BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2097
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2097 (Miller) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local
Program:Reimbursable:No
SUMMARY
This bill requires persons receiving enhanced confidentiality of
their Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records to provide a
current employment address to DMV, and makes other changes to
improve collections of traffic violations. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires a person who receives special confidentiality
protections from the DMV to provide DMV with a current
employment address for purposes of processing the service and
collection of a traffic, parking, or toll road violation.
Currently, DMV records only show the employer's name.
2)Suspends the applicable statutory time periods for processing
the collection of traffic, parking, or toll road violations
until DMV provides the law enforcement agency, governmental
agency, or issuing agency with the person's current employment
address.
3)Provides that the use of a person's current employment
address, when that person's home address is confidential,
satisfies the requirement of the person's home address for
purposes of serving a notice to appear or a notice of
violation.
4)Requires a person who has requested the confidentiality of his
or her home address to notify DMV of any change in his or her
employment address within 10 days.
5)Requires DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle
if the person receiving the enhanced confidentiality has been
AB 2097
Page 2
mailed a notice of delinquent parking violation or failure to
pay a traffic citation and the processing agency has filed or
electronically transmitted to DMV an itemization of the unpaid
parking or traffic citation penalty.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)DMV would incur substantial up-front costs (likely exceeding
$1 million) to contact 1.5 million individuals in the enhanced
confidentiality program, acquire their employer's address, and
revise their records (special fund).
2)Unknown, potentially significant savings to DMV in future
years resulting from fewer phone inquiries related to unpaid
toll and parking violations.
3)Potential revenue, in the range of several hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually, to local agencies to the extent
the measure results in improved collections of penalties from
parking and toll violations.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Until 1989, DMV records were generally considered
public records and any person who had a legitimate reason to
seek a home address of a particular person in the DMV files
could obtain it simply by producing the relevant driver's
license number or a license plate number. In 1986,
legislation was enacted creating a list of public officials
whose home addresses were to be kept confidential by the DMV.
Under this legislation, 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. As a
matter of practice, DMV records for these individuals only
show the individual's employer's name (and no address). Home
addresses may be retrieved only through a time consuming
manual process. Over the years, the number of groups covered
by the enhanced confidentiality statutes has increased, to the
point where about 1.5 million persons are currently covered.
In response to a stalking and murder case, the Legislature
passed AB 1779 (Roos), Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989, which
made confidential the home addresses of all individuals with
AB 2097
Page 3
records at the DMV. The level of confidentiality is similar
to that enjoyed by public officials protected by the 1986
legislation, except that disclosures may also be made, in
limited circumstances, to financial institutions, insurance
companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing
statistical research.
2)Rationale . An investigation by the Orange County Register in
2008 revealed thousands of unpaid violations and tolls accrued
by peace officers and other individuals whose DMV records were
afforded enhanced confidentiality. These unpaid tolls and
fines cost agencies in Orange County over $5 million over the
prior 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 (who are not
provided access to home addresses of those having the enhanced
confidentiality status) attempt to collect fines from such
individuals, DMV is precluded from providing the information,
and the agencies must then seek information through a request
from the individuals' employers. Given these hurdles and
statutes of limitations associated with parking fines and toll
violations, local agencies have been precluded from collecting
fines and tolls owed by these officials. AB 996 (Spitzer) of
2008 would have addressed this situation by allowing toll and
parking enforcement agencies access to records of those
covered by the special confidentiality statutes. That measure
was vetoed.
According to the author, the bill is intended to close the
loophole that has been exploited by a number of individuals.
It would allow toll facilities and parking agencies to avoid
large revenue losses and would relieve DMV of the burden of
having to respond to the thousands of requests from these
agencies for delinquent vehicle owners' mailing addresses.
1)Alternative action. This bill addresses significant abuses
related to the enhanced confidentiality program. However,
maintenance of the confidential program would remain a manual,
labor intensive process, and due to the state's fiscal
situation and current furlough program, the resources of the
DMV are limited.
Since the enactment of AB 1779 eliminated the need for the
AB 2097
Page 4
separate home address confidentiality protections afforded to
public officials and employees under Vehicle Code sections
1808.2, 1808.4, and 1808.6, a more appropriate course of
action would be to repeal these three outdated sections. Most
persons seeking confidential information no longer look to DMV
records for the data since those records are so carefully
protected and 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081