Agenda

Return

C. 27

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Date:	July 19, 2016

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Support position on AB 2263 (Baker) Protect Victims and Reproductive Health Care Providers

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 07/19/2016

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

ABSENT:

Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor

Contact:

L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 19, 2016
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2263 (Baker), as amended: Protect Victims and Reproductive Health Care Providers, a bill that prohibits specified entities from publicly posting or displaying on the Internet the home address of a reproductive health care services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient who has requested address non-disclosure, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No immediate fiscal impact.

BACKGROUND:

At its June 13, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from the County's state legislative advocate to recommend a position of "Support" to the Board of Supervisors on AB 2263.

BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)

Status: 06/28/2016 From SENATE Committee on JUDICIARY: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.

Bill Analysis - 06/27/2016 - Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing Date 06/28/2016

SUBJECT

Protection of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and reproductive health care service providers: address confidentiality

DESCRIPTION

This bill would standardize the confidentiality protections for Safe at Home (SAH) program participants, regardless of whether their participation is based on their status as victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, or on their status as a patient, employee, or volunteer at a reproductive health care clinic; and would require the Secretary of State (SOS) to provide SAH enrollees with information about how to protect their privacy on real property records.

BACKGROUND

With the passage of SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998), the Legislature established the SAH within the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) to allow victims of domestic violence to apply for a substitute address to be used in public records in order to prevent their assailants, or potential assailants, from finding their work or home address. Through subsequent legislation, the program has been expanded to include victims of sexual assault, stalking, elder abuse, and reproductive health care service providers, employees, volunteers, and patients. (See SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000), AB 205 (Leach, Ch. 33, Stats. of 2000), AB 797 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002), and AB 849 (Garcia, Ch. 676, Stats. 2013.).)

This bill would standardize the protections available to program participants and seeks to enhance participants' ability to maintain anonymity on real property records by requiring the SOS to provide participants with specified information.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law establishes an address confidentiality (or Safe at Home) program within the Office of the Secretary of State in order to enable state and local agencies to both accept and respond to requests for public records without disclosing the changed name or address of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing law permits any such adult victim, or parent or guardian acting on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person, to apply through a community-based victims' assistance program to have an address designated by the Secretary of State as his or her substitute mailing address. (Gov. Code Sec. 6205 et seq.) Similarly, existing law allows reproductive health care providers, employees, volunteers, and patients to participate in the SAH address confidentiality program, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6215 et seq.)

Existing law provides that no person, business, or association shall knowingly and intentionally publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address, home telephone number, or image of a program participant or other individuals residing at the same home address with the intent to threaten the participant or cause the participant, or co-resident, harm, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6208.1.)

Existing law prohibits the SOS from disclosing a program participant's name change or address, other than the designated address, unless it is requested by, and disclosed to, law enforcement, or directed by a court, or if the participant's certification has been canceled. (Gov. Code Secs. 6206, 6206.4 and 6208)

Existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from knowingly posting or displaying on the Internet the home address, home telephone number, or image of any provider, employee, volunteer, or patient of a reproductive health service facility, with the intent to incite a third person to cause imminent bodily harm to a person protected by this provision. Permits a person whose personal information is posted to bring an action for injunctive relief of damages, as specified. Provides that no person shall post or display on the Internet any personal information about a person protected by this provision if the person has requested that the information be removed, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 6218.)

This bill would specify that no person, business, or association shall publicly post or display on the Internet the address of an SAH program participant, as specified, who has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose the home address of the program participant.

This bill would specify that no person, business, or association shall knowingly post the home address of an SAH program participant, as specified, or of the program participant's residing spouse or child, on the Internet, knowing that person is a program participant and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to the program participant or his or her residing spouse or child. However, this provision does not apply to an interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined, unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to a program participant.

This bill would require the SOS to post on its Internet Web site and provide new SAH enrollees information about how to protect personal privacy on real property records as follows:

* a notice that the participant may request to use his or her SOS SAH address on real property deeds, change of ownership forms, and deeds of trust when purchasing or selling a home;

* a notice that the participant may wish to protect his or her home address from disclosure in real property transactions by creating a trust and placing his or her real property into the trust;

* a notice that the participant may wish to legally change his or her name in order to protect his or her anonymity; and

* a list of contacts for entities, such as county bar associations, legal aid societies, domestic violence prevention organizations, or other state or local nonprofits who can provide more information and legal services to create a trust or accomplish a name change.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Unfortunately, there is one gaping loophole in the Safe at Home Program: the title to property recorded in local Assessor's Offices. As a result, victims of domestic violence and other Californians intended to be protected by Safe At Home can be found by perpetrators who go to the Assessor's Office to locate them and track them down.

The ability to access information freely on the Internet can be dangerous for victims. If a victim owns property, the title of the property is available as a public document at the county's Assessor's Office. The victim's abuser can freely access the property information, potentially exposing the victim to further harm.

2. Standardizes treatment of participants in SAH

Under existing law victims of specified abuse (i.e., domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault) are protected by SAH. In addition, patients, employees, or volunteers at a reproductive health care center may enroll in the program. Both groups of participants enjoy the restrictions on disclosures by public agencies that help maintain the participants' confidentiality, but victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault have one additional protection: a private person, business, or association is prohibited from posting or displaying on the Internet the home address of an SAH participant if the SAH participant has demanded that the person, business, or association remove the home address. In addition, existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from posting the SAH participant's home address online with the knowledge and intent to cause that person imminent harm.

Although similar protections are afforded to patients and reproductive health care providers under other statutes, the author believes that consolidating all participants under one SAH framework will clarify the legislative intent to provide both groups with privacy protections.

In opposition, the California Right to Life Committee writes, "this bill may be protecting domestic violence victims and others with an alternate and approved address, but it appears to single out family planning personnel who, basically, are abortion providers and would provide them with an additional cloak of privacy. Other healthcare providers who are not providing abortion and abortion related services are not included in this proposed protection of personal information. Agencies that provide services and are considered anti-abortion should merit equal protection and confidentiality of their personal information."

The author responds, "AB 2263 standardizes the confidentiality protections for existing enrollees in the SAH program, and requires the SOS to provide SAH enrollees with information about how to protect their privacy on real property records. This bill also extends to all SAH enrollees the protections law enforcement and elected officials currently have by specifying that no person, business, or association shall publicly post or display on the Internet the address of a SAH program participant who has made a written request that the home address not be disclosed. This bill covers only existing categories of SAH enrollees. It does not expand access to the SAH program to any new categories of enrollees, nor does it single out any category of enrollee for special treatment. AB 2263 ensures uniform protections for those who are already currently eligible for the program, including anyone who is a victim of stalking of violence, regardless of profession."

3. Provides SAH participants with information about how to protect confidentiality with respect to real property transactions

This bill would require the SOS to provide to SAH participants information about how to keep his or her address and/or name anonymous on specified real property records. In support, the California State Sherriff's Association writes:

Current law provides that state and local agencies may use a Secretary of State designated address when creating public records for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well as reproductive health care service providers. Unfortunately, this protection does not prevent a county assessor's office from publishing certain records, which creates a loophole in maintaining the victim's confidentiality. Consequently, potential predators are able to access a victim's private home address by using the county assessor records.

Staff notes that when California became a state in 1850, one of the first acts of the Legislature was to institute a system for recording interests in real property. By providing for evidence of title to be collected and made available at central locations, recording statutes protect buyers against secret conveyances and interests and make real property readily and freely transferable. The recording statutes provide that, after being acknowledged, any instrument or judgment affecting real property may be recorded. Prohibitions against recording contained in documents that could otherwise be recorded would be considered contrary to public policy, and the document may be recorded in spite of the attempted prohibition.

Thus, the Legislature has repeatedly determined that regarding real property, public policy requires a clean chain of title to prevent fraud and protect individual interests in land. That being said, methods of protecting confidentiality in real property records have been created. For example, individuals who wish to protect their street address from disclosure have been advised to create a revocable living trust and place their real property into the trust. Staff notes that this method of keeping a street address private is, by and large, only available to individuals with sufficient means to hire an attorney to establish a revocable living trust.

Further, this bill would require the SOS provide participants with a list of contact information for entities that the program participant may "contact to receive information on, or receive legal services for, the creation of a trust to hold real property or obtaining a name change, including county bar associations, legal aid societies, state and local agencies, or other nonprofit organizations that may be able to assist program participants." How the SOS would determine which organizations to include on this list is not outlined in the bill, but including any specific organizations could arguably advantage some companies over others in the form of free advertising. As a matter of public policy, such favoritism could be seen as contrary to the role of a neutral governmental body. Accordingly the author may wish to remove this provision from the bill. Further the author may wish to consider how to educate SAH participants about the availability of confidentiality options, regardless of the participant's economic ability to establish a living trust.

Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties; Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office; Crime Victims United of California; Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Santa Barbara, Ventura, & San Luis Obispo Counties; Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest; Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County; Planned Parenthood Advocates Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley; Planned Parenthood Mar Monte; Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund

Opposition: California Right to Life Committee

HISTORY

Source: Author

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

AB 849 (Garcia, Ch. 676, Stats. 2013.) See Background.

AB 2483 (Blumenfield, Ch. 102, Stats. 2012) removed the requirement that victims alleging stalking as the basis of their eligibility for the address confidentiality program provide specific evidence attached to the application.

SB 1082 (Corbett, Ch. 270, Stats. 2012) made a number of changes to the SAH, including requiring applicants and participants of the program to be domiciled in California, and authorizing a minor participant to renew his or her participation upon reaching 18 years of age.

AB 906 (Galgiani, 2012) would have authorized witnesses who have testified in murder trials to participate in the SAH. This bill died on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File.

AB 454 (Silva, Ch. 101, Stats. 2011) required notice regarding a request to cancel or modify a protective order be given by service on the Secretary of State when a protected party is registered with the SAH.

SB 1062 (Bowen, Ch. 639, Stats. 2006) added victims of sexual assault to the list of eligible SAH participants.

AB 792 (Shelley, Ch. 380, Stats. 2002) See Background.

SB 1318 (Alpert, Ch. 562, Stats. 2000) See Background.

AB 205 (Leach, Ch. 33, Stats. 2000) See Background.

SB 489 (Alpert, Ch. 1005, Stats. 1998) See Background.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)

Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************
Attachment A includes the bill text.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill.