MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session April 11, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Tuesday, April 11, 1995, Chairman Thomas Batten presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Lynn Hettrick STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Jackie L. Valley, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dana Haines, Carson Valley Jim Weller, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Joyce Fogliani, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety Carol Hanna, Director, Private Investigators Licensing Board Andrea Boggs, Director, Nevada Operations, Philip Manuel Resource Gp. Stephen Rybar, President, Investigative Services Corporation Eugene Dimick, Dimick Investigations John Wright, Director, Investigative Specialist, Inc. Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Phil Galeoto, Reno Police Department Lawrence Doull, President, Forensic Services, Inc. Sheriff Jerry Maple, Douglas County ASSEMBLY BILL 187 - Revises provisions relating to disclosure of certain information contained in records of department of motor vehicles and public safety. Lynn Hettrick representing Assembly District 39 introduced A.B. 187 which he stated resulted from a phone call from a young lady in his district with a very real concern: wanting certain personal information not be released about her by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) because her well-being was at risk. Assemblyman Hettrick arranged for his constituent to speak with bill drafter Kim Morgan and explain what needed to be done to protect her from the risks which could occur if information were too readily available through DMV records. Mr. Hettrick distributed copies of amendment 220, (Exhibit C,) to A.B. 187 and read over the proposed language. The amendments would limit the ability of people to access privileged DMV information. If they do go through the required steps to get the information they should acknowledge what it will be used for and that they understand it is a crime to use it for anything else. The bill and its amendments would eliminate license plate numbers being included in any listings sold by DMV. A.B. 187 requires security companies or private investigators go into the DMV one time and sign an affidavit stating they know the law requires a record be kept of DMV information received and what is done with it. If that information is abused, they will have broken the law. Mr. Hettrick believed honest private investigators and honest security companies do not object to the bill. Chairman Batten referred to paragraph (g) on page 4 of the amendments and asked whether a current procedure is in place for private investigators or private patrolmen to request information by telephone. Mr. Batten felt if a current procedure was already established it should be allowed to continue unchanged. Mr. Hettrick replied he did not care if it were changed but added the very fact it existed in the amendment language indicated a recognition on the part of the bill drafters that a procedure can, by regulation, be established. Since that had already been done, the bill does not say the procedure should be eliminated, it is simply recognizing the right to establish the procedure. Mr. Batten, referring again to paragraph (g) which covers investigators and private patrolmen, asked whether everyone would be placed in that category including repossessors, polygraph examiners and security consultants. Mr. Hettrick stated he presumed the intent was to include private investigators licensed under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 648 and would include those people Mr. Batten just listed because they do some type of investigation. Mr. Batten replied they are listed separately under NRS 648 and one obtains a license for that individual duty. Mr. Hettrick responded as long as they are licensed under 648.060 they can be included. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall mentioned about ten years ago a friend called and said her 16 year old daughter had been arrested in Reno by the Washoe County Sheriff's office on a charge of car theft. Mrs. Ohrenschall was able to handle the case from Las Vegas by making a phone call to DMV and obtain release of the innocent girl. She wondered if, after passage of A.B. 187 with amendments, she would still be able to obtain the information she used to solve the case. Mr. Hettrick replied she would have a right to access that information, if she were involved in any kind of criminal proceeding allowed in the language or had signed the affidavit. Ms. Ohrenschall objected stating she was not the attorney of record, her investigation had been simply to recommend a course of action. Mr. Hettrick emphasized one would not have to appear in person for each incident, just make one appearance to establish an account to obtain information. Ms. Ohrenschall reiterated her status during the incident was that of a "well- meaning buttinski" because she had told the mother she could not take the case because of her already full court calendar. Mr. Hettrick maintained an affidavit only needed to be filed one time saying you understand the information cannot be used for anything other than what is permitted; it cannot be sold or used for illegal purposes. Assemblyman Anderson asked what would preclude someone who had obtained such a list from using, selling or giving it to someone else. He asked whether something in the bill would preclude that from happening particularly when referring to the full inclusive list of all who would fall under NRS 648.060 and have access to the DMV information. Mr. Hettrick repeated the bill would record, by affidavit, that people accessing DMV information knew they could not sell this information. In addition, if someone were to ask how their name was released and an inquiry was begun, a record would be maintained at DMV showing who obtained which name. Mr. Anderson expressed concern over the possibility of the sale of a subsequent list by those credit card firms or auto dealerships that turn around and sell the lists they obtain from DMV. He also expressed concern about the marketing tool DMV had become and the abuse of that by various groups. He questioned whether the amendments have opened the door for the same abuse to continue. Mr. Hettrick responded he had not opened the door any more than it already was. He stated A.B. 187 was not drafted to limit DMV's ability to sell lists because those sales generate significant money. He stated his concern was to protect individuals from potential harm and added that was the intent of A.B. 187. He noted the legislation will not stop people who buy a large list from sorting that list out and reselling it. However, he did not think the people who buy those kinds of lists and resell them, resell them to individuals. He felt the average person would not know how to obtain such a list. Mr. Batten referenced number 6 on page 5 and inquired about the provision stating the records must be kept for five years. Mr. Hettrick replied the information about who they sold the information to or who they obtained it for must be kept for five years. Mr. Batten asked whether DMV would be keeping any records. Mr. Hettrick replied DMV would also keep the fact that their client obtained that name. That way if someone were harassed, stalked, attacked or something similar and there was no way of knowing how the perpetrator obtained the address, DMV could go back and find out who might have been able to get the address. The intent of A.B. 187 was to make it more difficult to obtain personal information and make someone think twice before they just release that information to anyone. Mr. Batten queried who would be allowed to inspect the records of private investigators and others who fall under NRS 648. Mr. Hettrick responded the amendments read "available for examination by the department at all reasonable times upon request", so the bill does address that point under 6(b). Assemblyman Goldwater asked whether A.B. 187 would preclude someone with legitimate reasons from accessing information about a certain license plate, for instance if one hit a car in a parking lot and wanted to notify the owner. Mr. Hettrick felt several courses of action would be possible including going into DMV and signing an affidavit stating why the information is needed but reiterated A.B. 187 is attempting to limit the ability to access people's addresses by license plate number. Assemblyman Nolan commented he understands the intent of A.B. 187. He noted businesses with fleet operations, in their efforts at risk management, seek annual or biannual driving records on their employees. The business supplies a name, social security number and birth date and DMV processes that information and provides a driving record for that company's use. DMV used to include the employee's address as well and Mr. Nolan questioned whether passage of this legislation would preclude inclusion of the address by the DMV. Mr. Hettrick deferred to Mr. Weller from DMV to answer that question. Jim Weller, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), introduced Joyce Fogliani who runs the records section of DMV. Ms. Fogliani answered with release of a driving record, DMV does also supply a mailing address. Mr. Nolan asked if the field of information, the data base, could be narrowed to exclude that information and meet the intent of A.B. 187. Ms. Fogliani responded it could be done. Mr. Batten, expressing concern for licensed private investigators and repossessors, asked if they could obtain information based on license plate numbers from DMV after passage of A.B. 187. Mr. Hettrick replied the information may be obtained if the person goes to DMV and signs an affidavit. He cannot obtain it by just making a phone call. Mr. Batten reiterated once the affidavit is signed all the information currently obtainable would be obtainable after passage of A.B. 187. Assemblywoman Chowning asked whether Mr. Weller had seen the amendments to A.B. 187. She noted they had been hastily drawn up and commented there should be another full public hearing because this hearing is not on A.B. 187 as the public had seen it originally. She asked Mr. Weller if he viewed amendment 220 as saying an organization would still be able to purchase the entire list for whatever purposes they saw fit. Mr. Weller, referring to a list and not an individual license plate, responded the organization would have to demonstrate need. He elaborated there is a lot of gray area in the legislation and a lot of room for decisions by himself, Joyce Fogliani or someone on her staff. He would like the Committee to write A.B. 187 in such a fashion as to leave no gray areas for liability purposes as well as other reasons. Also being a member of the public, Mr. Weller is sensitive that when he goes into DMV and provides the personal information required for a driver's license and auto registration, he does so with some degree of confidence but added DMV has the ability to sell that information to anyone. Mrs. Chowning interpreted page 2, number 4(b) of amendment 220 to mean if the scope is not narrower than the entire data base, residential information would be sold. Mr. Hettrick commented the intent of 4(b) was to prevent a person accessing personal information and is further narrowed in subsections 2 and 5. He stated number 5 provides information for those people who have a right to obtain it but still under the scrutiny of the director who should oversee their need for the information. Assemblyman Carpenter questioned whether the information provided by DMV could still be released with an affidavit. Mr. Weller responded with an affidavit and/or contract with the party, that can be released. He added DMV would, as he understands it, have the ability to look into the background of those who are requesting the information, for instance if it were a private investigative firm or law firm or something of that nature DMV could make certain it was a legitimate agency. Mr. Carpenter asked if that specific language was in A.B. 187 and Mr. Weller said that law was already on the books. Mr. Hettrick reiterated the law already allows private investigators and others to get the information, but A.B. 187 would ask those people to go into DMV one time and sign an affidavit and then to maintain records of who they release any information to. Otherwise the process would remain unchanged. Mr. Carpenter mentioned at his gas station in Elko people frequently skip out without paying for their gas. He noted they had not been able to get any help from the Elko police department even with a record of the license plate number so they got the names of those people through DMV. Mr. Carpenter added the Elko police tell him gas skipping is a civil matter and offer no assistance. Mr. Weller responded that a gas skip was a criminal matter since that is stealing and he would encourage the police to call DMV, get the information and act on it. Mr. Hettrick pointed out under page 3 of amendment 220 to A.B. 187 at 5(b) Mr. Carpenter would be able to obtain information about a gas skip. Mr. Anderson, mentioning that Mr. Carpenter records license plate numbers of vehicles that drive into his gas station, queried whether he would be able to take that list and on his own volition obtain the addresses of people who frequent his station in order to send advertising and other promotional material. Mr. Hettrick responded a person is prohibited from obtaining information from DMV until they could justify a need for the information. Mr. Batten called upon Mr. Hettrick's witness the initiator of A.B. 187, Dana Haines from Douglas County. Ms. Haines' testimony was read from a prepared statement, (Exhibit D.) Carol Hanna, Director of the Private Investigators Licensing Board, stated the licensing board and members do not object to A.B. 187. Ms. Hanna requested anyone licensed under NRS 648 be included in the amendment at number 5, subsection (g). Ms. Hanna would also like to see proof of licensure in the affidavit licensees have to sign, included in the amendment. Mr. Batten agreed with both of Ms. Hanna's recommendations. Mr. Anderson asked where proof of licensure would be placed in the amendment. Ms. Hanna replied under amendment number 220, page 4, to subsection(g) after "By a private investigator or private patrolman" add `or anyone' licensed pursuant to NRS 648.060". Proof of licensure would be placed on page 5, by adding a subsection (5) under (g). Andrea Boggs, Director of Nevada Operations of the Philip Manuel Resource Group, stated her written remarks, (Exhibit E,) had been prepared before the introduction of amendment 220. She added she was pleased to see private investigators would be allowed access and asked the Committee to support amendment 220 which allows those who have gone through the procedure to become licensed, who maintain integrity in the investigation profession to continue to access DMV information. Mr. Anderson questioned whether most states provide direct access to DMV records rather than making the investigations industry go through a law enforcement agency to facilitate or screen the request. Ms. Boggs answered most states, including Nevada, allow material to be available through a selected computer data base that is accessible through modems once one has presented reasons for the requested information and signed up for the service. Mr. Anderson asked whether it was as easy to access other states' data bases as Nevada's. Ms. Boggs replied other states are almost easier because they provide more information and go back farther. She added this was not true of all 50 states, but was true of a majority of them. Stephen Rybar, President of Investigative Services Corporation, stated he had prepared comments in protest of some of the provisions of A.B. 187. However he added that, thanks to Mr. Batten who spoke with the group about their objections, those problems had been addressed in amendment 220. Mr. Rybar and several others who were going to protest some of the provisions of A.B. 187 are now very satisfied with the changes and very happy with the legislation. Eugene Dimick, owner of Dimick Investigations in Las Vegas, questioned who would be monitoring the records saying various courts in addition to the Supreme Court of the United States had given him the right to client confidentiality. Mr. Dimick reminded the Committee in a court of law he does not even have to reveal who his client is, nor does he have to admit that a certain person is his client and he certainly does not have to reveal any privileged information that he might pass to his client. Mr. Dimick wondered who was going to usurp his right to confidentiality. Mr. Batten called upon Mr. Hettrick to answer, agreeing there could be a problem. Mr. Hettrick, commenting he was neither an attorney nor a judge, stated he would be unable to make a constitutional determination as to whether or not records would have to be released to DMV. Reading the bill language, Mr. Hettrick quoted the records "must be available for examination" and he presumed if there were a question, a court order could be obtained. The amendment just says the records must be kept and made available. He added if there was a problem, it could be addressed. Mr. Dimick repeated it was a concern of his and added as long as he had held his license, there had never been a complaint about him. He also requested the Committee members read his prepared statement, (Exhibit F.) Mr. Anderson commented the intent of A.B. 187 had not been to cast aspersions upon Mr. Dimick or any other private investigator and asked whether Mr. Dimick knew the Supreme Court citation or name of the case involving client confidentiality previously referred to. Mr. Dimick did not know the name of the specific case. John Wright, Director of Investigative Specialist, Inc., stated he had spent the previous 30 years in law enforcement. He noted most of his concerns with A.B. 187 had been addressed, however he shared Mr. Dimick's concern about who would examine his records. In addition, Mr. Wright believed it would be an administrative hardship to keep the records for five years. He said he keeps client files for years, but by alphabet and not by plate number. He testified quite often a plate number would be run on a car that really had no significance to an investigation. He added there would be no problem with keeping records for a year and believed any problem of a criminal nature connected with the plate would probably surface within a year. Mr. Anderson asked if, in Mr. Wright's experience, he had found more difficulty dealing with DMV in Nevada than dealing with DMV in other states. Mr. Wright felt it was more difficult in Nevada because one deals with clerks, either personally or over the telephone, and since DMV seems to be understaffed inquiries take several hours. Mr. Anderson wondered if the Nevada DMV system was more or less difficult to use once access had been gained. Mr. Wright replied the amount of information available from the Nevada DMV was considerably less than the amount of information available from other motor vehicle departments. As an example, he stated in New York if one knew a person's name and date of birth, their entire registration history was available. Mr. Batten, referring to number 6 on page 5 of amendment 220, asked whether "each person or government entity" included police departments. Mr. Hettrick agreed the language in 5(g) meant anything other than a law enforcement entity must maintain records for five years. Mr. Batten, looking at number 6 on page 5, disagreed saying the courts, the police departments and everyone would all have to keep those records. Mr. Hettrick agreed with Mr. Batten and noted the DMV would probably be keeping records of what governmental entity requested which names. He suggested striking the words "and governmental entity" in number 6. Mr. Batten mentioned there would be another hearing on A.B. 187 and commented he would pursue an amendment that would reduce the five year period to one year. Mr. Hettrick said he would probably agree to reducing the period to two years but did not understand why keeping a simple record of who requested the information was such a problem. He noted the Internal Revenue Service suggests keeping all business records for seven years and he believed most everyone does that. Mr. Nolan asked if an individual wanted to stalk someone, would they be able to go through a private investigator and ask that an address be run or get that type of information under some sort of pretense. Mr. Wright agreed that would be very possible using a pretext. However, he added stalkers usually know who their victims are and in most cases know, or can easily find out, where they live. He noted DMV records help catch stalkers, too. Mr. Nolan asked if a business owner, or any other interested party, wanted to access a group of individuals for whatever purpose, would that information be available in some way other than DMV records. Mr. Wright testified he had never heard of a situation in which a telemarketing company went to a private investigator for the purpose of obtaining an extended list. Mr. Nolan asked what about after A.B. 187 is passed. Mr. Wright agreed private investigators might be used for that purpose but asked whether the purpose of the bill was to prevent stalking or to prevent someone getting junk mail? Mr. Nolan suggested the intent of A.B. 187 was to protect people. Mr. Wright pointed out DMV files are only one way a person can access a name and address and noted those can also be obtained from the post office, the credit bureau or one of the hundreds of data base companies around the United States. Mr. Nolan mentioned persistent individuals might turn to private investigators. Mr. Wright answered a marketing company wishing 10,000 names and addresses would not be able to afford a private investigator. Mr. Hettrick, while agreeing with Mr. Nolan's concern, stated only one thing at a time could be addressed with A.B. 187. DMV had been his concern and the bill's intent was providing safety for individuals who feel they are at risk yet still leaving legitimate opportunity for those people who can prove they have some reason to access information. All A.B. 187 is attempting to do is limit one form of access. Stan Olsen representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department testified they are in support of the bill. They feel A.B. 187 will help significantly with issues involving stalking. Mr. Anderson asked whether Mr. Olsen had reviewed the proposed amendments to the bill. Mr. Olsen answered only within the preceding hour or so. Mr. Anderson questioned whether the bill in its amended form would still meet the police department's requirements. Mr. Olsen replied he would let the lieutenant from the Reno Police Department address those issues. Lt. Phil Galeoto with the Reno Police Department testified they also support A.B. 187 and particularly the amendments. The bill, with or without amendment 220 goes a long way to support actions taken by the last several legislative sessions in the area of stalking. In the investigation of stalking crimes, Lt. Galeoto believed law enforcement has received some excellent tools. However, Lt. Galeoto commented there were issues that need to be worked through and stated the Reno Police Department would be happy to assist during the next hearing on A.B. 187. He added the Reno Police Department had no desire or intention to limit the efforts of professional licensed investigators. Mr. Batten announced another hearing on A.B. 187 would be held on April 25, 1995 and at that time he would ask the gentlemen from the police departments to testify first. Lawrence Doull, President of Forensic Services, Inc. in Las Vegas, read from prepared text, (Exhibit G.) He also presented a letter written by Wayne Fobar of Parkside Investigations, also of Las Vegas, (Exhibit H.) Mr. Doull made particular reference to a case mentioned in the first paragraph of page two of Mr. Fobar's letter which concerned a couple who wanted quick identity of someone taking pictures of their home. This incident occurred at the same time Steve Wynn's daughter was kidnaped. One call had the information on the license plate and another call had the innocent solution so within 35 minutes those people had their peace of mind restored. Mr. Doull also mentioned he is President of the Nevada Investigators Association and noted that group appeared when the stalking bill was being considered and testified they supported it in its entirety. He added a stalker usually knows who his victim is and testified it is the victim who usually calls an investigator trying to discover who is stalking them. Mr. Doull explained DMV was an investigator's quick and easy source of identification. Mr. Doull emphasized that professional private investigators are sometimes asked for information they do not believe is proper or might place someone in jeopardy. Under those circumstances they do not release information. As professionals they are very careful who they work for and he added many times he had conducted investigations where he stopped working for the client because he did not feel good about it. Eugene Dimick interjected the DMV states driving in Nevada is a privilege, not a right. If a person abuses that privilege by reckless driving that might endanger someone's life, he would like the right to find out who that person is. Sheriff Jerry Maple from Douglas County mentioned Ms. Haines had contacted him and he would like to testify in support of A.B. 187. When the Department of Motor Vehicles added "Public Safety" to their name (they are now the DMV & PS) they added an obligation to protect the public. Protection of the public includes protection from people getting information and using it to harm an individual. Sheriff Maple supported most of the amendments. What he opposed is the ability of just anyone walking into DMV, paying one dollar, and receiving information about who a vehicle is registered to. He stressed that should not be allowed. Anyone's wife, friend or family member could become a target for any reason: the jewelry they might be wearing, their appearance or maybe even recent winnings at a casino. A person seeing the target follows him or her to the parking lot, gets their license plate number, goes to DMV and for one dollar gets information about the vehicle and plans the burglary or assault. Sheriff Maple emphasized home invasion is the number one crime in California and added it is coming Nevada's way. Most people have more money or valuables in their home than a local Seven Eleven would have. Armed robbery of a home has become the number one crime in Southern California, especially by gangs. Everything that can be done should be done to protect Nevada's citizens. Sheriff Maple commented he just bought a car, went to DMV, paid $350 to register it and used his post office box as his address. The clerk said she needed his physical address. He believed it to be wrong to pay $350 to the state to register his vehicle when someone can come along, pay one dollar and find out his physical address. He emphasized there should be some privacy for Nevada's citizens. He felt the amendments address the needs by licensed private investigators for access to information, but he wants to stop the ability of any individual walking into DMV and accessing what should be privileged information. Mr. Batten closed the hearing on A.B. 187 and announced on April 25 the next hearing on the bill would be held in room 119 and teleconferenced to Las Vegas. He also announced A.B. 420 would not be heard today as the Committee was out of time and must adjourn shortly. ASSEMBLY BILL 310 - Makes appropriation to aging services division of department of human resources for production, publication and distribution of directory of transportation services for aged and disabled persons. ASSEMBLYWOMAN VONNE CHOWNING MOVED DO PASS ON A.B.310. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GENIE OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Batten announced the Committee had two bill draft request introductions to vote on. The first, BDR 43-1735, requires submission of evidence of insurance or other security for renewal of registration of motor vehicle. ASSEMBLYMAN BERNIE ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1735. ASSEMBLYMAN DAVID GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BDR 43-1088 revises provisions governing the sales of salvage vehicles. ASSEMBLYWOMAN VONNE CHOWNING MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 43-1088. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GENIE OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Goldwater was asked to handle S.B. 65 on the Assembly floor. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation April 11, 1995 Page