BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
6
8
AB 2687 (Bocanegra) 7
As Amended March 27, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: CONFIDENTIAL HOME ADDRESS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1270 (Eggman) - failed Assembly
Appropriations, 2013
AB 923 (Swanson) - failed Assembly Appropriations,
2009
AB 529 (Lowenthal) - failed Assembly
Appropriations, 2009
AB 1958 (Swanson) - failed Assembly Appropriations,
2008
AB 1311 (Berryhill) - not heard Assembly
Transportation, 2007
AB 1706 (Strickland) - failed Assembly
Transportation, 2005
AB 2012 (Chu) - section amended out of the bill,
2004
AB 130 (Campbell) - not heard Assembly
Transportation, 2003
AB 246 (Cox) - not heard Assembly Transportation,
2003
AB 1775 (Ortiz) - no vote in Senate Public Safety,
2002
AB 84 (Hertzberg) - Ch. 809, Stats. 2001
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 2
AB 1029 (Oropeza) - Ch. 486, Stats. 2001
AB 151 (Longville) - vetoed, 2000
AB 298 (Battin) - held in Assembly
Transportation, 2000
AB 1310 (Granlund) - vetoed, 2000
AB 1358 (Shelley) - Ch. 808,
Stats. 2000
AB 1864 (Correa) - held Assembly
Appropriations, 2000
SB 171 (Knight) - vetoed, 1998
AB 1941 (Bordonaro) - Ch. 880,
Stats. 1996
AB 191(Cannella) - died in Sen.
Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
AB 3033 (Baca) - died in Sen.
Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
AB 3391 (Ducheny) - never heard, 1996
AB 688 (Frusetta) - died in Sen.
Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
AB 1396 (Poochigian) - died in Sen.
Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1996
AB 1931 (Conroy) - Ch. 77, Stats.
1994
AB 3454 (Speier) - Ch. 395, Stats.
1994
AB 3161 (Frazee) - Ch. 838, Stats.
1994
AB 1268 (Martinez) - Ch. 1268,
Stats. 1993
AB 2367 (Polanco) - Ch. 1291,
Stats. 1993
SB 274 (Committee on Transportation)
- Ch. 1292, Stats. 1993
SB 602 (1992) - Chaptered
AB 1779 (1989) - Chaptered
Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, (AFSCME) Local 2620
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 3
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 72 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD LICENSING PROGRAM ANALYSTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES BE ADDED TO THOSE WHO MAY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF
CONFIDENTIALITY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add Licensing Program Analysts
from the Department of Social Services to those who may request
an additional level of confidentiality from the Department of
Motor Vehicles.
Under existing law the residential addresses of certain public
employees and their families are confidential. (Vehicle Code ��
1808.4 and 1808.6 - began in 1977.)
Existing law states that all residence addresses in any record
of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are confidential and
shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law
enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as
authorized in section 1808.22 of the Vehicle Code. (Vehicle
Code �� 1808.21 - added in 1989.)
Existing law states that any person may seek suppression of any
DMV registration or driver's license record if he or she can
show that he or she is the subject of stalking or a threat of
death or great bodily injury. The suppression will be for a
period of one year renewable for two more one year periods.
(Vehicle Code � 1808.21(d).)
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 4
Existing law provides that the home address of specified persons
which appear in the records of DMV is confidential upon the
request of the person and that it not be disclosed except as
specified. (Vehicle Code �� 1808.4 and 1808.6.)
Existing law provides that the willful, unauthorized disclosure
of this information as it relates to specified law enforcement
(peace officers, employees of city police departments, and
county sheriffs' offices and their families) that results in the
bodily injury to the individual or individuals whose specified
information was confidential, is a felony. (Vehicle Code ��
1808.4.)
Existing law provides that the release of such confidential
information, for all other persons specified, is a misdemeanor
and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or by up to one
year in a county jail. (Vehicle Code � 1808.45.)
This bill would add licensing program analysts from the
Department of Social Services to those who can request an
additional layer of confidentiality from the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 5
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31, 2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 6
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 7
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
AB 2687 would add Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) of
the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to
a statutory list that serves as the basis for the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Confidential Records
Program (CRP).
The DMV's CRP was created to provide confidentiality of
home address to specified public employees listed in
statutory law. The law, which was enacted at a time
when anyone could access DMV records, was designed to
protect "at-risk" public employees, who are victims of
stalking and threats of violence.
Though the Legislature made all DMV records
confidential in 1989, the general public was not
provided with the same level of confidentiality as
those listed in the CRP. The general public was
provided standard confidentiality while the individuals
listed in the DMV's CRP were granted enhanced
confidentiality.
Under enhanced confidentiality (i.e. DMV CRP), only a
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 8
court, a law enforcement agency, the BOE, or a
government agency legally required to be furnished home
address information can access those records. Under
standard confidentiality, which everyone now has, the
same four governmental entities can access home address
information. However, this information can also be
accessed by financial institutions, insurance
companies, attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, and
persons doing statistical research.
Despite granting standard confidentiality to all
members of the public post-1989, the Legislature, on
numerous occasions, continued to add various classes of
employees to the statutory list of public employees
granted enhanced confidentiality. For instance, social
workers were added to the statutory list in 1992 (see
SB 602).
Today, LPAs, who are by and large women, are "at-risk."
They spend much of their time visiting the community
care facilities that they are tasked with evaluating.
They frequently must use their personal vehicles to
fulfill the duties of their job and, therefore, risk
someone taking down their personal license plate
numbers, which could then be used to track them down
for nefarious purposes. They have been harassed,
stalked, and threatened for simply doing their job -
citing or closing down community care facilities.
This is a public safety issue, and while much personal
information is easily accessible via the internet, AB
2687 will, at the very least, ensure that the home
addresses of LPAs remain in as small of a circulation
pool as possible. Though it is not a cure-all, this
bill is an important step in the right direction and
consistent with past actions of this body.
Like the public employees on the statutory list, LPAs
have a job that is sensitive in nature. They are only
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 9
asking for treatment that is commensurate with that of
the numerous groups, including social workers, that
have been added to the statutory list post-1989.
2. Background of DMV Confidentiality
Vehicle Code section 1808.4 was added by statute in 1977 to
provide confidentiality of home addresses to specified public
employees and their families.
In 1989, Vehicle Code section 1808.21 was added to make all
residence addresses confidential within the Department of Motor
Vehicle files. Vehicle Code section 1808.21(a) states the
following:
The residence address in any record of the department
is confidential and cannot
be disclosed to any person except a court, law
enforcement agency, or other governmental agency, or as
authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23.
This section was further amended in 1994 to allow individuals
under specific circumstances to request that their entire
records be suppressed. Any individual who is the subject of
stalking or who is experiencing a threat of death or great
bodily injury to his or her person, may request their entire
record to be suppressed under this section.
Upon suppression of a record, each request for information about
that record has to be authorized by the subject of the record or
verified as legitimate by other investigative means by the DMV
before the information is released.
A record is suppressed for a one-year period. At the end of the
one year period, the suppression is continued for a period
determined by the department and if the person submits
verification acceptable to the department that he or she
continues to have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is
the subject of stalking or that there exists a threat of death
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 10
or great bodily injury to his or her person.
DMV has long maintained that all residence addresses are
suppressed and only persons authorized by statute can access
this information.
Under sections 1808.4 and 1808.6 the home addresses of specific
individuals are suppressed and can only be accessed through the
Confidential Records Unit of the Department of Motor Vehicles
while under section 1808.21, the residence address portion of
all individuals' records are suppressed but can be accessed by a
court, law enforcement agency, or other governmental agency or
other authorized persons.
3. The Department of Motor Vehicles
There have been a number of the bills adding or attempting to
add various public employees to the enhanced confidentiality
provisions of the Vehicle Code.
According to a Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis for
June 11, 1996 of AB 1941 (Bordonaro):
According to a letter dated June 9, 1995 from the
Department of Motor Vehicles concerning related
measures initially set for hearing last year (AB 191,
AB 688,
AB 1396) on this issue, AB 1941 "is just one of four
bills slated for the Criminal Procedure Committee
hearing on June 13 which seek to include various
professions within the category of confidential records
that have historically been reserved for law
enforcement personnel. When names are added to this
special category, they cannot be accessed except
through a telephone procedure utilized in one
particular file security area in the DMV's Sacramento
headquarters location. Currently, we estimate that
this file contains close to half a million individual
records which must be manually entered and individually
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 11
retrieved when access is authorized.
The DMV has stated that approximately 1000 requests for
confidentiality of home addresses are made each week.
The Confidential Records Unit of the DMV consists of 12
people and only two of these people review these forms
to determine whether the individuals requesting
confidentiality are in fact qualified to do so.
According to the DMV, a majority of these requests are
granted due to the fact that the DMV restricts the
release of the request forms to qualifying agencies and
individuals only. The Confidential Records Unit of the
DMV updated "5900 records in May 1995 and only 273
applications were rejected."
(More)
The DMV has also stated the following:
In 1989, the actress Rebecca Schaeffer was brutally
murdered by a stalker who had obtained her home
address indirectly from DMV. In response, laws were
enacted "Updated" records include both new requests
and changes to existing confidential records.
Applications for confidentiality are considered
"rejected" if the form is missing information, needs
further clarification, or the individual is not
qualified to have their record made confidential
making all residence addresses confidential within the
department's files. With a very few closely-monitored
exceptions, addresses are fully protected and cannot
be accessed from DMV's files by anyone other than a
court, law enforcement agency or authorized
governmental agency.
Our closing argument rests in the fact that we have
become aware that many local parking agencies find it
administratively burdensome to contact our Sacramento
unit to identify the owner of a vehicle whose record
has been suppressed under this statute. As a result,
lawfully issued parking citations have been "forgiven"
simply because it is non cost effective to identify the
owner. The inequity of such a circumstance speaks for
itself.
While DMV has no position on this bill, the statements they have
made in the past are still valid today. Everyone's record at
DMV is confidential. The enhanced confidentiality merely means
that law enforcement has to go through an additional step to
access these records.
4. Licensing Program Analysts
This bill will add Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) who work
for the Department of Social Services. The author states that
the concern is that the LPAs often have to drive their own
vehicles to conduct on-site evaluations. However, under
(More)
AB 2687 (Bocanegra)
Page 13
existing law there is no way a person can use a person's license
plate to get his or her home address through DMV. Current
confidentiality protections in existence since 1989 have made it
impossible for someone who is not law enforcement, a court or a
specified government agency to access address information from
DMV. Because of the access to personal information on the
internet, people do not go to DMV to get individual's addresses.
While LPAs certainly may face serious threats it is not clear
that the additional enhanced confidentiality will add them any
additional protection but it will cost DMV additional money to
add and manage another category of people.
***************