BILL ANALYSIS
AB 91
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 91 (Feuer) - As Amended: May 4, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Judiciary 12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires DMV to establish a five-county pilot program,
in Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and San Diego
counties effective July 1, 2010 until January 1, 2015, to
require a person convicted of driving under the influence (DUI)
to (a) install an ignition interlock device (IID), as specified,
on all vehicles he or she owns, and (b) participate in a county
alcohol and drug problem assessment program.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Based on preliminary DMV estimates, one-time programming costs
of about $300,000, plus annual costs for the life of the
program of $500,000 to $800,000.
These costs could eventually be covered by the proposed
undetermined fee, which, based on preliminary estimates would
likely be in the range of $50. It is not clear, however, that
a sufficient number of offenders could or would pay the fee.
Some offenders will simply not be able to afford the fee,
which, with fines and assessments and an IID can exceed
$6,000. Others will simply choose not to pay the fine and
drive without a license. DMV acknowledges the tendency of
convicted drunk drivers to simply drop out of the licensed
driver population has become an issue of state and national
concern.
AB 91
Page 2
(The cost of an IID alone is in the range of $1,000 per year
for rental, installation, and recalibration, though this bill
requires IID providers to adopt a specified sliding fee
schedule based on income and requires the IID provider to
absorb the remaining cost.)
2)Costs in the range of $250,000 over the duration of the pilot
for research activities necessary to gather data, evaluate the
pilot and provide the Legislature a meaningful report. DMV
notes these costs may ultimately be covered by research
grants, potentially through the federal government, as DMV has
been successful in attracting research grants in the past.
3)Significant non-state reimbursable county costs, potentially
in the tens of millions of dollars in the five pilot counties,
for expanded alcohol and drug treatment costs. San Diego
County estimates, for example, that the mandatory alcohol and
drug assessment program will cost the county $4.3 million if
only 10% of county offenders are referred to a county
treatment program. While the bill does provide for a $120 fee
to pay for the assessment program, it is unlikely that all or
many DUI offenders can pay the fee, which the bill
acknowledges by including a sliding payment scale based on
income.
4)Increasing fines, fees and assessments may have the unintended
consequence of actually diminishing revenues. For example, a
$2,000 fine for DUI with current maximum assessments would be
$7,285, shocking defendants who think $2,000 means $2,000.
Judges do have the discretion to reduce the base fine, which
then reduces revenue to state and local governments, as well
as to assessments and the programs they currently support.
Indigent defendants facing ever-increasing fees may simply
choose to spend time in jail in lieu of paying the fine,
causing taxpayers to pay the jail costs while state and local
government receive fewer penalty funds. Moreover, jail
population caps in 27 counties may provide additional
incentives to opt for jail time over fines, as the time served
for nonviolent offenders may be minimal.
As noted by the California Research Bureau (CRB) in its 2006
review of penalty assessments, "High penalty assessments may
result in higher rates of default by the guilty parties. Some
AB 91
Page 3
offenders may spend time in jail, or plea for community
service, rather than pay the fine and penalty assessment. The
end result may be that a substantial amount of fines, fees and
revenue is not collected."
SUMMARY CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires persons convicted of driving under the influence
(DUI), including first-time offenders, to install an ignition
interlock device (IID) in order to be reissued a license or a
restricted license, as follows:
a) For a first offense, five months.
b) For a second offense, 12 months.
c) For a third offense, 24 months.
d) For a fourth offense, or any subsequent violation, 36
months.
2)Requires a person convicted of DUI causing bodily injury to
install an IID in all vehicles operated by that person, as
follows:
a) For a first offense, 12 months.
b) For a second offense, 24 months.
c) For a third offense, 36 months.
d) For a fourth offense, or any subsequent violation, 48
months.
3)Requires DMV, upon receipt of the court's abstract of
conviction for DUI, to inform the convicted person of the term
for which he or she is required to have IID installed.
4)Requires DMV to place a notation on the offender's driver's
license record that restricts the driver to driving only
vehicles equipped with certified IIDs.
5)Requires the DMV to monitor the installation and maintenance
of IIDs.
6)Requires offenders to pay a fee, determined by DMV, to cover
DMV's administrative costs.
7)Specifies the mandatory IID period shall be reset by the DMV
AB 91
Page 4
if a person fails to comply with any of the requirements
regarding IID installation and maintenance.
8)Provides exemptions from the IID requirement:
a) If the person certifies to the DMV that the he/she does
not own a vehicle or have access to a vehicle at his or her
residence and acknowledges that he/she is only allowed to
drive a vehicle fitted with an operating IID and is
required to have a valid driver's license.
b) A person required to operate a vehicle in the course and
scope of his or her employment and the employer has been
notified of the restricted driving privileges and that
notification is in their possession while driving. Excludes
a person from operating an employer vehicle if that entity
is owned or controlled by the convicted person.
c) Motorcycles, until such the state certifies an
appropriate IID device.
9)Requires a county alcohol and drug treatment assessment
program for any person convicted of DUI and requires payment
of a $120 fee to pay the cost of the program, based on a
specified sliding ability-to-pay scale. (Current law
authorizes the court to make such an order and requires the
order for a DUI within 10 years of a prior DUI.)
10)Requires manufacturers and agents certified by the DMV to
provide IIDs to adopt a specified fee schedule for the costs
of the IID, and requires that an IID provider be responsible
for absorbing the cost of the IID that is not paid by the
person.
11)Requires DMV to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2014
on the efficacy of the pilot in reducing the number of DUI
violations and repeat offenses in the five pilot counties.
12)Specifies that this bill does not change provisions of
existing law related to IID, which shall remain unchanged and
apply as specified in those sections.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends IIDs have reduced DUI
recidivism in other states, but have not been utilized
sufficiently in California because the authority for IID
AB 91
Page 5
installation rests with the state trial courts. According to
the author, the courts lack the resources to properly
administer current IID law and as a result, the courts order
IID installation for a miniscule percentage of DUI offenders
(less than 4% according to the author).
The author states, "The remedy to this problem lies in
requiring IIDs for all DUI offenders and moving the
administration of mandatory IID implementation to the DMV. The
DMV is the most properly situated department to adequately
provide an efficient and effective method of implementing
mandatory IID laws. 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."
2)2009 DMV DUI statistics show that the DUI arrest rate (per
100,000 licensed drivers) is down from 1997 (933 to 863) and
that alcohol-related fatalities decreased by 7% in 2007, for
the first year-to-year decrease after eight years of a rising
trend.
3)Current law
a) Authorizes the court to require a person convicted of
first-time DUI or DUI causing bodily injury to install an
IID on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and
prohibits that person from operating a motor vehicle unless
that vehicle is equipped with an IID. The court shall give
priority IID consideration to a first-offense violator with
a BAC of 0.20% or more, or with two or more prior moving
traffic violations, or to persons who refuse chemical tests
at arrest. If the court orders the IID restriction, the
term shall be determined by the court for a period not to
exceed three years from the date of conviction.
b) Requires an IID when a person is convicted of driving on
a suspended license due to a DUI conviction, and after
multiple DUI convictions, as specified.
4)An IID is a breath-alcohol testing device , about the size of a
cell phone, which is installed on the steering column of a
AB 91
Page 6
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. The cost of an IID varies, but runs about
$1,000 per year, including unit rental, installation and
periodic recalibration to determine whether the offender has
attempted to remove or tamper with the IID, or if the offender
has failed three or more times to comply with IID
requirements. The cost of an IID is borne by the defendant,
though IID vendors offer discounted rates based on ability to
pay.
5)Other States . New Mexico passed the nation's first mandatory
IID law for all DUI offenses in 2005. Forty-three states,
including California, authorize courts to order IIDs when
deemed appropriate. Since 2005, Arizona, Louisiana and
Illinois, have also passed mandatory IID laws.
6)Research Reports . Pursuant to AB 762 (Torlakson), Statutes of
1998, the DMV released a report in 2005, An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California, which
concluded in part that mandatory IID for first-time offenders
are not effective and that the state should incentivize IID
by allowing offenders who install an IID to have their
licenses reinstated earlier.
According to the report, "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 BACs at 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. This conclusion
finds support in a study that interviewed drivers, and found
that first offenders were more hostile to interlocks and
regarded them as less useful, compared to repeat offenders
(Baker, 1998). Because there is no evidence that interlocks
are an effective traffic safety measure 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 in California Vehicle Code
Section 23575(a)(1)."
AB 91 proponents cite a report from the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation, which studied the use of IIDs in New
Mexico and concluded, "The study provides evidence that
AB 91
Page 7
interlocks are as effective with first offenders
(approximately 60% reduction in recidivism when on the
vehicle) as they are for multiple offenders." (Voas, et al.,
Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective, Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation (July 27, 2007).)
7)Support , including law enforcement, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, and insurance companies, contends IIDs are a powerful
tool for addressing DUI recidivism.
According to the L.A. Police Department, "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 a person's ability to physically control a
vehicle. AB 91 is another significant weapon to be utilized by
law enforcement entities to combat this notorious problem."
8)Opposition. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ)
and the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) oppose what
they see as an unnecessary diminution of judicial discretion
in the absence of empirical data supporting mandatory IID for
first-time offenders.
"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.
"As written, the IID requirement will equally apply to the
offender who had three glasses of wine at an after-work
reception and whose BAC is 0.10 as well as to the offender
with a history of alcohol addiction who was caught driving
with a 0.21 BAC. There is little justification to eliminate a
judge's discretion to determine whether those two offenders
should incur identical punishment and conditions of probation.
Yet, AB 91 eliminates this discretion?.
"CACJ and CDLA question the need to eliminate judicial
discretion. Our members who have handled DUI offenses have
rarely, if ever, witnessed a judge who is lenient with DUI
offenders. On the contrary, judges have proven to impose harsh
penalties in DUI cases. Therefore, there is little, if any,
AB 91
Page 8
justification for taking the decision-making out of the hands
of judges.
9)Related Legislation .
a) AB 2784 (Feuer, 2008), similar to AB 91, was amended in
this committee to reflect SB 1361 (Correa, 2008), which
required installation of an IID, as specified, for repeat
DUI offenders.
SB 1361 created an IID incentive whereby DMV could
reinstate the offender's license earlier than provided in
existing law if the offender installed an IID. SB 1361 was
vetoed.
b) SB 598 (Huff), pending in Senate Appropriations, is
similar to SB 1361.
c) SB 1388 (Torlakson), Statutes of 2008, requires IID for
repeat offenders, as specified.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081