BILL ANALYSIS AB 1601 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 1601 (Hill) - As Amended: February 4, 2010 Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 5-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill authorizes a court to permanently revoke the license of a driver convicted of three driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and eliminates the 10-year washout period for previous DUI convictions for the purposes of enhancing misdemeanor and felony penalties. Specifically, this bill: 1)Authorizes a court to order permanent revocation of the driver's license of a person previously convicted of three or more separate DUI violations. Upon receipt of a certified abstract from the court showing the court has ordered permanent revocation of a driver's license, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall permanently revoke the person's driver's license. When making this order, the court shall consider all of the following: a) The person's remorse. b) The period of time since the person's previous convictions. c) The person's blood-alcohol level at the time of the violation. d) The person's participation in an alcohol treatment program. e) The person's risk to public safety. f) The person's ability to install a certified ignition interlock device (IID). 2)Eliminates the 10-year limit during which previous DUI convictions may be used to enhance penalties for subsequent DUI penalties, increasing misdemeanor penalties to felony penalties. AB 1601 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT 1)Major annual increase in state prison costs, potentially in excess of $10 million, based on almost 2,500 persons committed to state prison for DUI in 2008. By eliminating the 10-year washout for prior DUI-related offenses, this bill will result in additional DUI priors that will result in increased prison commitments. A 10% increase in the number of persons committed to state prison for DUI in 2008, based on per capita costs, would exceed $11 million. 2)Major one-time cost for prison construction of about $100,000 per bed. Based on a 10% increase over 2008 DUI commitments, the capital costs would exceed $28 million. Given current prison overcrowding (180% of design capacity) and federal court orders to reduce the inmate population, inmate housing is at a premium. 3)Onetime costs of about $150,000 to DMV, which receives about 8,000 convictions per year for three-time DUI offenders, for programming to set up a permanent revocation process. 4)Unknown moderate nonreimbursable increased local incarceration costs, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue, for misdemeanor convictions of driving with a revoked license. COMMENTS 1)Rationale . The author contends the threat of permanent license revocation will deter repeat drunk drivers. 2)Current law provides that a person convicted of a second DUI within 10 years of the first DUI faces up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 in fines plus assessments, a two-year driver's license suspension (the license will not be reinstated until a treatment program is successfully completed), vehicle impoundment, and installation of an IID as a condition of probation. The penalties are more severe if the DUI resulted in injuries. A person convicted of a third DUI within 10 years of the first two DUIs faces up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000 plus assessment, vehicle impoundment, designation as a AB 1601 Page 3 habitual traffic offender for three years, license revocation, and a 30-month treatment program. A DUI within 10 years of three or more separate specified DUI convictions is an alternate felony/misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years or in the county jail for not less than 180 days nor more than one year and/or a fine of up to $1,000 and revocation of his or her driver's license. 3)Does permanent revocation create a treatment disincentive ? Upon DUI conviction, a defendant may be ordered to attend a treatment program. If a license is suspended, the DMV will not reinstate the license until proof of completion of a treatment program is provided. According to the California Association of Drinking Driver Treatment Programs, this bill "contradicts all research showing what works best for reducing DUI recidivism. There have been numerous studies done by the DMV and others which consistently show that drinking driver treatment programs have been significantly effective in reducing DUI recidivism. The studies demonstrate that programs work well along with license suspension and temporary revocation, or even less stringent licensing sanctions such as restriction and probation. "While the inclination is understandably to create more onerous sanctions, studies have routinely shown that this approach is the least effective way to reduce DUI recidivism. Since the programs, when combined with measured licensure sanctions, are the most effective way to reduce recidivism, we need to encourage more people to enter programs. By permanently revoking one's driver's license, this bill does the opposite of this. It is an unfortunate fact that there are drivers who will violate the law and drive with suspended or revoked licenses, regardless of laws or sanctions. Hence, this bill would not prevent this tragedy. However, the difference, and the problem with this bill versus current law, is that those with suspended licenses are receiving treatment while those with a permanently revoked license will have no incentive to receive any treatment, even if it is 'required'." 4)This bill does not provide a court the discretion to ever restore a revoked license . Should there be a process by which a person could petition the court to restore a license, AB 1601 Page 4 perhaps after a period of years, successful treatment and rehabilitation? As noted in the Assembly Public Safety analysis of AB 1601, "In general, courts of law have not been in the business of determining whether an individual has a right to drive; this has been conducted in the purview of the DMV. The DMV has administrative hearing officers who conduct hearings on a daily basis, with the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny as applied to the privilege to drive. Courts of law conduct proceedings, hearings, and trials with a criminal defendant's liberty at stake. This bill does not articulate a standard of review for the court to use, nor does this bill outline a hearing process on the issue of permanently revoking a driver's right to drive." 5)Opponents , including the ACLU, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ), and the CA DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA), contend this bill would actually reduce public safety by removing the incentive to get a driver's license back, which generally involves successful completion of treatment programs. Studies show many offenders with suspended or revoked licenses drive anyway, and under this bill, would have no incentive to complete treatment. "There are no studies indicating the proposed change is necessary to curb repeat offenders. In fact, it appears that current statutes and administrative penalties are taking hold. According to the DMV's most recent report, the percentage of repeat DUI offenders has dropped by 1/3 since 1989." 6)Impact on Budget, Prison Overcrowding and Court Ruling to Reduce Inmate Population . Federal courts have ruled inmate overcrowding is a primary factor in what the courts have determined to be unconstitutional levels of prison medical care. This year the court ordered California to reduce its inmate population by about 40,000 inmates to achieve an overcrowding level of 137.5% of capacity. Last year the Legislature considered measures designed to reduce the inmate population by about 37,000 and $1.2 billion in 2010-11. The result of those deliberations is currently a projected savings of about $780 million in 2010-11 and a population reduction of AB 1601 Page 5 about 14,000, including parole reforms, inmate program reductions, and increased sentence credits. The governor's budget proposes an additional reduction of about $1.1 billion for 2010-11, including a population reduction of about13,000. 7)Prior legislation , AB 4 (Bogh), 2005, which required permanent revocation after three DUIs, was held on this committee's Suspense File. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081