BILL ANALYSIS AB 91 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS 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 installment. 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; 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. 8)Stated existing provisions related to mandatory IIDs are still operative. 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 assessment; b) A person with an income at 101% to 200% of the federal poverty level is responsible for 10% of the fee for the assessment; 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 assessment; 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; and, e) The person is subject to the requirements of this provision when he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle. 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 Committee: 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 injuries" Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002639