BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  1

          AB 91 (Feuer)
          As Amended  August 17, 2009
          Majority vote
          |ASSEMBLY:  |77-0 |(June 2, 2009)  |SENATE: |31-4 |(September 3,  |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2009)          |
           Original Committee Reference:   PUB. S.  

           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a three-county pilot program within the  
          Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that requires a person  
          convicted driving under the influence (DUI) to install an  
          ignition interlock device (IID), as specified, on all vehicles  
          he or she owns or operates. 

           The Senate amendments  :

          1)Add Tulare County to and delete Orange and San Diego Counties  
            from the pilot program established in this bill and sunset its  
            provisions in 2016 rather than 2015. 

          2)Require the manufacturer and a manufacturer's agency,  
            certified by the DMV to furnish IIDs, as specified, to provide  
            to the DMV information each year on the number of false  
            positives and the time taken to reset the IID and DMV shall  
            use this information in evaluating the continued certification  
            of an IID. 

          3)State the provisions of this bill are contingent on the  
            enactment of SB 598 (Huff), pending hearing by the Assembly  
            Appropriations Committee. 

          4)Make other clarifying amendments related to showing proof of  

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill:

          1)Required the DMV establish a pilot program in Alameda, Los  
            Angeles, and Sacramento, to reduce the number of first-time  
            violations and repeat offenses of DUI and DUI with injury.   
            This program would have commenced on July 1, 2010 and sunset  
            on January 1, 2015. 


                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  2

          2)Required the DMV, upon receipt of the court's abstract  
            conviction for DUI or DUI with injury, to inform the convicted  
            person of his or her duty to install an IID, as specified,  
            including the term for which the person is required to have a  
            certified IID installed and the requirement that he or she  
            participate in a county alcohol and drug problem assessment  
            program, as specified.

          3)Required that DMV records reflect the mandatory use of the IID  
            for the term specified and the time when the IID must be  
            installed, as specified.  The DMV must advise the person that  
            the installation of an IID does not allow the person to drive  
            without a valid driver's license. 

          4)Stated 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  
               provided, as specified;

             b)   Notify and provide proof if installation of the IID to  
               the DMV by submitting a "verification of installation" for,  
               as specified; and, 

             c)   Pay the fee determined the DMV sufficient enough to  
               include the cost of administration. 

          5)Provided that the DMV shall 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. 

          6)Stated the DMV shall monitor installation and maintenance of  
            the IID, as specified.

          7)Provided a person required 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, as specified, shall be as follows: 


                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  3

             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 offense 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;  

             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. 

          8)Stated existing provisions related to mandatory IIDs are still  

          9)Provided 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. 

          10)Required every manufacturer and manufacturer's agent  
            certified by the DMV, as specified, to provide IIDs must 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:

             a)   A person with an income at 100% of the federal poverty  
               level and below is responsible for 10% of the fee for the  

             b)   A person with an income at 101% to 200% of the federal  
               poverty level is responsible for 10% of the fee for the  


                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  4

             c)   A person with an income at 201% to 300% of federal  
               poverty level is responsible for 50% of the fee for the  

             d)    All other offenders are responsible for 100% of the fee  
               for the assessment; and, 

             e)   The IID provider is responsible for absorbing the cost  
               of the IID that is not paid by the person. 

          11)Stated 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. 

          12)Stated the requirements of an IID, as specified, are in  
            addition to any other requirement of law. 

          13)Created an exception from the requirements to install an IID  
            if the person notified by the DMV certifies within 30 days all  
            of the following:

             a)   The person does not own a vehicle;

             b)   The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or  
               her residence;

             c)   The person no longer has access to the vehicle being  
               driven by the person when he or she was arrested for DUI  
               that subsequently resulted in a conviction, as specified; 

             d)   The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed  
               to drive a vehicle that is fitted with an operating  
               ignition interlock device and that he or she is required to  
               have a valid driver's license before he or she can drive;  

             e)   The person is subject to the requirements of this  
               provision when he or she purchases or has access to a  

          14)Mandated the DMV 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  


                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  5

            Alameda, Los Angeles, and
          Sacramento counties.

          15)Defined "vehicle" as not including a motorcycle until the  
            state certifies an IID that can be installed on a motorcycle.   
            A person subject to an IID restriction shall not operate a  
            motorcycle for the duration of the IID restriction period. 

          16)Mandated the DMV shall not implement the IID requirements in  
            this bill if, by January 31, 2010, DMV fails to obtain  
            nonstate funds for the programming costs of the pilot program,  
            as specified.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  

          1)Based on 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.  

          This bill specifies that if non-state funds are not available by  
            January 31, 2010, to cover the pilot program's start-up costs,  
            the program will not be implemented.

          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 with a meaningful report.   
            DMV notes these costs may ultimately be covered by research  
            grants, potentially through the federal government.

           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 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.   This bill would stop DUI drivers in their tracks  
          by obstructing their ability to start their vehicle when they  
          have alcohol in their system, while affording them with ability  
          to attend to their daily activities by returning their driving  


                                                                  AB 91
                                                                  Page  6

          privilege as long as they comply with the IID requirements.   
          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.  Implementation of IIDs would be a  
          powerful tool to reduce the number of DUI related deaths and  

          Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this  

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)  

                                                                FN: 0002639