Corruption

California State Employees Get Protections Against Traffic Citations

Despite abuses, legislators expanding confidential licenses for public employees

|

Seven years ago, a newspaper investigation found that a little-known California state program designed to protect police and judges from the public disclosure of their home addresses had expanded into a massive database of 1.5 million public employees and their family members, few of whom face any on-the-job dangers to merit the protection.

Because of this Confidential Records Program, "Vehicles with protected license plates can run through dozens of intersections controlled by red light cameras and breeze along the 91 toll lanes with impunity," according to the Orange County Register report. They evade parking citations and even get out of speeding tickets because police officers realize "the drivers are 'one of their own' or related to someone who is."

After the anger-inducing revelations, the legislature did worse than nothing. It killed a measure to force these plate holders to provide their work addresses for the purpose of citations — and expanded the categories of government workers who qualify for special protections. This session, the legislature has decided to expand that list again, never mind the consequences on local tax revenues, safety and fairness.

AB 222 by Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, would expand these "get out of tickets for free" cards to 4,600 employees and family members who work for the Department of State Hospitals and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It passed the Assembly on a 77-0 vote.

And SB 372 by Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, would expand similar protections to code enforcement officers, parking enforcement officers and non-sworn investigators with the Department of Insurance. That passed out of committee on a 7-0 vote, so there's no discernible opposition to this union-backed policy despite the obvious problems. (Galgiani's spokesman told me the concerns raised by the newspaper investigations never came up in any of the committee discussions.)

The Assembly bill analysis even admits to the "potential reduction in state and local tolls, parking fees, fines, to the extent that current law makes it difficult for local parking and toll agencies to collect tolls and fines from additional persons protected by the enhanced confidentiality statutes."

The authors argue these public employees could face stalking and other threats because of their lines of work — but current law allows those who face a stalking or other threat to suppress the public records. The current standard rightly presumes the public has access to information — unless there's a valid public reason to undermine it.

This current effort "places everything in this basket of nondisclosure for no articulable purpose," explains Jim Ewert, counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. These expansions threaten the California Public Records Act, he notes, based on speculative theories.

Sure, a code-enforcement agent. a state hospital worker or an insurance investigator could face a threat — but so could anyone in any industry. Why should only public-sector workers be exempt? Better yet, why should anyone be exempt from the state's open-records laws — at least without the state taking some steps to crack down on public employees and their family members who use the protections to wantonly evade traffic laws?

The whole purpose of the confidential database has long been deemed irrelevant. "State law now bars the DMV from disclosing home addresses for any of its licensees to anyone except for those with legitimate business reasons like financial institutions, insurance companies and toll-road agencies," reported the Sacramento Bee in a 2010 editorial. The newspaper called on the state to dump this list for "privileged" workers and their kin.

Yet it just keeps expanding, thanks to the power of groups that represent government employees. The Senate analysis for Galgiani's bill notes the DMV already receives 1,000 requests each week by public employees who wish to join this confidentiality list. Expect that to grow even more.

This push for exempting public employees from public-records act requirements in their private lives is moving forward on other fronts. There's a new law that allows law enforcement officials to ask county recorders to keep their property records confidential even though there's an easy fix (creating a trust) that doesn't erode the public record system.

Given the overwhelming support from legislators, expect more categories to be added to the Confidential Records Program — and more public employees and their families being free to ignore some laws the rest of us must follow.

NEXT: When Will Hillary Clinton Answer For Her Iraq Vote?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I see no problem with this. Keep expanding it until everyone’s info is confidential and no one is giving ticket revenue to the state. A fucking privilege singularity.

  2. I remember when this story first came out I was struck by the fact that the state-employed museum guards’ union negotiated to get these plates in their contract. That California even has a public sector union for museum guards tells you a lot about California in general.

  3. I’m happy to see cops, prison guards, and politically connected lawyers (judges) getting this respectful treatment. They know better than us and shouldn’t have to follow the laws anyway.

    Is that the thought process that goes through the typical California citizen’s head when they decide to not hang their state assembly from lampposts?

    1. I suspect its closer to “What the f**k is a state assembly?”

  4. Draft up an amendment to the CA Constitution and see how many people vote for it. If you word it like “no one is exempted from obeying traffic laws except Police Officers with their flashers on.” I am sure that everyone will vote for it. … Who watches the Watchers?

  5. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    ==================
    try this site ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  6. *BLEEP*! In Albany, the traffic enforcement hovers around the state office buildings, circuling like vultures for the tiniest infract of the convoluted time-sensitive traffic rules. At 3pm, you can watch the meter maids furiously issuing citations because the whole side of the road turns into a no parking zone and it doesn’t matter how much time is left on your meter.

    1. Surely they’re not ticketing their overlords, are they?!

  7. After the anger-inducing revelations, the legislature did worse than nothing. It killed a measure…

    Looks like the people of California forgot who works for whom. Bet y’all won’t make that mistake again.

    You guys still watching the city of LA running sprinklers over shopping carts and old tires while it’s raining? During a drought? When you’re not allowed to?

    1. “Looks like the people of California forgot who works for whom. Bet y’all won’t make that mistake again.”

      They will keep doing so. They are incapable of learning.

  8. The way civil infractions work is that you have to be served for them to go into the system. It is assumed that the ticket will blow off of the windshield, so the ticket is deemed “served” when the owner of the vehicle is served via first class mail, usually 14 days after the violation. If the plate is confidential, the violation can’t be served via first class mail at all.

    There was a famous case here a few years ago where the son of an LAPD Captain had accumulated more than $7000 worth of parking tickets in Beverly Hills. That was a big enough chunk of change that they decided to serve the violations in person. They brought along a news camera for good measure. Dude had to cut a check for the violations plus late fees. It warmed my heart.

  9. It’s like no one has ever read Art-I, Sec-9(8) of the U.S. Constitution.

  10. The “ruling class” usually always enjoys “perks” like these.

  11. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  12. The baloney one finds re affairs in California is really without limits, it would appear.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.