Where these laws are active

Most states now operate an Address Confidentiality Program (ACP)—often branded “Safe at Home”—that lets eligible people (e.g., survivors of violence and stalking) use a state-issued substitute address in place of their residence on public records. Examples:

• Minnesota – “Safe at Home” (Secretary of State program).
• California – “Safe at Home” (Secretary of State; expanded in recent years).
• Wisconsin – “Safe at Home” (Dept. of Justice).
• Missouri – “Safe at Home” (Secretary of State).
• Ohio – “Safe at Home” (Secretary of State; recent updates explicitly touch real-estate records and court filings).
• Hawai‘i – ACP (Attorney General).
• Tennessee – “Safe at Home” (Secretary of State).

Authoritative round-ups from state agencies confirm dozens of ACPs nationwide and identify the few states without programs.

Separately, several states provide special shielding for public officers (judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, certain government employees), often independent of ACPs:

• New Jersey – “Daniel’s Law” (broad privacy/redaction regime for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement).
• Texas – Tax Code §25.025 & Gov’t Code §552.1175 (lets qualified owners restrict assessor/records access to home addresses).
• Florida – §119.071, F.S. (public-records exemptions that cover home addresses for numerous protected classes).
• California – special protections for public officials & Safe at Home participants.

A national FOI survey also flags additional states with home-address exemptions layered on top of ACPs (e.g., Arkansas, Hawai‘i, Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, Utah).

What this means for title research

These protections do not eliminate land records, but they change how data appears and how researchers access it, creating practical hurdles:

Substitute addresses & redactions: Deeds, assessor rolls, voter files, and some court records may show a substitute address (typically a P.O. box managed by the state) or have home address fields redacted for protected parties. Matching people to property by name/address alone becomes unreliable.

Opaque grantor–grantee indexing: Some counties suppress or mask name/address combinations for ACP participants and protected officials. Researchers may need to rely more on parcel identifiers (APNs), legal descriptions, map books, and title-plant indices rather than conventional name searches. (See state program overviews describing substitute-address use across “new public records.”)

Assessor/recorder gatekeeping: Assessors in states like Texas and agencies in Florida/California must withhold residential addresses of protected classes. That can limit online lookups and require in-person requests, affidavits, or proof of statutory purpose to view unredacted records, if access is allowed at all.

Court filings & service of process: In places such as Ohio, ACP updates specifically touch real-estate records and court filings. Service may need to go through the program’s designated agent (often the Secretary of State), adding steps and time to quiet-title, foreclosure, HOA, or probate actions.

Name-change & identity continuity: Some jurisdictions (e.g., California) provide confidential name-change procedures for survivors. Title examiners must be alert to alias/AKA history and reconcile identity via non-public identifiers (SSNs are off-limits; rely on instrument numbers, prior APNs, or insurer/title-plant cross-references).

Third-party data risks: Even where statutes shield official records, private data brokers and listing sites may still expose information, creating gaps and inconsistencies. Laws like Daniel’s Law are actively litigated and evolving, which means rules of the road can change mid-transaction.

Practical workflow tips for researchers, examiners & attorneys

• Start with the parcel, not the person. Anchor your search on APN, legal description, subdivision/lot, and instrument numbers rather than names/addresses when ACP participation is possible.
• Check the local rulebook. Each state (and often each county) implements ACP/privacy statutes differently. Keep county recorder/assessor guidance handy and document any access requirements or denials.
• Plan for alternate service. When litigation is likely, build in time for service via the ACP agent and court approvals for sealed/unredacted filings.
• Tighten judgment & lien sweeps. Expect name variance/alias problems. Use statewide judgment indexes (where available) and insurer title plants; escalate edge cases for underwriter guidance.
• Mind privacy liability. In Daniel’s Law states and others with officer shielding, improper publication (e.g., posting schedules or marketing materials with an officer’s home address) can carry statutory penalties. Train staff and vendors accordingly.

Bottom line

• Active, widespread: ACP/“Safe at Home” programs now operate across most states (e.g., MN, CA, WI, MO, OH, HI, TN), and several states layer in extra protection for public officers (e.g., NJ, TX, FL, CA).
• Operational impact: These laws complicate title research by obscuring name/address data, altering service-of-process routes, and tightening access to assessor/recorder records.
• Manageable with process: Shifting to parcel-centric research, coordinating with county offices and ACP administrators, and documenting compliance will keep deals moving while respecting statutory privacy.

Please note: Any opinions discussed in this article belong solely to the author, Marissa Berends, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Capitol Lien.

About the Author
Marissa Berends is a Certified Abstractor and Industry Relations Coordinator at Capitol Lien, a nationwide due diligence and risk mitigation services provider. Since joining the company in September 2021, she has earned abstractor certifications in Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota. She is pursuing her Wisconsin Title Examiner certification, which is expected to be completed in Fall 2025.

Marissa is involved with the following groups: Wisconsin Land Title Association’s (WLTA) Convention Committee & Young Title Professionals; Nebraska Land Title Association’s (NLTA) Convention Committee; Property Record Industry Association (PRIA) National Education Committee; Illinois Land Title Association’s (ILTA) Inclusion, Diversity, Equity & Acceptance (IDEA) Committee; and the National Association of Land Title Examiners and Abstractors (NALTEA).

About Capitol Lien

Capitol Lien empowers real estate and title professionals with trusted public record research and due diligence services nationwide. With 35 years of experience, Capitol Lien specializes in fast, accurate property and title searches, lien reports, and document retrieval that help title agents, underwriters, and legal teams operate their businesses with confidence. The Capitol Lien team takes the hassle out of title research with local experts and innovative tools that make it easier to mitigate risk, stay on schedule, and keep your closings moving smoothly.

Learn more at capitollien.com. Ready to simplify your title research? Send your next order to Capitol Lien and experience the difference trusted diligence makes. Stay in touch with Capitol Lien on LinkedIn for industry updates and information. Reach out! contact@capitollien.com or 800-845-4077.

Sources:

Minnesota Secretary of State: About Safe at Home

California Secretary of State: Safe At Home FAQ

NASS: Expanding California’s Safe at Home Program July 11, 2023

Wisconsin Department of Justice: Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program

Wisconsin Department of Children and Families: Safe at Home

Missouri Secretary of State: Safe at Home; Address Confidentiality Programs by State

Ohio Secretary of State: Survivors – Safe at Home

USFN: Ohio Expands “Safe at Home” Program to Include Real Estate Records and Court Filings

State of Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement: Hawaii Address Confidentiality Program (ACP)

Hawai’i State Legislature: HB2132

AP News: Tennessee program lets victims shield their addresses

Washington Secretary of State: Address Confidentiality Programs by State Updated 05/02/2024

Maine Secretary of State: Other States’ Address Confidentiality Programs

Reuters: New Jersey defends private law shielding judges, prosecutors

State of New Jersey: Daniel’s Law

Politico: How a law meant to protect public workers may have created a lawsuit gold mine

WIRED: The Future of Online Privacy Hinges on Thousands of New Jersey Cops

Texas Comptroller: Request for Confidentiality Under Tax Code Section 25.025

Texas Secretary of State: Address Confidentiality

Florida Legislature: The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Florida DMS: Public Records Exemptions

California Department of Justice: Special Protection

NFOIC: Home Address Exemptions in State FOI Laws

Judicial Branch of California: Rule 2.575. Confidential information in name change proceedings under address confidentiality program