Local government: public safety officials: confidentiality.
Summary
Existing law sets forth the duties and powers of the board of supervisors of a county and the county recorder and county assessor of each county. Existing law requires the county recorder to, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, accept for recordation any instrument, paper, or notice that is authorized or required by statute or court order to be recorded, as specified. Existing law allows any instrument or judgment affecting the title to, or possession of, real property to be recorded. Existing law requires a document that effects or evidences a transfer or encumbrance of an interest in real property to include the name or names in which the interest appears of record. Existing law requires the county recorder of each county to establish a social security truncation program for the redaction of social security numbers to create a public record version of official records. This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of a county to establish a program that requires the names of certain public safety officials to be redacted from any property record of principal residence that is disclosed to the public by that county, except as specified. The bill would authorize a county to charge a fee for participation in the program. The bill would set forth requirements that would apply to the sale of aggregate data. The bill would require a county that establishes a program pursuant to this act to also ensure that the property record of a public safety official is redacted, as defined, in a specified manner when a search is conducted by index by name of the public safety official. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make public records available upon receipt of a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record not otherwise exempt from disclosure, and upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Jun 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 24, 2012
Last action Jun 13, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly May 17, 2012
How they voted
60–0
Passed · 10 other
Total votes 70
May 17, 2012
D
Democratic44
81% Yea
R
Republican26
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
17
Key actions
5
Committee
8
Jun 13, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
upper
May 24, 2012
Committee
Referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and JUD.
upper
May 17, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (60-0-10)
assembly
May 10, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (May 9).
lower
May 7, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
May 2, 2012
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 10, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Mar 19, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Feb 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
MF
Mike Feuer
DDemocratic
Co
Bob Wieckowski
DDemocratic
Co
Cathleen Galgiani
DDemocratic
Co
KD
Kevin D Jeffries
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2299
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2299. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline