Posted by Marian_in_CA on 9/29/08 8:47pm
Msg #265804

For CA: The new ID card rules

As was previously discussed, Assembly Bill 2452 was signed into law on July 3rd.

See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2452_bill_20080703_chaptered.html

As of January 1st, California notaries have had a new type of identification that will be allowed to certify signatures. Per the bill, "An employee identification card issued by an agency or office of the State of California, or by an agency or office of a city, county, or city and county in this state."

Now here's something I'm wondering about. There are over 470 incorporated cities in the state of California as well as 58 counties. I'm sure that many of these cities and counties do not actually issue ID cards to their employees that fulfill the requirements (photo, description, signature, 5-years...) but others will. How in the world, are we going to know the validity of these identification cards? And, if somebody is an employee of one of these agencies, why in the world would they use their employee ID over their driver license or passport?

Let's say that I'm in Los Angeles and I'm presented a city employee ID card from... let's say Benicia. It has all of the required elements but its a laminated ID card that looks like it was printed from material I could get at an office store. Benicia is a small town...but it's a city all the same. I wouldn't doubt that a town that size would be using simple materials to create IDs. The signer indicates that the only ID he has.

Short of calling the City of Benicia, what else can we do? I mean, other than asking for another form of ID.

Seems to me that there is a lot of potential fraud in this new law.

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/29/08 9:19pm
Msg #265807

Good question Marian. I guess we're kind of forced to accept it a face value unless something really sticks out as odd. I think I would definitely cover my butt by getting a thumbprint regardless of the type of transaction.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/29/08 10:00pm
Msg #265813

It just kind of hit me today as I was reading through the

Bill. That opens us up to a potential of over 500 different types of ID that that State says is acceptable. I thought, "Oh...no." And I agree about the thumbprint!

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/30/08 12:35am
Msg #265823

I suppose the best we can do is accept the new ID on its face. I get a fingerprint for every signature I notarize, regardless of the type of document. If a Notary is not a willing party to fraud and has notarized correctly, then that's the limit of accountability.

Benicia? Never heard of it....but a month ago, I never heard of Pearblossom, Fawnskin, Red Mountain, Amboy, Trona, Orcutt, Sugarloaf, Yermo, Nipton, Parker Dam and a whole lot of cities in Northern CA.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/30/08 1:59am
Msg #265824

Now, Pearblossom...I know! That's SoCal. n/m

Reply by Steven Pearce on 9/30/08 8:25am
Msg #265826

Let's not forget Proberta Gerber! n/m

Reply by claudine osborne on 9/30/08 12:56pm
Msg #265846

Re: For CA: The new ID card rules n/m

Reply by Wendy M. Waits Wendy Waits, Mobile Notary on 9/30/08 6:20pm
Msg #265896

Benecia was the first state capital of California, before it moved to Vallejo and then Sacramento. The building is still there and is great place to take a 4th grade student who is studying CA history.

Reply by rengel/CA on 9/30/08 10:56am
Msg #265835

My question about this is, how do we know that the person is still employed by that particular entity? I have ID cards from previous employers going back more than 10 yrs.

Reply by Gary_CA on 9/30/08 11:17am
Msg #265836

Please help a dumb notary understand ...

Besides all the mentioned problems verifying such an ID, I can't help but wonder how many people have such ID's legitimately but don't have a DL right there in their wallet.

2? 3? 4? in the whole state maybe?

And in the year of a $10B deficit our fearless leaders stop to write this law.

For cryin' in the sink!

We don't need no stinkin' badges... and I ain't accepting any for notarizations... complain if you want, take my commission... find another notary (in my area you could probably find a notary that'll sign you with your library card, but not this one.)

Nope, ain't doin' it, end of story.

Reply by 9Lives/CA on 9/30/08 2:31pm
Msg #265857

Re: Please help a dumb notary understand ...

I won't do it either. They can find someone else!

Reply by ZeeCA on 9/30/08 3:25pm
Msg #265877

all it takes is a color printer, good card stock & laminater n/m

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 9/30/08 4:08pm
Msg #265883

But, Gary...

...it's NOT the end of the story. The Codgers made it to the playoffs! It's just begun for you. Beat those "stinkin" small bears Wednesday in Chicago with Lowe on the mound!

Reply by LCS_CA on 10/1/08 8:06pm
Msg #266038

Most ID’s that I take as a *secondary* ID (to satisfy lender requirements) in this category rarely contains all of the required elements:

“shall either be current or have been issued within five years and shall contain a photograph and description of the person named on it, shall be signed by the person, shall bear a serial or other identifying number”

I think it will be a rare occasion that the ID described in paragraph 4(F) will be acceptable.

Also, I am confused by the preamble to the bill:

“AB 2452, Davis. Notaries public.
Existing law specifies certain documents as allowable forms of identification for a credible witness, who, by oath or affirmation, attests to the identity of an individual executing a written instrument in the presence of, and acknowledged by, a notary public.
This bill would add specified governmental employee identification cards as **an allowable form of identification for a credible witness** to prove the identity of an individual who executes a written instrument. This bill would delete a provision allowing a witness to an individual's identification who is personally known to the officer to serve as evidence for an acknowledgment.”

Emphasis added. This makes it sound like this type of “alternate” ID is only for use in identifying credible witnesses. Does anyone else read it this way?