BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 767
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 767 (Lieu) - As Amended: March 27, 2014
SENATE VOTE : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Department of Motor Vehicles: records: confidentiality
SUMMARY : Adds code enforcement officers to the list of persons
who can request that their home address be held confidential by
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Adds code enforcement officers to the list of persons eligible
to participate in DMV's confidential records program.
2)Requires persons requesting confidentiality for their spouse
or children to declare at the time of the request whether the
spouse or child is on mandatory supervision or postrelease
community supervision as a result of having been convicted of
a crime.
3)Includes Legislative findings related to the need for the
bill.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Lists 23 classes of persons, primarily in law enforcement
fields, plus the spouses and children of those persons, that
may request that their home addresses be held confidential by
DMV. The home addresses of these persons may only be
disclosed to a court; a law enforcement agency; the State
Board of Equalization (BOE); an attorney in a civil or
criminal action who demonstrates to a court the need for the
home address, if the disclosure is made pursuant to a
subpoena; and any governmental agency legally required to be
furnished the information.
2)Makes confidential 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,
SB 767
Page 2
attorneys, vehicle manufacturers, 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.
4)Requires persons requesting confidentiality for their spouse
or children to declare at the time of the request whether the
spouse or child is on active parole.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Until 1989, DMV records were considered public
records unless state law specifically made them confidential, as
was the case for the addresses of peace officers and certain
other officials thought to be at risk. Because home addresses
were not considered confidential, 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 all home addresses in DMV records confidential,
with limited exceptions. AB 1779 left in place existing
confidentiality provisions that applied only to peace officers
and certain other officials. The list of those to whom the
pre-AB 1779 confidentiality provisions apply now includes 23
classes of persons. To date, DMV is not aware of any instances
since the implementation of AB 1779 where DMV home address
information has been used for physical harm or for violent
criminal purposes.
This bill proposes to add code enforcement officers to the list
of those persons eligible to request that DVM hold their
addresses confidential via the confidential records program
(CRP). According to the author, "Code enforcement officers face
risks on the job nearly every day. In recent years at least
seven code enforcement officers have been killed in the line of
SB 767
Page 3
duty and countless others have been injured. In addition to the
ever-present danger they face while on duty, their safety after
work has been compromised due to a lack of protection of their
personal residential information."
Given that DMV records are universally confidential, with
limited exceptions, and the fact that DMV is not aware of any
instances since the implementation of AB 1779 in which DMV home
address information has been used for physical harm or for
violent criminal purposes, the need for this bill is unclear.
People seeking confidential information about others generally
do not look to DMV records for personal data since those records
are so carefully protected and the same information is much more
easily obtainable via the internet and social media. While
there is no doubt that code enforcement officers face serious
threats as a result of their work, there is no reason to believe
adding them to the list of persons eligible for the CRP will
afford them a greater level of protection.
Committee concerns : This bill contains various statements in
the findings that are misleading or factually inaccurate. The
findings imply that the residential information of code
enforcement officers, other than those who are nonwsworn
employees of a police agency, is not protected. While it is true
that code enforcement officers are not eligible to participate
in the CRP, their information is held confidential by the DMV,
just as everyone else's information is held confidential.
In addition, the findings relay the story of Cynthia Volpe, a
code enforcement officer for the City of Bakersfield who, along
with her husband and mother, were tragically murdered in their
home in 1992 by a person who had been issued a citation by Volpe
for failure to abate slum housing condttions in apartment units
that were owned by the perpetrator. The findings go on to state
that the perpetrator obtaining knowledge of Ms. Volpe's home
address by acquiring her information from the DMV. While this is
a long-held belief in the code enforcement community, there is
no evidence to support this statement.
Related legislation : AB 2687 (Bocanegra) adds licensing program
analysts with the Department of Social Services to the list of
those eligible for the CRP and requires eligible persons
requesting confidentiality for their spouse or child to disclose
whether the spouse or child has been convicted of a crime and is
SB 767
Page 4
on mandatory supervision or post release community supervision
at the time of the request for confidentiality. It is currently
set for hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Prior legislation : Over the past 10 years, a number of bills
proposing to expand the list of those eligible to apply for the
CRP have died, including:
AB 1270 (Eggman) of 2013, which would have added code
enforcement officers and their spouses and children to the
list. That bill died in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
AB 923 (Swanson) of 2009, which would have added Board
of Equalization members, code enforcement officers, and
certain veterinarians. That bill died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 592 (Lowenthal) of 2009, which would have added BOE
staff who are designated to exercise limited peace officer
authority and duties. That bill died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1958 (Swanson) of 2008, which would have added
firefighters, code enforcement officers, and certain
veterinarians. That bill died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1311 (Berryhill) of 2007, which would have added
community service and public service officers employed by
police departments. That bill died in the Assembly
Transportation Committee after being withdrawn by the
author.
AB 1706 (Strickland) of 2005, which would have added
fraud investigators, park rangers, emergency dispatchers,
and DMV employees who test new drivers. That bill died in
the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 130 (Campbell) of 2003 and AB 246 (Cox) of, 2003,
which both would have added members of Congress. Neither
author ever took up his bill in committee.
AB 2012 (Chu) of 2004, which would have added
court-appointed attorneys, their investigators, and social
SB 767
Page 5
workers assigned to child abuse cases. These provisions
were eventually amended out of the bill.
Other legislative efforts have aimed to address program and
public safety abuses associated with the CRP. For example, AB 3
(Miller) of 2011 and AB 2097 (Miller) of 2010, would have
required CRP participants to update their records in order
improve the ability to identify toll evaders. AB 3 died in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee and AB 2097 died in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Additionally, SB 938 (Huff), Chapter
280, Statutes of 2010, removed CRP confidentiality protections
for certain individuals who have been convicted of crimes.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093