pisdeclassified.com

November 2010

While the elections are over and we are each anticipating what will come with 2011, we can look back on 2010 knowing that we have made positive strides for private investigators. This year, we moved to successfully protect and enhance our ability to serve process, conduct surveillance, utilize pretext, provide consumer credit reports, obtain public records, and perform many other activities. In fact, we either modified or defeated absolutely every bill we targeted this year.

We did make a difference!

CALI has spent years in developing a viable and comprehensive legislative program, concentrating on developing trusting relationships with those elected or appointed to serve in Sacramento. Last spring, we hosted our 11^th annual Legislative Day. We have a dynamic and committed Legislative Committee and Board of Directors. We have an energetic and effective Political Action Committee (PAC). We now have many members who have taken an interest in meeting their District representatives and furthering CALI’s grass roots efforts.  And, in my opinion, we have the best lobbying firm in the state! None of this happened overnight nor without hard work. But, never have we seen the fruits of our legislative program as we have in the 2010 legislative year. And, never have we had more bills to review, to watch, and to discuss with legislators.

Restrictions on Service of Process Defeated       

CALI, jointly with CALSPro, successfully lobbied to oppose SB 984 [Hollingsworth], a proposal that would have:

• Restricted the initial service of process in civil proceedings, at a party’s residence, so that it may only be made between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
• Required the person making the service to state his or her full name, to state that he or she is at the residence for the purpose of making service, and to identify the party upon whom the service is directed.
• Imposed a new penalty of $25,000 per violation against a server who makes service outside of the designated hours or fails to make the required disclosures.
• Imposed a penalty of $10,000 for service made to the wrong residence.
• Required the revocation of that server’s certificate of registration if an erroneous service was caused by the server’s negligence or if a violation of other requirements of the bill was determined.

Senator Hollingsworth chose not to pursue the bill after it moved to the Senate Floor.

Prohibition against Surveillance Prevented       

AB 2479 [Bass] passed after CALI lobbied and obtained amendments to remove our concern that language in the bill included a prohibition against stalking as it applied to legitimate investigator surveillance. The provisions incorporated into the bill acknowledge and provide for legitimate investigations conducted by licensed private investigators and was signed by the Governor.

Prohibition against Electronic Pretext Prevented       

SB 1411 [Simitian] passed after CALI lobbied and obtained amendments to remove our concern that this bill would have prohibited electronic pretext. The bill was revised to ensure that the prohibited impersonation applies to “another actual person,” making it clear that the bill will not apply in situations where a fictitious person is impersonated electronically (email, Facebook, My Space or other electronic methods). Previous amendments deleted language such as “bad faith” or “deceit” in the original bill that were worrisome and was also signed into law.

Unlimited New Fee for Public Records Prevented       

SB 1324 [Negrete McLeod] did not proceed after CALI objected to an authorization for local government agencies to charge new fee [without a maximum amount] when requesting a copy of a public record. The new fee was intended to cover the cost of staff search and review time where the request is made for commercial use.

Restrictions on Consumer Credit Reports Prevented       

After a battle that led all the way to the desk of California’s governor, AB 482 [Mendoza] was vetoed. AB 482 proposed a prohibition against employers using consumer credit reports for employment purposes unless the information was “substantially job related,” as defined, including positions that handle cash, other assets, or personal information, and at least one of the following conditions: managerial, municipal, sworn peace officer or other law enforcement, or as otherwise required by law. The bill would have severely restricted the ability of our employer clients to use consumer credit reports we provide for employment purposes.

BILL NUMBER:  AB 482

VETOED  DATE: 09/23/2010

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 482 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit an employer from using a consumer credit report for employment purposes with certain exceptions.

This bill is similar to legislation I have vetoed for the last two years on the basis that California’s employers and businesses have inherent needs to obtain information about applicants for employment and existing law already provides protections for employees from improper use of credit reports. As with the last two bills, this measure would also significantly increase the exposure for potential litigation over the use of credit checks.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

PI’s Protected in Consumer Reporting Agency Disclosure Requirements       

SB 909 passed after CALI obtained an amendment to protect its members and was signed into law. The bill would require that investigative consumer reporting agencies disclose to consumers when personal information may be sent offshore for the preparation of employment background screening reports. The CALI text revised the web disclosure provisions so that ICRAs that do not have websites (including many licensed private investigators) would only be required to disclose privacy practices over the phone or in writing. .

PI’s Get DMV Addresses When Working Contractually With An Insurance Company

AB 953 [Eng] expanded the exception for access to DMV residential addresses to an authorized contractor acting on behalf of an insurance agency and pursuant to a contractual agreement. The bill passed the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.

Additional bills of interest:       

AB 2649 [Torrico] and ABx8 8 [Committee on Budget] – would have required the Franchise Tax Board to suspend licenses when an individual fails to pay taxes and a notice of state tax lien has been recorded in any county recorder’s office. Neither bill passed.

AB 2727 [Bradford] to restrict consideration of criminal convictions in employment situations, was held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and did not pass.

AB 1682 [Torres] to limit information available in police reports, failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee and did not move forward.

SB 1274 [Senate Judiciary Committee] concerning electronic service of process, passed the Legislature and the Governor signed the bill into law.

SB 1312 [Maldonado] regarding loans of firearms by private patrol operators to their employees died after it was cancelled at the initial hearing at the request of author.

AB 451 [Portantino] would have made it a trespass to enter an event not open to the general public without authorization from the person lawfully in possession of the property, if the area has been posted so as to give reasonable notice restricting access. The bill did not pass.

SB 1166 [Simitian] required that security breach notifications be written in plain language and contain contact information regarding the breach, types of information breached, and, if possible to determine, the date, estimated date, or date range of the breach. The bill was vetoed.

BILL NUMBER:  SB 1166

VETOED  DATE: 09/29/2010

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1166 without my signature.

This bill would require any agency, person, or business that must issue an information security breach notification pursuant to existing law to also fulfill certain additional requirements pertaining to the security breach notification.

California’s landmark law on data breach notification has had many beneficial results.  Informing individuals whose personal information was compromised in a breach of what their risks are and what they can do to protect themselves is an important consumer protection benefit. This bill is unnecessary, however, because there is no evidence that there is a problem with the information provided to consumers.  Moreover, there is no additional consumer benefit gained by requiring the Attorney General to become a repository of breach notices when this measure does not require the Attorney General to do anything with the notices.

Since this measure would place additional unnecessary mandates on businesses without a corresponding consumer benefit, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

AB 2128  [Gaines] would increase the minimum amount of insurance coverage private patrol operator employers must carry from $500,000 to $1 million, requires PPOs to maintain an insurance policy, regardless of whether employed security guards carry a firearm. The bill was vetoed.

BILL NUMBER:  AB 2128

VETOED  DATE: 09/30/2010

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2128 without my signature.

This bill would expand and increase mandatory insurance requirements for private patrol operators and subject operators to the same insurance coverage requirements, regardless of whether or not their guards carry firearms.

There has been no clear justification on why insurance coverage for operators that use guards without firearms should be required to carry the same coverage as operators that use armed guards.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

 

SB 5 [Hollingsworth] requires, upon the request of a biological or adoptive parent, spouse, or legal guardian of a deceased minor, the sealing of the minor’s autopsy report if someone has been convicted and sentenced for committing that crime. This bill contains specified exceptions to permit release of the autopsy report for certain law enforcement, investigatory, and litigation purposes. This bill was signed by the Governor.

AB 827 [De La Torre] is one of the measures addressing the City of Bell compensation issue. It includes a provision to require a performance review prior to compensation increases, and ensures that the records, procedures, and actions shall conform to the Public Records Act. The bill was vetoed.

BILL NUMBER:  AB 827

VETOED        DATE: 09/30/2010

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 827 without my signature.

The scandal with the City of Bell was a disgraceful use of public funds.  I share the public outrage expressed over the abuses attributed to the City of Bell’s management of employee contracts.

Assembly Bill 827 presents good public policy in that it provides transparency with regards to some municipal personnel contracts, but it should be applied to all public employees, including labor union members and state employees.  I encourage the Legislature to enact thoughtful and meaningful solutions rather than a rushed proposal that is severely limited in its application.

For this reason I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

There are a number of additional bills in which CALI has been engaged in the areas of privacy, meals and rest periods, firearms, legislative oversight of the legislative branch, workers compensation, and a variety of other public policy areas. These bills are included in the Comprehensive Report posted on-line on the CALI website.

Thank you to the wonderful cadre of professionals who comprise the CALI Legislative Committee: Clarick Brown, John Bryant, Rick Crooks, Frank Daley, Andy Hanson, Justin Hodson, Mark McClain, Toni Perrin, Chris Reynolds, Jan Tucker, Dave Williams, Jim Zimmer along with consultants John Eppick, Ed McClain and Jack Reed. Integral to CALI’s legislative efforts are the enthusiastic members of the CALI PAC; Toni Perrin [Chair], Mark McClain, Jean Kyles, Riley Parker and Patrick Carroll. Many thanks to each of you for all you do. And of course, sincere appreciation goes once again to Legislative Advocate, Jerry Desmond, Jr. for his devotion and tenacity when it comes to CALI’s concerns.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve CALI and CALI’s members.  CALI’s Legislative efforts do make a huge difference!  

Francie Koehler

Legislative Chair