BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2366
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2366 (Eng) - As Amended: March 26, 2012
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Adds nonsworn sheriff's security officers to the list of
professions whose records are provided enhanced
confidentiality by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
2)Increases, from $10 to $25, the fine for equipment violations,
including failure to properly display a license plate.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Given the small number of individuals involved, the direct
costs from this bill are minor, probably absorbable to DMV to
modify its public confidentiality process to include nonsworn
sheriff's security officers.
2)Numerous groups, however, have sought enhanced confidentiality
status. Passage of this bill creates considerable pressure for
the Legislature to approve enhanced status for potentially
tens of thousands of individuals, at a substantial cost to DMV
- potentially exceeding several hundreds of thousands of
dollars per year. (Motor Vehicle Account.)
3)Potential reduction of a minor amount in local tolls, parking
fees, fines, to the extent current law makes it difficult for
local parking and toll agencies to collect tolls and fines
from those protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes
(see discussion below).
4)Potential state revenue increase of an unknown amount
AB 2366
Page 2
resulting from the $15 increase in the fine for equipment
violations, half of which goes to the State Treasury,
resulting both from the greater fine amount as well as the
potential for an increased number of citations being issued.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends it appropriate the DMV treat
the personal information of nonsworn peace officers, such as
Los Angeles sheriff's security officers, who participate in
contentious and dangerous law enforcement activities, as it
does the personal information of other law enforcement
personnel. In addition, the author contends the $10 fine for
equipment violations does not the cover the cost to the
issuing agency to process the citation, which the author
estimates at approximately $25.
2)Background-Enhanced Confidentiality. 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. DMV records for these individuals
only show the individual's employer's address. Home addresses
may be retrieved only through a time consuming manual process.
The original list of persons whose home addresses are to be
kept confidential by the DMV included the Attorney General and
Department of Justice attorneys, the State Public Defender and
deputy defenders, members of the Legislature, judges or court
commissioners, district attorneys and their deputies, public
defenders, and peace officers and their families. Since then,
the list has expanded to encompass tens of thousands of other
public employees and their families.
In 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was stalked and killed by a
man who obtained her address through a private investigator
who, in turn, obtained her address from the DMV. In response
to this murder, the Legislature enacted AB 1779 (Roos) -
Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1989, which made confidential the
home addresses of all individuals with records at the DMV. The
level of confidentiality is similar to that enjoyed by public
officials protected by the 1986 legislation, except that
AB 2366
Page 3
disclosures may also be made, in limited circumstances, to
financial institutions, insurance companies, attorneys,
vehicle manufacturers, and persons doing statistical research.
Despite the fact that all home addresses are kept confidential
by the DMV, the Legislature has considered and enacted several
bills since 1990 adding select categories of persons to the
public official confidentiality process.
An investigation by the Orange County Register 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 (who are not exempted from the enhanced
confidentiality statutes) attempt to collect fines from such
individuals, DMV is precluded from providing the information
under the special confidentiality statutes, and the agencies
must then seek information through a request from law
enforcement agencies. Given these hurdles and statutes of
limitations, local agencies have been precluded from
collecting fines and tolls owed by these officials.
3)Background-Equipment Violations. Current law allows equipment
violations, such as failure to display a license plate, to be
entered on a notice of parking violation attached to a vehicle
by an enforcement officer. The penalty for such a violation
is $10 upon proof of correction of the violation to the
enforcing agency. Existing law directs 50% of any penalty
revenues collected for these violations to the State Treasurer
and allows the remaining 50% to be retained by the issuing
agency and processing agency.
Local enforcing agencies contend the $10 penalty is
insufficient to cover their costs to issue and process
equipment violations, which they estimate at about $25. As a
result, local enforcement agencies are discouraged from citing
equipment violations. It is not clear, however, that a $25
dollar penalty for equipment violations, half of which goes to
the state, provides adequate motivation to local enforcement
agencies that will continue to spend more to issue and process
violations than they receive in penalty revenue.
AB 2366
Page 4
4)Related Legislation.
a) AB 592 (Lowenthal, 2009) would have added Board of
Equalization investigators to the list of peace officers
and other public officials who may request the DMV to
provide enhanced confidentiality to their home addresses.
The bill was held by this committee.
b) AB 923 (Swanson, 2009) would have added BOE members, zoo
veterinarians, employees of certain animal control
shelters, and code enforcement officers, to the list of
peace officers and other public officials who may request
the DMV to provide enhanced confidentiality to their home
addresses. The bill was held by this committee.
c) AB 996 (Spitzer, 2008) would have allowed toll and
parking enforcement agencies access to DMV records of those
covered by the special confidentiality statutes but was
vetoed by the governor.
d) AB 2097 (Miller, 2010) would have required persons
receiving enhanced confidentiality of DMV records to
provide a current employment address to DMV and made other
changes to improve collections of traffic violations. The
bill was held in Senate Appropriations.
e) AB 3 (Miller 2011) would have required DMV to provide
notice of outstanding toll evasion violations to
individuals who have requested a confidential home address.
The bill was held in this committee.
f) AB 2192 (Miller, 2012) is similar to Mr. Miller's
previous two bills and is pending before this committee.
5)Support. This bill is supported by the California Public
Parking Association (sponsor), the Los Angeles County
Professional Peace Officers Association (sponsor) and other
law enforcement groups whose members benefit from enhanced
confidentiality of DMV records.
6)There is no opposition formally registered to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 2366
Page 5