BILL ANALYSIS
AB 91
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mike Eng, Chair
AB 91 (Feuer) - As Amended: April 21, 2009
SUBJECT : Vehicles: driving under the influence (DUI): ignition
interlock device
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to
establish a five-county pilot program until January 1, 2015,
that requires a person convicted of driving under the influence
(DUI) to install an ignition interlock device (IID), as
specified, on all vehicles he or she owns and participate in a
county alcohol and drug problem assessment program.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires DMV to establish a pilot program in Alameda, Los
Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and San Diego counties to reduce
the number of first-time violations and repeat offenses of DUI
and DUI with injury. This program is to commence on July 1,
2010, and sunset on January 1, 2015.
2)Requires DMV, upon receipt of the court's abstract conviction
for a DUI or DUI with injury, to inform the convicted person
of his or her duty to install an IID.
3)Requires that DMV records reflect the mandatory use of the IID
for the term specified.
4)Requires DMV to advise the convicted person that the
installation of an IID does not allow the person to drive
without a valid driver's license.
5)Requires that, before a driver's license may be issued,
reissued, or returned to a person after a suspension or
revocation of that person's driving privilege where an IID is
required, a person notified by DMV of the IID requirement must
complete all of the following:
a) Arrange for each vehicle owned and operated by the
person to be fitted with an IID by a certified IID
provider;
b) Notify and provide proof of installation of the IID to
AB 91
Page 2
the DMV by submitting a "verification of installation;"
and,
c) Pay the fee determined by DMV sufficient enough to cover
the cost of administration.
6)Provides that DMV will place a restriction on the convicted
person's driver's license record that states the driver is
restricted to only driving a vehicle equipped with a certified
IID.
7)States DMV shall monitor installation and maintenance of the
IID, as specified.
8)Requires that a person ordered to install an IID as a
condition of being issued a restricted driver's license, being
reissued a driver's license, or having the privilege to
operate a motor vehicle reinstated subsequent to a suspension
for driving on a suspended license, is to have an IID device
in place, as follows:
a) Upon conviction of a first offense DUI or DUI with
injury, a person shall install an IID in all vehicles owned
and operated by that person for a mandatory term of five
months for a DUI and 12 months for a DUI with injury, to
begin when he or she has shown proof of installation;
b) Upon conviction for a second DUI or DUI with injury, a
person shall install an IID for a mandatory term of 12
months for a DUI and 24 months for a DUI with injury;
c) Upon conviction for a third offense DUI or DUI with
injury, a person shall install an IID for a mandatory term
of 24 months for a DUI and 36 months for a DUI with injury;
and,
d) Upon conviction of a fourth or subsequent offense DUI or
DUI with injury, a person shall install an IID for a
mandatory term of 36 months for a DUI and 48 months for a
DUI with injury.
9)States that existing provisions related to mandatory IIDs are
still operative.
10)Creates exemptions to the IID installation requirements under
AB 91
Page 3
all of the following circumstances:
a) Within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies
to the DMV all of the following:
i) The person does not own a vehicle;
ii) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his
or her residence;
iii) The person no longer has access to the vehicle being
driven when he or she was arrested for a violation that
subsequently resulted in the conviction for driving on a
suspended license;
iv) The person acknowledges that he or she is only
allowed to drive a vehicle that is fitted with an
operating IID and that he or she is required to have a
valid driver's license before he or she can drive; and,
v) A person is subject to the requirements when he or
she purchases or has access to a vehicle.
11)Provides that the mandatory term for which the IID is to be
installed shall be reset by the DMV if a person fails to
comply with any of the requirements regarding IID installation
and maintenance.
12)Authorizes the court to impose a fee of not more than $120 to
pay the cost of the county alcohol and drug problem assessment
program. However, the court shall determine the person's
ability to pay for all or a portion of the fee for the
assessment based on the person's income relative to the
federal poverty level, as specified:
a) A person with an income at 100% of the poverty level and
below is responsible for 10% of the fee for the assessment
fee;
b) A person with an income at 101% to 200% of the federal
poverty level is responsible for 25% of the fee for the
assessment fee; or,
c) A person with an income at 201% to 300% of federal
poverty level is responsible for 50% of the fee for the
AB 91
Page 4
assessment fee.
All other offenders are responsible for 100% of the fee for
the assessment fee.
13)Requires every manufacturer and manufacturer's agent
certified by the DMV to provide IIDs to adopt the following
fee schedule that provides for the payment of the costs of the
IID by offenders subject to this requirement in amounts
commensurate with that person's income relative to the federal
poverty level, as specified in the previous provision.
14)States the cost of the IID may only be raised annually equal
to the Consumer Price Index and the offender's income may be
verified by presentation of that person's federal income tax
return or three months of monthly income statements.
15)States the requirements of an IID, as specified, are in
addition to any other requirement of law.
16)Mandates DMV to report to the Legislature on or before
January 1, 2014, regarding the effectiveness of the pilot
program, as specified, in reducing the number of first-time
violations and repeat offenses of DUI and DUI with injury in
Alameda, Orange, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego
counties.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, but does not require, the court to have a person
convicted of a first offense violation of DUI and DUI causing
bodily injury install a certified IID on any vehicle that the
person owns or operates. The court is to give heightened
consideration to applying this sanction to a first-offense
violator with 0.20% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or
her blood at arrest, or with two or more prior moving traffic
violations, or to persons who refused the chemical tests at
arrest.
2)Requires that if the court orders the IID restriction, the
term is to be determined by the court for a period not to
exceed three years from the date of conviction. The DMV shall
place the restriction in the person's records in the DMV.
3)Requires the court where a person convicted of a violation of
AB 91
Page 5
driving on a suspended license where the suspension is the
result of a DUI to install an IID on any vehicle that the
person owns or operates and prohibits the person from
operating a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with
a functioning, certified IID. The term of the restriction
shall be determined by the court for a period not to exceed
three years from the date of conviction.
4)Requires a person whose driving privilege is restricted by the
court pursuant under the provisions listed above, arrange for
each vehicle with an IID to be serviced by the installer at
least once every 60 days in order for the installer to
recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device.
5)Requires an IID installer to notify the court if the device is
removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove,
bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails
three or more times to comply with any requirement for the
maintenance or calibration of the IID.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "DUI has proven to be an
enormous problem in California. In 2007, there were 203,866 DUI
arrests made statewide, which averages out to 558 DUI arrests
every day. Of those arrests, 45,149 were repeat offenders. In
this same year, DUI drivers caused 53,261 collisions, resulting
in the death of 1,501 people. This is 518 more people killed as
a result of driving under the influence than in 2006."
Historically, California has sought to reduce drunken
driving-related fatalities and injuries through increased
prevention, stricter sentences, fines, and expanded treatment
for offenders. State law already requires the use of an IID in
certain circumstances.
An IID is a breath-alcohol testing device, about the size of a
cellular phone, which is installed on the steering column of a
car. The IID prevents the vehicle from being started unless the
driver blows into the device to demonstrate that he or she is
alcohol-free.
Overall, the effectiveness of IID in California can be
considered mixed, based upon numerous studies conducted by DMV.
AB 91
Page 6
In response to AB 762 (Torlakson) Chapter 756, Statutes of 1998,
DMV released two reports regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of IIDs in California. In commenting on the use
of IIDs for first-time offenders, the report concluded, "The
results of this outcome study clearly show that IIDs are not
effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents for first DUI
offenders, even those with high blood alcohol contents (BACs) at
their arrest. While their high blood alcohol levels suggest
that they are an alcohol-dependent population, ignition
interlock does not appear to be the answer in reducing their
drinking and driving risk."
The study interviewed drivers and found that first offenders
were more hostile to interlocks and regarded them as less
useful, compared to repeat offenders. "Because there is no
evidence that interlocks is effective traffic safety measures
for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices should not be
emphasized, even for those first offenders with high BACs at the
time of arrest, as is currently done."
Under current law, the court may require that a person convicted
of a first-offense violation of DUI to install a certified IID
on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibits
that person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is equipped
with a functioning certified IID. The court is required to give
heightened consideration to high BAC or multiple moving
violations in applying the IID requirement to a first offender.
If the offender is required to install an IID, the length of
time shall be determined by the court and may not exceed three
years.
Currently, 43 states allow courts to apply IIDs where they deem
appropriate, including California. Since 2005, three other
states, Arizona, Louisiana and Illinois, have also passed
mandatory IID laws and several other states have mandatory IID
laws pending. New Mexico passed the nation's first mandatory
IID law for all DUI offenses in 2005.
In support of this bill, the Los Angles Police Department points
out that "AB 91 will prevent convicted DUI offenders from adding
to the carnage of alcohol-related offenses. The negative impact
that alcohol has on society is overwhelming. The combination of
alcohol and driving are particularly precarious because of the
impact drugs have on person's ability to physically control a
AB 91
Page 7
vehicle. AB 91 is another significant weapon to be utilized by
law enforcement entities to combat this notorious problem."
In opposition, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
(CACJ) and the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) state
that this bill will "eliminate judicial discretion in DUI cases
prosecuted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, and
Alameda Counties. AB 91 will override judicial discretion and
require IIDs in every case without regard for the specific
facts. This one-size-fits-all approach is contrary to key,
fundamental criminal law principles, including ensuring that the
penalties are proportionate to the crime."
Author's amendments : The author would like to take amendments
to this bill to address issues that were raised in the previous
committee (see below) in which this bill was first heard. The
first amendment would exclude applicability of this bill's
provisions to motorcycles, since IID technology is not yet
available for this type of vehicle.
Secondly, the author seeks an amendment to allow a person that
has been convicted under provisions of this bill to operate a
vehicle not equipped with an IID that is owned by an employer,
if the employer has been notified of the restricted driving
privileges and if that person has that notification in their
possession while driving. Excludes a person from operating an
employer vehicle if that entity is owned or controlled by the
convicted person.
Double referral : This bill was heard in the Assembly Public
Safety Committee on April 14, 2009, and passed out 6-0.
Prior legislation : SB 1388 (Torlakson), Chapter 404, Statutes
of 2008, requires a person to immediately install a certified
IID on all vehicles he or she owns or operates for a period of
one to three years when he or she has been convicted of
violating specified provisions relating to DUI and driving a
motor vehicle when his or her license has been suspended or
revoked as a result of a DUI-related conviction.
AB 2784 (Feuer) of 2008, would have required a person convicted
of DUI to install an IID, in order to be reissued a license,
receive a restricted license, or receive a reinstated license.
The provisions of AB 2784 were removed from that bill in the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations and replaced with the
AB 91
Page 8
provisions of SB 1361 (Correa) of 2008 (discussed below). AB
2784 was gutted, amended, and subsequently vetoed.
SB 177 (Migden) of 2008, would have, among other things, recast
and revised provisions of law authorizing restricted licenses
and imposing additional requirements with respect to IIDs on
those restricted licenses and established the Ignition Interlock
Device Assistance Fund in the State Treasury. That bill was
never heard in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
SB 1361 (Correa) of 2008, would have required installation of an
IID, as specified, for all offenders convicted of a DUI under
certain conditions. Those conditions included where there is a
high BAC for a first offender and for a second or subsequent
offender. SB 1361 also would have authorized DMV to reinstate
the offender's license earlier than provided in existing law if
he or she shows proof of installation of an IID. SB 1361 was
vetoed by the Governor. The veto message stated that "ignition
interlock devices have a good track record in preventing drunk
driving, this bill would only mandate their installation in the
vehicles of persons who would, under current law, be off the
streets entirely."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Nurses Association /California
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of California Insurance Companies
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Hospital Association
California State Automobile Association
Cedar-Sinai Health System
City of Los Angeles
Emergency Nurses Association -California State Council
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles Police Department
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Peace Officers Research Association of California
San Diego County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
AB 91
Page 9
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California DUI Lawyers Association
California Public Defender Association
Analysis Prepared by : Alejandro Esparza / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093