Anaheim Plans to Amend ID Requirement

Responding to criticism from local trade unions and civil liberties activists, Anaheim city officials said Friday they plan to modify an ordinance requiring certain workers to hold police-issued identification cards.

The unique ordinance--adopted by the city more than 35 years ago--requires janitors, bartenders, models and employees of businesses that sell alcohol to obtain the cards or face misdemeanor charges and fines.

Some employees have complained about the application process, including a one-page questionnaire that asks workers about their citizenship status, arrest history and whether they have any marks or scars. It also requires them to be fingerprinted and photographed at the Police Department.

In a meeting Friday with union leaders, city officials acknowledged that the application process goes too far. But they insist having ID cards is a good idea and oppose rescinding the ordinance.

“It’s clear that we need to make some changes to it,” City Atty. Jack White said. “But we’re not prepared to simply repeal it at this time. The police chief believes that this is an important tool that the Police Department has in controlling crime in [alcohol] licensed establishments.”

White declined to elaborate on what changes might be made until the city’s examination is done.

Although the ordinance has been on the books for years, many employers were unaware of it. Police said they have stepped up their education efforts because there are so many new employees resulting from Disney’s resort expansion. They also received a grant from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, giving them the means to inspect businesses or inform them of local and state requirements.

Anaheim Police Sgt. Randy West said he does not know how many ID cards have been issued, but the numbers are rising. Since Jan. 1, police have processed more than 300 cards, he said.

Critics charge that the ordinance is intrusive and violates the California and U.S. constitutions. Further, they fear the information will be used to deport illegal immigrants or to harass certain segments of the work force.

Officials from the local Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union said they have heard complaints about people who were frisked by police or told to partially disrobe so that tattoos could be photographed.

Carolyn Pelcak, the union’s shop steward who works at Disneyland’s Club 33 and led the opposition, said, “There’s got to be a hidden agenda for them to need that much information. . . . Once you allow somebody’s civil liberties to be eroded, you go down that slippery slope.”

Pelcak, other employees and union leaders will speak out against the ordinance at the Anaheim City Council meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday.

“We don’t want anything short of them rescinding the ordinance,” union field representative Margie Strike said. “None of what they said really made sense as to why issuing IDs to people who serve alcohol would make the community safer or how it would make business more successful.”

Police stressed that the information stays within the department and will not be reported to employers or to any outside agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Police cited a Feb. 4 killing in which the ID cards might have proved helpful. In that incident, a man was shot while the Las Alazanas bar was open. When police arrived, employees and patrons had fled and shut down the bar. The victim was dead inside. The ID cards would have made it easier to track down potential witnesses, Sgt. Rick Martinez said.

Still, many are skeptical.

Nativo V. Lopez, national co-director of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, an immigrants rights group, said he has no confidence in the Police Department claim it is not sharing the information with other agencies, including the INS.

“We don’t believe it,” Lopez said. “This is another stupid law on the books that’s going to result in political turmoil for the city. We join the union in their opposition. It smacks of big brother intrusion. It smacks of another layer of bureaucracy.”