BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: AB 2299 HEARING: 6/13/12
AUTHOR: Feuer FISCAL: No
VERSION: 6/6/12 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Lui
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS' PROPERTY RECORDS
Authorizes a county board of supervisors to establish a
program that redacts public safety officials' names from
property records, at the official's request.
Background and Existing Law
California's 58 counties have boards of supervisors that
make and enforce rules for the government of the board,
preservation of order, and business transactions.
A county recorder records and indexes documents, papers, or
notices that are photographically reproducible and are
authorized or required by law or court to be recorded after
payment of fees and taxes for services. Some examples of
documents at the recorder's office include birth
certificates, marriage licenses, property record title or
possession, and transfer or encumbrance of interest in real
property. For specified documents that contain social
security numbers, the county recorder must truncate social
security number to create a public version of official
records.
The county assessor assesses property for local taxing
entities, except school districts, and provides an estimate
of the property's assessed valuation.
In some counties, the offices of the county recorder and
assessor are combined.
The Public Records Act provides that all state and local
records are open, and the public has the right to inspect
records under specified conditions. The PRA exempts some
records from the open records requirement.
Public officials' information is protected in many ways.
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 2
A state or local agency is prohibited from
posting the home address or telephone number of any
elected or appointed officials without first getting
written permission of the elected official.
State law prohibits any person, business, or
association from selling or trading on the Internet
the home address or telephone number of an elected
or appointed official, with the intent to harm.
It's a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly
post on the Internet the home address or telephone
number of any elected or appointed official, his or
her spouse or child, with the intent to harm.
Residence or mailing address information of any
person in the Department of Motor Vehicles database
is confidential and cannot be disclose except to law
enforcement, courts, or specified governmental
agencies.
In 2002, the Legislature passed AB 2238 (Dickerson), the
Public Safety Officials Home Protection Act, which created
an advisory task force to determine how to protect a public
safety official's home information and provide
recommendations. The task force, chaired by the Attorney
General and comprised of representatives from law
enforcement, judges, district attorneys and public
defenders, state recorders and assessors, and the business
community involved in real estate transactions, issued the
report to the Legislature in January 2004.
For the last eight years, the Ventura County Assessor's
office has operated a program that allows PSO to request
their name be redacted. The Assessor coordinated with
local law enforcement to create a process that verified the
PSO's identity, and then, his office puts it into a
database. Last year, an anonymous group published some
L.A. Police Department command staff's home addresses on
the Internet. The author would like to extend more
protections to public safety officials and their families
by redacting information from county recorders' and
assessors' documents for officials' primary residence.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2299 authorizes a county board of supervisors
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 3
to establish a program that requires a public safety
official's (PSO) name be redacted from any property record
disclosed to the public by that county. AB 2299 requires a
county that establishes a program to ensure that the
property record of a PSO is redacted when a search is
conducted by index name.
If a county board of supervisors establishes a
name-redaction program for PSOs, AB 2299:
Requires the county to prepare and maintain a list
specifying those job classifications that are eligible
to request redactions.
Permits a county to use or maintain internal
records that include the name of a PSO who has
requested redaction.
Authorizes the county to charge a fee for
participating in the program, provided that the fee is
reasonable and charged to cover only the costs of the
program.
Requires an individual to show valid photo
identification and proof of employment eligibility as
a precondition of requesting redaction under the
program.
Requires that a county that establishes a program
and sells aggregate data must provide notice to the
person or entity that purchase the data that the names
of program participants remain confidential and cannot
be posted on any Internet website or solicited, sold,
or traded.
Provides that a public safety official, whose name
is made public as a result of any Internet website
posting, solicitation, sale, or trade, can seek
injunctive or declarative relief in court.
o If the court finds that a violation has
occurred, it may award the official court costs,
reasonable attorney's fees, and may impose a fine
not to exceed $1,000 on the violator.
o A PSO whose name is solicited, sold, or
traded may file a lawsuit. If a jury or court
finds that a violation has occurred, it must
award damages to that PSO in an amount up to
three times the actual damages but no less than
$4,000.
o Provides that a county must not be held
civilly liable if the county provided proper
notice to the person or entity that purchased
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 4
data that the name of the PSO must remain
confidential.
Provides that a county that exercises reasonable
care must not be liable for unintentional disclosure
of a PSO's name.
Provides that a PSO's name or property record must
be released, upon a PSO's request.
Provides that a county board of supervisors has
discretion to design a program implementation process.
Requires that a county must ensure that a PSO's
property record is redacted when a search is conducted
by index by name of the PSO.
Defines, for the purposes of the program,
o "Post" means to intentionally communicate
or otherwise make available to the general
public.
o "Principal residence" means the residence
that qualifies for a homeowners' property tax
exemption.
o "Property record" means any property
record that contains the address of a PSO's
principal resident.
o "Public safety official" means any PSO
who is eligible for, or participates in, the
program.
o "Redacted or redaction" includes
redaction of the address of principal residence
and legal description of the property from a
property record of a public safety official when
a search is conducted by index by name of the
PSO.
The bill provides that the Public Records Act cannot
require disclosure of the name of any PSO, who has
requested confidentiality, if the county maintains a
program that redacts information from property records and
when a search is conducted by name in an index.
The bill defines a public safety official, whether current
or former, as:
Any employee of a federal, state, or local law
enforcement agency, not under suspension or otherwise
lacking in good standing.
A judge, federal magistrate, court commissioner, or
referee who has authority to preside in criminal
proceedings.
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 5
An attorney of a federal, state, or local
prosecutorial or defense agency.
An employee of a federal, state, or local agency
who supervises inmates or is required to have a
prisoner in his or her care.
A probation officer or parole agent.
The bill provides that any employee whose duties are
clerical or who is not engaged in law enforcement
operations is not a public safety official. A PSO who
becomes an elected official is also ineligible for
redaction under the program.
AB 2299 prohibits a PSO's name or property record from
being disclosed under this measure, except to any of the
following:
A court.
A law enforcement agency.
The State Board of Equalization.
An attorney in a civil or criminal action that
demonstrates need for the name, pursuant to a
subpoena.
A governmental agency to which, under any law,
information is required to be furnished from records
maintained by the county.
Any person, upon request of the PSO.
AB 2299 makes findings and declarations, including a
finding that this measure imposes a limitation on the
public's right of access to public bodies' meetings or
public officials and agencies' writings, which is
necessary to prevent crimes against public safety
officials and their families.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . According to the L.A. City
Attorney, "between 2003 and 2008, federal prosecutors and
judges experienced over a 50% increase in the number of
threats and harassing communications." Assessors and
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 6
recorders also can sell address data to land title
companies or other second-parties, and information can end
up on the Internet. Aggrieved parties can use address
information to endanger public safety officials and their
families. AB 2299 authorizes counties to create a
confidential name records program for current and former
public safety officials. Public agencies and entities that
use non-redacted information, like a court order or a law
enforcement agency's request, may continue the use of
non-redacted information for official business. Only
counties that create this program are authorized to charge
a fee that covers the cost of the program. AB 2299
strengthens necessary protections for public safety
officials and helps ensure their families' safety.
2. Occupational hazard . Although the bill advances the
goal of protecting public safety officials, PSOs are not
alone in confronting personal safety threats. California's
Secretary of State operates Safe at Home, a confidentiality
program for victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual
assault, and reproductive healthcare doctors, nurses,
volunteers, and patients. Safe at Home participants use a
free P.O. Box instead of their home address, which
maintains their privacy when receiving mail, opening bank
accounts, registering to vote, or enrolling a child in
school. When a Safe at Home participant would like to
purchase property, Secretary of State staff advise them to
hire legal counsel to place property into a trust. County
recorders and assessors do not redact Safe at Home
participants' names from property records. Why should
state law protect PSOs' property records but not afford
others the same protections? The Committee may wish to
authorize Safe at Home participants to request their name
be redacted from property records in a county that sets up
a name-redaction program.
3. Constructive notice and transparency . One county
recorder writes, "Ownership of real property is the
foundation of a free society." Protecting real property
ownership rights is an important governmental
responsibility. Constructive notice is provided by
recording all documents that affect real property in one
office. The PRA ensures that all parties have access to
these documents. The county recorders hold a chain of
title, which identifies land possession over time, on a
given property. If a legal description of the property or
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 7
ownership is removed from the index of official records, it
may break constructive notice of the transaction, which
undermines the public's access to public documents. AB
2299 doesn't proscribe implementation procedures, allowing
for local discretion. However, this flexibility may
inadvertently create non-uninform procedures across the
state. While costly, the Committee may wish to mandate
that all counties create a name-redaction program to avoid
confusion of a permissive program.
4. Unresolved issues . The bill raises other potential
issues.
First, the bill provides explicit authorization for
certain parties to receive non-redacted information.
The author's intent was to allow land title companies
or others that use and mange real property
transactions to use non-redacted information for
business, as long as requested PSOs' information
remains confidential and is not posted on the
internet, sold, or traded. However, stakeholders
interpret the language otherwise. Without this
authority, land title companies and others worry that
issues related to real property, like ownership,
liens, child support, which may be flagged during
escrow, would result in delayed sales, transfers, and
refinancing. The Committee may wish to clarify the
author's intent.
Second, some county recorder's offices use
microfiche or digital copies that cannot be text
searched, while other offices are fully digitized. It
is unclear how some counties that have outdated
technology can comply. Will recorders search and edit
records manually?
Third, a participating county may keep internal
records that identify a PSO that requests his or her
name redacted. That internal list's security may be
breached and could make it easier to identify and
locate the individuals seeking protection.
5. Fiscal pressures . AB 2299 is not a state mandate
because it simply creates an optional program. However,
counties will face increased pressures to create the
program. It is unclear whether levied fees will offset
program costs. The Committee may wish to consider that
though the county recorder may provide a higher level or
service, counties will not be eligible for reimbursement
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 8
claims.
6. Double-referral . Because some of the bill's provisions
relate to liability, the Senate Rules Committee
double-referred AB 2299 to the Senate Governance and
Finance Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
7. Related legislation . AB 2299 is not the first bill
that seeks to expand privacy protections.
AB 2483 (Blumenfield, 2012) removes the requirement
that victims of stalking provide specified evidence
before they can participate in the Secretary of
State's Safe at Home program. The bill is in the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
AB 1813 (Lieu, 2010) expanded the definition of
peace officer and provided that a public official may
ask to be removed from the internet on cellular phone
applications.
AB 32 (Lieu, 2009) authorized an agent of the
public official to make a written demand for the
removal of the Internet positing of the official's
home address or telephone number.
AB 1595 (Evans, 2005) allowed elected or appointed
officials to obtain an injunction against any person
that publicly posts the home address or telephone
number of that official on the internet, and allows
for damages if this disclosure was made with the
intent to cause bodily harm.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government: 6-1
Assembly Floor: 68-0
Support and Opposition (6/7/13)
Support : Alameda County Sheriff's Office; Association of
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Association of Orange County
Deputy Sheriffs; Calaveras County Sheriff Gary Kuntz;
California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing
Officers in State Employment (CASE); California Coalition
of Law Enforcement Associations; California Correctional
Peace Officers Association; California Correctional
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 9
Supervisors Association; California Fraternal Order of
Police; California Peace Officers' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Public Defenders
Association; California Narcotics Officers Association;
California State Sheriffs' Association; Chief Probation
Officers of California; City of Los Angeles; City and
County of San Francisco Interim Sheriff Vicki Hennessy;
Colusa District Attorney John R. Poyner; Contra Costa
County Sheriff David O. Livingston; Del Norte
Sheriff-Coroner Dean Wilson; Fresno County Sheriff Margaret
Mims; Honorable James R. Brandlin; Judicial Council of
California; Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood; Kings
County Sheriff David Robinson; Long Beach Police Officers
Association; Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich;
Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association; Los Angeles
County Probation Officers Union; Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office; Los Angeles County District
Attorney Steve Cooley; Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department; Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca; Los
Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck; Los Angeles Police
Protective League; Mono County Sheriff-Coroner Richard C.
Scholl; Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Sandra Hutchens;
Peace Officers Research Association of California; Placer
County Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal Edward N. Bonner; Plumas
County District Attorney's Office; Riverside Sheriffs'
Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association;
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office; Sacramento
County Sheriff Scott Jones; San Bernardino County Sheriff
Rod Hoops; San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore; San
Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association; Santa Ana
Police Officers Association; Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill
Brown; San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks; Shasta County
District Attorney's Office; Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner
Tom Bosenko; Siskyou County Sheriff Jon E. Lopey; Sonoma
County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas; Southern California
Alliance of Law Enforcement; Ventura County Sheriff's
Office; Yolo County Sheriff-Coroner E.G. Prieto; Yuba
County Sheriff-Coroner Steven L. Durfor.
Opposition : Bardellini, Straw, Cavin & Bupp, LLP;
California Assessors' Association; California Association
of Realtors; California Association of County Treasurers
and Tax Collectors; California Escrow Association;
California Land Title Association; California Newspaper
Publishers Association; Colusa County Recorder Kathleen
AB 2299 -- 6/6/12 -- Page 10
Moran; Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and Register of
Voters Stephen L. Weir; County Recorders' Association of
California; Inyo County; Inyo County Clerk, Recorder, and
Registrar of Voters Kammi Foote; Jamison and Chappel; First
American Financial Corporation; Napa County; Placer County
Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Jim McCauley; Santa Clara County
Assessor Lawrence E. Stone; 5 individuals.