BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
9
1
AB 91 (Feuer)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI);
IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1190 (Oropeza) - Chapter 392, Statutes
2008
SB 1361 (Correa) - vetoed, 2008
SB 1388 (Torlakson) - Chapter 404, Statutes 2008
AB 2784 (Feuer) - until August 28, 2008, version
SB 177 (Migden) - did not move 2007
AB 4 (Bogh) - held Assembly Appropriations 2005
AB 979 (Runner) - Chapter 646, Statutes of 2005
AB 638 (Longville) - prior to July 2, 2003, amends
died on Concurrence 2003
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate Public
Safety 2003
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Chapter 756,
Statutes of 1998
Support: MADD; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; Los Angeles District Attorney's Office; Los
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageB
Angeles Police Department; the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department; Sacramento County Sheriff's
Department; Sacramento Police Officers Association;
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District; American Academy
of Pediatrics; American Nurses Association, California;
California Hospital Association; California Emergency
Nurses Association; John Muir Health; Cedars-Sinai
Health System; County of Los Angeles; San Diego County
Board of Supervisors; City of Los Angeles; City of
Sacramento; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers;
Association of California Insurance Companies; AAA of
Northern California; Automobile Club of Southern
California
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
DUI Lawyers Association; California Public Defenders
Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CREATE A PILOT PROJECT IN
THREE COUNTIES MANDATING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE BY
ALL DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFFENDERS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create a pilot project mandating
the installation of an ignition interlock device on the vehicles
owned or operated by all driving under the influence offenders
in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.
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).)
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageC
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
driving under the influence ("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
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
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageD
conditions are met:
proof of enrollment in an 18-month or 30-month
driving-under- the influence program;
person agrees to continued satisfactory participation in
the program;
person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device;
person provides proof of insurance; and
person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352 (a)(3).)
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;
person agrees to continued satisfactory participation in
the program;
person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device;
person provides proof of insurance; and
person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352 (a)(5).)
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 9-month licensed program. (Vehicle Code
23538 (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced
to a 9-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
DUI may apply for a restricted license for driving to and from
work and to and from a driver-under-influence program if
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageE
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 the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV")
shall establish a pilot program in the counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles, and Sacramento to reduce the number of first time
violations and repeat DUI offenses.
This bill provides that DMV, upon receipt of the court's
abstract of conviction for one of the specified DUI violations,
shall inform the convicted person he or she is required to have
an ignition interlock device installed for the specified period
of time.
This bill provides that the records of DMV shall reflect the
mandatory use of the device for the term required and the time
with the devices is required to be installed.
This bill provides that DMV shall advise the person that
installation of an ignition interlock device on a vehicle does
not allow the person to drive without a valid driver's license.
This bill provides 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 that requires the
installation of an ignition interlock device, a person who is
notified by the department shall complete all of the following:
Arrange for each vehicle owned or operated by the person
to be fitted with an ignition interlock device by a
certified ignition interlock device provider.
Notify DMV and provide to the department proof of
installation by submitting the "Verification of
Installation" form.
Pay the fee, determined by DMV, which is sufficient to
cover the costs of administration of this section.
This bill provides that DMV shall place a restriction on the
driver's license record of the convicted person that states the
driver is restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with a
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageF
certified ignition interlock device.
This bill provides that a person who is notified by DMV shall
arrange fore each vehicle with an ignition interlock device 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.
This bill provides that the installer shall notify the
department 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 ignition
interlock device.
This bill provides that DMV shall monitor the installation and
maintenance of the ignition interlock device installed under the
pilot project.
This bill provides that a person is required to install an
ignition interlock device for the applicable term 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 conviction for a violation or
suspension of a person's driver's license.
This bill provides that a person convicted of a violation of DUI
shall be required to install an ignition interlock device as
follows:
Upon a first offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by that person for a mandatory term of five moths that
begins once that person has provided proof of installation.
Upon a second offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by that person for a mandatory term of 12 months that
begins once that person has provided proof of installation.
Upon a third offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by that person for a mandatory term of 24 months that
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageG
begins once that person has provided proof of installation.
Upon a fourth or any subsequent violation, the person
shall install an ignition interlock device in all vehicles
owned or operated by that person for a mandatory term of 36
months that begins once that person has provided proof of
installation.
This bill provides that upon a conviction for DUI with injury a
person shall install an ignition interlock device as follows:
Upon a first offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by that person for a mandatory term of 12 months that
begins once that person has provided proof of installation.
Upon a second offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by that person for a mandatory term of 24 months that
begins once that person has provided proof of installation.
Upon a third offense, the person shall install an
ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated
by the person for a mandatory term of 36 months that begins
once that person has provided proof of installation
Upon a fourth offense, or any subsequent violation, the
person shall install an ignition interlock device in all
vehicles owned or operated by that person for a mandatory
term of 48 months that begins once the person has provided
proof of installation.
This bill provides that a person who is notified by DMV is
exempt from the mandatory ignition interlock requirements if
within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to DMV
all of the following:
The person does not own a vehicle.
The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or
her residence.
The person no longer has access to the vehicle being
driven by the person at the time he or she was arrested for
the DUI.
The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed
to drive a vehicle that is fitted with a functioning
ignition interlock device.
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageH
The person acknowledges that he or she is required to
have a valid driver's license before he or she can drive.
The person is subject to the requirement of this section
when he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle.
This bill provides that every manufacturer and manufacturer's
agent certified by DMV to provided ignition interlock devices
shall adopt the following fee schedule that provides for the
payment of the costs of the ignition interlock device by
offenders subject to this chapter in amounts commensurate with
that person's income relative to the federal poverty level, as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 127400:
A person with an income at 100% of the federal poverty
level and below is responsible for 10 percent of the cost
of the ignition interlock device. The ignition inter lock
device provider is responsible for absorbing the cost of
the ignition interlock device that is not paid by the
person.
A person with an income at 101 to 200% of the federal
poverty level is responsible for 25% of the cost of the
ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device
provider is responsible for absorbing the cost of the
ignition interlock device that is not paid by the person.
A person with an income at 201 to 300% of the federal
poverty level is responsible for 50% of the cost of the
ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device
provider is responsible for absorbing the cost of the
ignition interlock device that is not paid by the person.
All other offenders are responsible for 100% of the cost
of the ignition interlock device.
This bill provides that the cost of the ignition interlock
device may only be raised annually equal to the Consumer Price
Index.
This bill provides that the offender's income may be verified by
presentation of that person's current federal income tax return
or three months of monthly income statements.
This bill provides that for the purposes of this section
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageI
"vehicle" does not include a motorcycle until the state
certifies an ignition interlock device that can be installed on
a motorcycle. A person subject to an ignition interlock device
restriction shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of
the ignition interlock restriction period.
This bill requires DMV to receive nonstate funds for the
programming costs of the pilot program by January 31, 2010, in
order for DMV to implement the program.
This bill provides that on or before January 1, 2014, DMV shall
report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the
pilot program in reducing the number of first-time violations
and repeat offenses in the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, and
Sacramento.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
---------------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageJ
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageK
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
DUI has proven to be an enormous problem in California.
In 2007, there were 203,866 DUI arrests made statewide
in California, 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 1501 people. This
is 518 more people killed as a result of driving under
the influence than in 2006.
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageL
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.
California has not seen results from IIDs because they
have not been consistently ordered to be installed.
Unless installed, IIDs cannot work. This bill would
require the use of IIDs by a person convicted of a DUI
offense. These DUI offenders would be eligible for
restricted driver's licenses only after they have
completed a required period of mandatory suspension and
have installed the required IID.
Under current law, the courts have the discretion, but
are not mandated, to require the installation of an IID
for first-time and repeat DUI offenders. Data shows
that, statewide, only 4.3 percent of DUI offenders are
actually ordered to install an IID.
2. Mandatory IID Pilot Project
a. Applies to all offenders.
This bill requires DMV to create a pilot project in three
counties. A person convicted of a DUI or DUI with injury will
be required under the pilot project to install an ignition
interlock device (IID) on any vehicles he or she owns or has
access to.
This bill applies to all levels of offenders. Currently all DUI
offenders face high fines, suspended license sanctions and
mandatory DUI programs before having a license reinstated. An
IID will be an additional cost on all the offenders. While DUI
arrest numbers may be up, the rate of DUI offenses, while
fluctuating slightly year to year, remains significantly lower
than it was in the early 1990s before the attendance at the DUI
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageM
programs was mandated in 1994. For example, according to the
DMV's 2009 Annual Report of the California DUI Management
Information System<3> "the DUI arrest rate per 100 licensed
drivers was 0.9 in 2007, up from 0.8 in 2000-2006. This
represents a 50% reduction from the 1.8 rate in 1990."
Furthermore, "after 5 years, the proportion of DUI offenders
reoffending in the 1994 group was much lower (18%) compared to
the proportion reoffending in the 1984 group (27%) and in the
1980 group (35%). The 2000 group of DUI offenders had the
lowest proportion of reoffenses (17%)." The addition of the
program sanction in 1994 seemed to have a significant effect on
the recidivism rate of all offenders.
DMV's 2005 report on interlock in California<4> had among its
recommendations that California should deemphasize the use of
IID for first offenders. Specifically it recommended:
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 to 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,
1988). 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
----------------------
<3>
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/2009_DUI_MIS_Report_with_%
20Eratta_1-2.pdf
<4>
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section%205/217
_ignition_interlock_technical_report.pdf
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageN
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23575 (a)(1).
It is it appropriate to mandate IID on all offenders? If so,
are there any negative implications, such as will the added cost
cause more people to "drop out," not participate in the program
or do the other things needed to get a valid license reinstated.
The recidivism rates have been down since the programs were
mandated; for example, "the 1-year recidivism rates for all
first offenders in 2006 continued to remain at the lower level
of the past eight years. The DUI reoffense rate for first
offenders arrested in 2006 was 40.8% lower than the reoffense
rate for first offenders arrested in 1990" (2009 Annual Report
of the California DUI Management Information System). Would it
be more appropriate to see what impact on recidivism the IID
mandate has on repeat offenders before mandating them on first
offenders?
SHOULD THE PILOT PROJECT MANDATE IID ON ALL OFFENDERS?
b. Length of interlock requirement.
The length for which an offender will have to have installed the
mandated IID will depend on the offense as follows:
First offense-5 months.
First offense with injury-12 months.
Second offense-12 months.
Second offense with injury- 24 months.
Third offense-24months.
Third offense with injury-36months.
Fourth or subsequent offense-36 months.
Fourth or subsequent offense with injury-48 months.
The term begins once a person has provided proof of
installation. Should the time start from the date of
installation? Since a person cannot drive until the license is
reinstated with the IID restriction, it is possible that a
person could have the IID installed and then have a delay of a
few days or even a week before he or she can get someone else to
take them to DMV to submit the proof of installation. Shouldn't
their time start running from the date the IID was installed
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageO
which should be indicated on the proof of installation sheet?
SHOULD THE TIME FOR THE IID START ON INSTALLATION?
c. Counties in the pilot.
This bill creates the pilot in three urban counties, Alameda,
Los Angeles, and Sacramento. These are counties with high DUI
numbers because of their sizes but do not necessarily have
highest DUI rates. While DUI arrests generally have been going
down, the 2009 Annual Report indicated that Hispanics again
represented the largest ethnic group among arrestees as they
have every year since 1992. Their arrest rate continues to be
"substantially higher than their estimated 2007 population
parity" rate. Furthermore, "in some counties where the
population of Hispanics is high, the DUI arrest rate is also
high. For example, in the following eight counties, Hispanics
comprised 60% or more of those arrested for DUI during 2007:
Tulare (76.6%), San Benito (70.2%), Imperial (69.5%), Merced
(67.4%), Monterey (67.0%), Fresno (66.8%), Madera (63.2%), and
Kings (61.2%). However, in most other counties, the majority of
arrestees were White." (id., DMV 2009 Report at p. 7) Would it
be appropriate to substitute one of these more rural counties
for one of the urban counties currently in the bill? Kings,
Merced, Monterey, San Benito and Tulare Counties have higher DUI
conviction rates than Alameda or Los Angeles and most have
higher rates than Sacramento. Wouldn't a study that included
one of these counties with a higher population of Hispanics with
a high rate of arrest give us a better understanding of any
impact a statewide mandate on IID would have?
SHOULD A RURAL COUNTY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ONE OF THE URBAN
COUNTIES?
d. Owns or has access to.
This bill provides that a person must install an IID on any
vehicle that the person owns or operates. However, in order to
be exempted from the requirements, it states the person must
certify to DMV that the person does not have access to a vehicle
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageP
at his or her residence. It is unclear what "access to" means.
Does a person have access to a vehicle if his or her roommate
has a car that he or she does not have the right to drive and
has never driven? What if a person lives with a family member
who has a car but does not have the DUI defendant on his or her
insurance? What if the person has occasionally in the past
borrowed a neighbor's car to do an errand for a neighbor? Is
that considered access to? Is the standard that a person has
access to a vehicle a higher standard than the requirement that
the person put an IID on any car he or she owns or operates?
Should this language be clarified to be consistent?
WHAT DOES HAVE "ACCESS TO" MEAN? IS IT THE SAME AS OWNS OR
OPERATES?
3. Study
This bill requires DMV to report to the Legislature regarding
the effectiveness of the pilot project in reducing the number of
first-time violations and repeat offenses in the specified
counties. One of the issues with any study on an IID is when the
IIDs are not assigned randomly. It is not possible to have a
true comparison group. A more scientific way to conduct a study
would be to have DMV randomly assign the mandated IID to
individuals within the counties in the study, perhaps by the
last number in their driver's license or some other random
method. In the alternative, maybe this bill should specifically
state that this study should compare the counties in the pilot
with counties that currently have a similar rate of DUI
convictions. Since the counties in the study do not currently
have the highest rates, a comparison to other counties that
currently have higher rates might not lead to accurate results.
It might also be useful to compare a county which mandates the
IID to a county in which offenders can elect to install an IID
as allowed under SB 598 (Huff). This would be a good way to
compare what the most effective use of an IID as a sanction
would be. (See Comment 6 below.)
The study in this bill is required to be filed on January 14,
2014. The section itself does not become effective until July
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageQ
1, 2010, so this would give DMV less than 4 years to conduct the
study. Realistically, in order to have time to do the study,
the time frame studied would be about 3 years. This will not
give DMV any real information on how an IID mandate will impact
recidivism if many of those mandated to have the IID will still
have the IID on his or her vehicle when the data is collected.
The study due date and the sunset date should be extended to
give DMV at least four or preferably five years of data on the
mandated offenders.
SHOULD THE STUDY PROVIDE THAT DMV RANDOMLY ASSIGN THE IID
MANDATE WITHIN THE COUNTY TO GET A TRUE CONTROL GROUP?
SHOULD THE STUDY COMPARE THE COUNTIES IN THE PILOT WITH COUNTIES
THAT CURRENTLY HAVE A SIMILAR ARREST AND CONVICTION RATE THAT
WILL NOT HAVE THE MANDATED IID?
SHOULD THE DATE THE REPORT IS DUE BE EXTENDED SO THAT THE DMV
HAS AT LEAST FOUR OR MORE YEARS OF DATA TO STUDY?
4. Ability to Pay
This bill provides that a person who makes less than 301% of the
poverty level only needs to pay a portion of the cost of the
IID. The federal poverty level is $10,830 for a single person
and 22,050 for a family of four. A person who makes this amount
would only need to pay 10% of the cost of the IID. A single
person who made up to 200% of the poverty level or $21,660 or a
person who is the head of household for a family of four who
made $44,100 would have to pay 25% of the cost of the IID.
Finally a single person who made up to 300% of the poverty level
or $32,490 or a head of household of a family of four who makes
$66,150 must pay up to 50% of the cost of the IID. A person who
makes a dollar more than that is responsible for 100% of the IID
fees. In general, the fines, fees and cost associated with a
DUI are approximately $6,000-$10,000 without an attorney and
without any additional insurance costs. Any IID fees will be in
addition to these existing fees. Is the poverty level a
realistic amount for determining who can and cannot afford to
pay for an IID?
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageR
The California Association of Ignition Interlock Service
Professionals object to the mandated reduction of fees under
this bill. They argue that such mandated reduction does not
occur in other states where IIDs are mandated nor does it occur
elsewhere in the law. They argue that the state:
[S]hould either look to a State-managed assistance fund
? or leave well enough alone related to fees for IID
services; trusting that, as they have for the better
part of the past 20years , required users will find a way
to afford the IID by reduction or elimination of alcohol
consumption and/or other deleterious habits. What
California should NOT do, is require such assistance be
provided by IID manufacturers and service providers at
the levels required by this legislation, which will
surely result in fewer IID manufacturers and service
providers offering their services in the respective
counties in the pilot program, or the State entirely; as
the cost of doing business (above what it is already)
will be too excessive for many current IID service
providers to offer this service profitably. (emphasis
in original)
(More)
While the fee schedule is not set in code like the one in this
bill, Health and Safety Code Section 11837.4 (b)(2)(A) with
regard to the mandated licensed drinking driver treatment
programs does provide that the fees for the programs be approved
by the Department of Alcohol and Drug programs and that a
person's ability to pay must be considered. Specifically it
provides:
The department [of Alcohol and Drug Programs] shall
approve all fee schedules for the programs and shall
require that each program be self-supporting from the
participants' fees and that each program provide for the
payment of the costs of the program by participants at
times and in amounts commensurate with their ability to
pay in order to enable these persons to participate.
Each program shall make provisions for persons who can
successfully document current inability to pay the fees.
Only the department may establish the criteria and
procedures for determining a participant's ability to
pay. The department shall ensure that the fees are set
at amounts that will enable programs to provide
adequately for the immediate and long-term continuation
of services required pursuant to this chapter. The fees
shall be used only for the purposes set forth in this
chapter, except that any profit or surplus that does not
exceed the maximum level established by the department
may be utilized for any purposes allowable under any
other provisions of law. In its regulations, the
department shall define, for the purposes of this
paragraph, taking into account prudent accounting,
management, and business practices and procedures, the
terms "profits" and "surplus." The department shall
fairly construe these provisions so as not to jeopardize
fiscal integrity of the programs. The department may
not license any program if the department finds that any
element of the administration of the program does not
assure the fiscal integrity of the program.
IS THE POVERTY LEVEL THE REALISTIC MARKER FOR WHAT A PERSON CAN
(More)
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageT
AFFORD TO PAY FOR AN IID?
WILL THE MANDATED SUBSIDIES BY THE IID INDUSTRY RESULT IN FEWER
PROVIDERS AVAILABLE IN THE STATE?
5. Non-state Funds
This bill provides that DMV shall not implement this bill if by
January 31, 2010, DMV fails to obtain non-state funds for the
programming costs of the pilot program. The term non-state
funds would allow this pilot to be funded not only by Federal
funds that may be available, but also funds supplied by the IID
industry or advocacy groups. Is it appropriate to fund a state
mandated pilot project in this way, or should the funding be
limited to funds from Federal or other non-state grants?
WILL THE TERM NON-STATE FUNDS ALLOW A FUNDING OF THE PILOT BY
INDUSTRY OR INTERESTED ADVOCACY GROUPS?
6. SB 598 (Huff)
On May 4, 2009, this Committee heard and passed SB 598 (Huff)
with Benoit, Leno and Hancock added as co-authors. It provides
that a person who has a 2nd or subsequent DUI may get a
restricted license earlier than the law currently allows, if he
or she shows proof of installation of an IID. This bill is
consistent with one of the recommendations in the DMV's 2005
Report on Interlock in California which stated:
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 DUI offenders who choose to install an
IID, they do clearly show that interlocks can be
AB 91 (Feuer)
PageU
effective for repeat DUI offenders.
While SB 598 takes a different approach than this bill, because
this bill is a pilot project, both bills could take effect.
Because this bill is more specific as to specified counties, it
takes precedence in those counties once DMV established the
pilot projects. As noted above, it would also be appropriate to
require the study in this bill to compare a county in which the
IID are mandated to similar counties in which the SB 598 is in
effect. Perhaps, language should be taken to make this bill
contingent on the passing of SB 598 in order to assure that both
bills take effect and a determination can be made as to whether
the mandate approach or the opt-in approach leads to better
results.
***************