Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

California legislation that the California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI) is tracking:

Protection of Consumers through Continuing Education
SB 202 [Harman]

Prohibitions against Use of Credit Report Information
AB 943 [Mendoza]

Meal and Rest Periods & Licensed Private Investigators
SB 287 [Calderon] and SB 380 [Dutton]

Flexible Work Schedules
AB 141 [Tran] and SB 187 [Benoit]

Expansion of Paid Sick Days
AB 1000 [Ma]

Fair Concealed Weapon Application Process
AB 357 [Knight]

Timely Testing of DNA Specimens
SB 439 [Wyland]

Insured’s Access to Accident Reports
AB 470 [Niello]- Support

Peace Officer Identification
SB 169 [Benoit]

Restrictions on Technology
AB 255 [Anderson]

BSIS Posting of Accusations and Disciplinary Actions
SB 599 [Negrete McCleod]

Federal legislation that the National Council of Investigation & Security Services (NCISS) is tracking:

HR-2221 The “Data Accountability and Trust Act” by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL). A hearing was held earlier this spring. Rep. Rush has pledged to work with another subcommittee chairman on this and other issues relating to the Internet, leading to a vote this summer.

S-139 The “Data Breach Notification Act” by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). The bill is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) may introduced his own version of data breach legislation. He pledged earlier this year to make privacy legislation a priority.

HR-122 “Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act of 2009″ by Rod Frelinghuysen (R-NJ). We met with the Congressman’s staff to urge that an exemption be provided to permit investigators access to critical information.

S-141 “Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act” by Senator Feinstein. Although the bill includes a helpful exception for “business to business” transactions, NCISS is urging a more specific exemption.

HR-1529 “Second Chance for Ex-Offenders Act” by Rep Charles Rangel (D-NY). The bill would provide for expungement of federal criminal records.

S-30 “Truth in Caller ID Act” The bill prohibits “spoofing” with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value”.

HR-1409/S560, the “Employee Free Choice Act” This major labor reform would deny employers the right to obtain a secret ballot vote for organizing efforts and would impose binding arbitration in when no first agreement can be reached. It is labor’s top priority and the fight is led by the SEIU which has attempted to organize guard companies.

Government agencies won’t put public records on the Internet but the former Santa Bernardino County Assessor found a technological runaround to making his emails a public record.

A private investigator and the former supervisor of the Worthless Check Division in the St.Tammany (Louisiana) District Attorney’s Office were sentenced to three years’ probation for buying and selling criminal information from the National Crime Information Center database. The DA employee got the heavier sentence — she also lost her job.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling: Burial records from a state run cemetery are a public record. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) claimed that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) applied because the cemetery was for residents at a former psychiatric hospital. But the court noted that HIPAA allows for the disclosure of protected health information when required by state law, and that Nebraska’s public records laws trumped HIPAA because these are death records, which are open records. Reported by RCFP.

Texas media, private investigators and genealogists are opposing the efforts of the Texas legislature to exempt the dates of birth of government employees from disclosure as a public record. The media has uncovered misdeeds by employees of the Texas Youth Commission — matching dates of birth with employee names — involving abuse of people and the public trust. Shielding dates of birth in public records does not protect the public from identity theft, as legislatures claim when attempting to carve out more public record exemptions.

The phrase “personal information” and “identity theft” have become so intertwined that legislatures have rushed to implement laws which have detrimental outcomes for investigations. Recently codified New York law would subject employers to a $500 penalty for disclosing “personal identifying information” on employees. This will have a chilling effect on release by employers of other information on current or past employees, such as name and job title. This is reminiscent of the California legislature’s failed attempt in 2007 to penalize the release of “personal information about a customer or employee contained in the records of a business…”

It is now a violation of New York law to,

Communicate an employee’s personal identifying information to the general public. For purposes of this section, “personal identifying information” shall include social security number, home address or telephone number, personal electronic mail address, Internet identification name or password, parent’s surname prior to marriage, or drivers’ license number.

Hat Tip: Lexology

Formal disciplinary actions against a California Emergency Medical Technician will now be available as a public record, thanks to AB 2917, signed by the governor today.

AB 2917 will provide the public with with certification and licensure information and create an EMT registry, specified by Section 1797.117 of the Health and Safety Code.

The legislation details the personal information that will be a public record, which is similar to that which is available on other California professional licensees.

The information made available to the public through the centralized registry system shall include all of the following data elements: the full name of every individual who has been issued an EMT-I or EMT-II certificate or EMT-P license, the name of the entity that issued the certificate or license, the certificate or license number, the date of issuance of the license or certificate, and the license or certificate status.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issues topical summaries of each year’s state legislation that has become law. The NCSL report, 2008 Privacy Legislation Related to Event Data Recorders (“Black Boxes”) in Vehicles, will help private investigators stay informed of the legal parameters of the application of electronic surveillance and tracking of of others’ movements. Twelve states have passed laws related to event data recorders in cars. Previously, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration instituted a rule that requires auto manufacturers to disclose if an event data recorder is installed, starting with cars produced in 2011.

It looks like the California Assembly bill that would have created an Internet Domestic Violence Registry has excised that feature from the recent draft.

The California Sheriffs’ Association has announced that VINELink will soon include all California counties, not just the 17 that are currently at that site. VINELink provides real-time status of offenders in county jails.

Private investigators will have more difficulty finding people in California if proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1423, becomes law. The bill titled, “Unlisted telephone numbers”, would ban phone companies from charging a fee to their subscribers who wish to have their phone numbers unlisted or nonpublished. In that case, won’t everyone in California request that their telephone number listing be private?

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a law firm that obtained Florida vehicle record information for litigation purposes. The plaintiff had claimed that the firm violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in purchasing his vehicle ownership data, but the court said that the law firm met one of the permitted exceptions. However, pending cases may lead to settlements in which ChoicePoint (and other public record providers) voluntarily agree to limit the personal information they release, even if the sale of the data complies with the law.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of a newspaper which sought a list of names and addresses of foster care providers maintained by a state family services agency. In a complicated intersection of Ohio state public records access law and federal funding restrictions, the agency must determine which records meet the Social Security Act exception to disclosure.