid violations and tolls
accrued by a number of peace officers and other individuals
whose DMV records are afforded enhanced confidentiality. These
unpaid tolls and fines cost agencies in Orange County over $5
million over the past five years. Parking and toll agencies
throughout the state, including those in San Diego and San
Francisco, have experienced similar abuses.
When parking agencies or toll road operators attempt to collect
fines from such individuals, DMV is not able to provide the
offender's registered addresses in a manner timely enough for
AB 592
Page 4
fines to be collected under the statute of limitations.
Therefore, it is generally not cost effective for agencies to
pursue money owed, so that fines for these violations are
usually written off. While some agencies attempt to collect the
money by sending a notice to the individuals' employing entities
on file at DMV, there is no way to enforce the collection of
violations because this practice is not authorized under the
law. AB 996 (Spitzer) of 2008 would have addressed this
situation but was vetoed by the Governor last year.
Related legislation : AB 923 (Swanson) of 2009 is a
reintroduction of his AB 1958 from last year, regarding members
of the Board of Equalization, code enforcement officers, and
certain veterinarians. AB 923 is scheduled to be heard by this
committee today.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Board of Equalization (sponsor)
Service Employees International Union
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093