BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
2
7
8
AB 2784 (Feuer) 4
As Amended May 23, 2008
Hearing date: June 24, 2008
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: DUI: IGNITION INTERLOCK
HISTORY
Source: CHP and MADD
Prior Legislation: SB 1361 (Correa) - currently in Assembly
Transportation Committee
AB 4 (Bogh) - held Assembly Appropriations 2005
AB 979 (Runner) - Chapter 646, Statutes of 2005
AB 638 (Longville) - (prior to 7/2/03 amends)
died on Concurrence 2003
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate Public
Safety 2003
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Chapter 756,
Statutes of 1998
Support: California Bicycle Coalition; Peace Officers Research
Association of California; Los Angeles County Sheriff;
Association of California Insurance Companies;
California Police Chiefs Association; California Peace
Officers' Association; City of Santa Ana Police
Department; AAA Northern California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 1
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageB
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD SECOND AND THIRD-TIME DUI OFFENDERS BE PERMITTED TO GET A
RESTRICTED LICENSE EARLIER IF THEY INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK
DEVICE ON THEIR VEHICLE?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD A FIRST-TIME DUI OFFENDER BE PERMITTED TO GET A LICENSE WITH
NO TO/FROM WORK OR PROGRAM RESTRICTION IF HE OR SHE SHOWS PROOF OF
INSTALLATION OF A CERTIFIED IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow a DUI offender to get a
restricted license sooner if he or she installs an ignition
interlock device.
Existing law provides it is unlawful for any person who is under
the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the
combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive
a vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152(a).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person, while
having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood to drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152(b).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI is subject to the following penalties when given probation:
possible 48 hours to 6 months in jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
completion of a 3-month treatment program or a 9-month
program if the BAC was .20% or more;
6 month license suspension or 10 month suspension if 9
month program is ordered; and
Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageC
enrollment or completion of program, proof of financial
responsibility and payment of fees. However, the court may
disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(1); 13352.1; 13352.4; 23538(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI with injury is subject to the following penalties:
16 months, 2 or 3 years in state prison or 90 days to 1
year in county jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments; and
1 year driver's license suspension.
Or, when probation is given:
5 days to one year in jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
1 year license suspension;
3 month treatment program or a 9-month program if the
BAC was .20% or more; and
the additional penalties that apply to a first DUI
without injury. (Vehicle Code 23554.)
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a second DUI that after
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions are met:
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month
driving-under- the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(3).)
This bill provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
advise a person convicted of a second DUI for driving while .08%
or above, after the completion of 90 days, of the suspension
period that the person may apply for a restricted license
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageD
subject to the above conditions as well as pays a fee sufficient
to cover the cost of the administration of this provision.
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a third DUI that after
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions are met:
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month
driving-under-the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(5).)
This bill provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles shall
advise a person convicted of a third DUI for driving while .08%
or above that after the initial six months of the driving under
the influence program, of the person's ability to apply for a
restricted license subject to the above conditions, as well as
pays a fee sufficient to cover the cost of the administration of
this provision.
Existing law provides that if a first-offender DUI is found to
have a blood concentration of .20% BAC or above or who refused
to take a chemical test, the court shall refer the offender to
participate in a nine-month licensed program. (Vehicle Code
23538 (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced
to a nine-month program because of a high BAC or a refusal shall
have their license suspended for 10 months. The law further
provides that their license may not be reinstated until the
person gives proof of insurance and proof of completion of the
required program. (Vehicle Code 13352.1.)
Existing law provides that a person convicted of a first-time
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageE
DUI may apply for a restricted license for driving to and from
work and to and from a driver-under-influence program if
specified requirements are met, paying all applicable fees,
submitting proof of insurance and proof of participation in a
program. (Vehicle Code 13352.4.)
This bill provides that if a person convicted of a first DUI
installs an ignition interlock device as well as submitting
proof of insurance, proof of participation in a program and
payment of fees, the person shall receive a license that
indicates he or she may only drive a vehicle with a certified
ignition interlock installed.
This bill has a delayed operative date of July 1, 2009.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity
remains nearly exhausted as prisons today continue to be
operated with a significant level of overcrowding.<1> A year
ago, the Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory
of California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<2>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
---------------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007); see
also, court orders, infra.
<2> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageF
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageG
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<3>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
The federal court has appointed a receiver to take over the
direct management and operation of the prison medical health
care delivery system from the state. The crisis has continued
to escalate and, in July of last year, the federal court
established a three-judge panel to consider placing a cap on the
number of prisoners allowable in California prisons. It is
anticipated that the court will reach its decision this year.
In his order establishing the judicial panel, Judge Thelton
Henderson stated in part:
It is clear to the Court that the crowded conditions
of California's prisons, which are now packed well
beyond their intended capacity, are having - and in
the absence of any intervening remedial action, will
continue to have - a serious impact on the Receiver's
ability to complete the job for which he was
appointed: namely, to eliminate the unconstitutional
conditions surrounding delivery of inmate medical
health care.
. . . (T)his case is also somewhat unique in that even
Defendants acknowledge the seriousness of the
overcrowding problem, which led the Governor to declare
a state of emergency in California's prisons in October
2006. While there remains dispute over whether crowded
conditions are the primary cause of the constitutional
problems with the medical health care system in
-----------------------
<3> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageH
California prisons, or whether any relief other than a
prisoner release order will remedy the constitutional
deprivations in this case, there can be no dispute that
overcrowding is at least part of the problem. . . .
The record is equally clear that the Receiver will be
unable to eliminate the constitutional deficiencies at
issue in this case in a reasonable amount of time
unless something is done to address the crowded
conditions in California's prisons. This Court
therefore believes that a three-judge court should
consider whether a prisoner release order is warranted
. . . . (Hon. Thelton Henderson, Order dated July 23,
2007 in Plata v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal) No. C01-1351
TEH (citations omitted).)
Similarly, Judge Lawrence Karlton stated:
There is no dispute that prisons in California are
seriously and dangerously overcrowded. () The
record suggests there will be no appreciable change
in the prison population in the next two years.
(Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior Judge, United
States District Court, Order dated July 23, 2007 in
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger (E.D. Cal.) No. S90-0520
LKK JFM P (citations omitted).)
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
California is experiencing a disturbing trend of
increasing incidents of driving under the influence
(DUI). Unfortunately, this trend has been accompanied by
associated increases in both fatalities and injuries from
alcohol related collisions. In 2006, there were 197,248
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageI
DUI arrests made statewide. In that same year, there
were 1,597 victims killed and 31,099 injured in alcohol
related collisions statewide. By September of 2007,
153,374 of those DUI offenders received driver's license
suspensions, and, of that number 42,849 were repeat DUI
offenders.
One step to alleviate this problem lies in encouraging
the use of IIDs for all DUI offenders. IIDs will protect
individuals to prevent them from driving under the
influence while they attend mandatory DUI classes,
protect their family, and most importantly, save lives.
Interlock ignition devices (IIDs) have uniformly
demonstrated, when utilized effectively, that they can
reduce DUI recidivism from 40 to 95 percent. IIDs have
already been implemented with positive results in New
Mexico, Texas, Washington and many others states. This
bill would provide incentives for the use of IIDs by a
person convicted of a DUI offense. These DUI offenders
would be eligible for restricted driver's licenses months
sooner if they have installed the required IID.
2. Earlier Restricted License With Installation of Ignition
Interlock Device
a. Second Offenders.
Under exiting law when a person is convicted of a second DUI he
or she faces a license suspension period of 2 years. After 12
months of "hard suspension" where he or she can not drive at
all, he or she may apply for a restricted license. Generally
the restricted license will be limited to being able to drive to
and from work and to and from the program (Vehicle Code
13352.5) but if he or she installs an interlock device, enrolls
in a drinker driver treatment program and shows proof of
insurance, the restriction is not so limited. (Vehicle Code
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageJ
13352.) This bill would shorten the time frame before a person
could get a restricted license to 90 days if the person installs
and maintains an ignition interlock device on his or her vehicle
in addition to the existing requirements that include
participation in the drinker driver treatment program and proof
of insurance. This bill does not remove the ability of a person
to get a restricted license to and from work and to and from the
program after 12 months.
b. Third Offenders.
Under existing law, when a person is convicted of a third DUI,
he or she faces a license suspension period of 3 years. After
12 months of "hard suspension" he or she can apply for a
restricted license if he or she installs an ignition interlock,
enrolls in the required program and gives proof of insurance.
This bill would make that restricted license available after six
months.
c. First Offenders.
Under existing law, a first offender may apply for a license
restriction allowing the person to drive to and from work and to
and from the drinking driver treatment program. First offenders
have their license suspended for either 6 months or 10 months
depending on the length of drinker driver treatment program they
are required to attend. A person may seek a restricted license
to drive to and from work and to and from the program if he or
she shows proof of financial responsibility, shows proof of
enrollment in the program and pays applicable fees. This bill
would allow a person to get a license that is not limited to and
from work and the program if he or she shows verification of the
installation of an ignition interlock device on his or her car.
SHOULD SECOND AND THIRD-TIME DUI OFFENDERS BE PERMITTED TO GET A
RESTRICTED LICENSE EARLIER IF THEY INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK
DEVICE ON THEIR VEHICLE?
SHOULD A FIRST-TIME DUI OFFENDER BE PERMITTED TO GET A LICENSE
WITH NO TO/FROM WORK OR PROGRAM RESTRICTION IF HE OR SHE SHOWS
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageK
PROOF OF INSTALLATION OF A CERTIFIED IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE?
3. SB 1361 (Correa )
(More)
As this bill is before us, in the form it was amended in
Assembly Appropriations, it is identical to SB 1361 (Correa)
which passed this Committee on April 1 (5-0). The Senate
Appropriations Committee amended SB 1361 with some technical
amendments relating to costs that this bill also contains. SB
1361 is currently in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
4. Bill Supported by DMV Study and Recommendation
The premise of this bill, that a person with a DUI can get their
driving privilege returned sooner if they choose to install an
ignition interlock device, is one of the recommendations by DMV
in their Report to the Legislature. While the study found the
results "are mixed and somewhat complex regarding the
effectiveness of IIDs in California, IIDs are not the 'silver
bullet' that will solve the DUI problem, but they are effective
in some situations with some offenders." (An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California; Report to the
Legislature of the State of California, in accord with Assembly
Bill 762, Chapter 756, 1998 Legislative Session, September 2004
p. 19.) Specifically the report made a number of
recommendations for effective use of IIDs in California
including the voluntary use of IIDs that this bill contemplates.
Specifically the report stated:
Introduce legislation that would allow repeat DUI
offenders who install an IID to reinstate their driver
licenses early, after serving their APS suspension, or
court-DMV suspension, whichever is shorter.
The results of this study show that second DUI offenders
who serve half of their suspension period, and install
an IID in order to obtain a restricted driver license,
have a lower risk of DUI recidivism than their
counterparts who remain suspended. This supports the
findings of a randomized study of multiple DUI offenders
in Maryland, who installed IIDs in order to reinstate
their driver licenses (Beck et al., 1999). While the
results of both studies generalize only to those repeat
(More)
AB 2784 (Feuer)
PageM
DUI offenders who choose to install an IID, they do
clearly show that interlocks can be effective for repeat
DUI offenders.
The effectiveness of IIDs could be enhanced by
encouraging more repeat offenders to install an
interlock in order to gain valid driving privileges. The
legislatively-mandated process evaluation showed that
only a small minority of eligible repeat offenders takes
advantage of the current law, which allows them to
obtain a restricted license if they install an IID
(DeYoung, 2002). One way to encourage more repeat
offenders to install interlocks is to shorten their
period of suspension if they install a device.
Currently, repeat DUI offenders receive a one-year APS
suspension upon arrest, and upon conviction receive
another suspension of two years or longer,
depending upon their number of prior DUI convictions.
By requiring repeat DUI offenders to serve only the
shorter APS suspension if they install an IID, it is
likely more repeat offenders will choose to install an
interlock. It is important that a period of license
suspension, such as the term required under APS, remain
in effect, as numerous studies have shown that license
suspension is one of the most effective countermeasures
for DUI offenders. (Id. at 20)
***************