BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
6
0
AB 1601 (Hill) 1
As Amended May 28, 2010
Hearing date: June 29, 2010
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE:
REPEAT OFFENDERS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 895 (Huff) - Chapter 30, Statutes 2010
SB 598 (Huff) - Chapter 193, Statutes 2009
AB 91 (Feuer) - Chapter 217, Statutes 2009
SB 1190 (Oropeza) - Chapter 392, Statutes 2008
SB 1361 (Correa) - Vetoed 2008
SB 1388 (Torlakson) - Chapter 404, Statutes 2008
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 7/2/03 amends
died on Concurrence 2003
SB 1694 (Torlakson) - Chapter 550, Statutes 2004
SB 132 (Battin) - held on Assembly Appropriations
Suspense 2004
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate Public Safety 2003
SB 1757 (Battin) - 2001-2002, held in
Assembly Appropriations
AB 1078 (Jackson) - Chapter 849,
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageB
Statutes 2001
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Chapter 756, Statutes of 1998
AB 130 (Battin) - Chapter 901,
Statutes 1997
AB 2240 (Battin) - 1996, failed
Sen. Criminal Procedure
Support: Crime Victims United; California Association of Highway
Patrolmen; California District Attorneys Association;
The Century Council; California Peace Officers'
Association; California State Sheriffs' Association;
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; Peace
Officers Research Association of California
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
DUI Lawyers; Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE COURT BE AUTHORIZED TO REVOKE THE LICENSE OF A PERSON
CONVICTED OF A THIRD DUI WITHIN 10 YEARS?
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) BE REQUIRED TO
REINSTATE AFTER 5 YEARS A LICENSE THE COURT REVOKED IF SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS ARE MET?
SHOULD A PERSON'S SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTION BE POSTPONED UNTIL HE OR
SHE IS NO LONGER INCARCERATED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the court to revoke a
person's license for 10 years after a third or subsequent DUI
and to delay a license suspension or revocation until a person
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageC
is no longer incarcerated.
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).)
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
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.
As of July 1, 2010, in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, and Tulare installation of an ignition interlock
device for 5 months is required. (Vehicle Code 13352
(a)(1); 13352.1; 13352.4; 23538(a)(3); 23700.)
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;
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageD
$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
additional penalties that apply to a first DUI without injury.
(Vehicle Code 23554.)
Existing law provides that if a first-offender DUI is found to
have a blood concentration of .15% BAC or above or who refused
to take a chemical test, the court shall refer the offender to
participate in a nine-month licensed program. (Vehicle Code
23538 (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced
to a nine-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-the-influence program if
specified requirements are met, paying all applicable fees,
submitting proof of insurance and proof of participation in a
program. (Vehicle Code 13352.4.)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a second
DUI within seven years shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for 90 days to one year and/or a fine of $390 to
$1,000. If the person is granted probation, then he or she is
subject to the following:
96 hours to 1 year in county jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 190% penalty assessments;
restricted license for driving to and from work and treatment
program; and
18 or 30 month treatment program.
As of July 1, 2010, if convicted in the Counties of Alameda,
Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare a person shall install an
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageE
ignition interlock device for a period of 12 months. (Vehicle
Code 23540; 23542; 23700.)
Existing law provides that additional penalties also apply to a
person convicted of a second DUI within seven years including:
Restitution fine of $100-$1,000. (Penal Code 1202.4.)
Mandatory impound of the vehicle for up to 30 days if the
offense occurred within 5 years of a prior DUI unless
"interest of justice" exception is found (defendant must be
registered owner of vehicle used in the offense). (Vehicle
Code 23594.)
The court may order installation of an ignition interlock
device as a condition of probation. (Vehicle Code 23575(1).)
If the person refuses to take a blood-alcohol test, he or she
is subject to 96 hours in county jail whether or not probation
is imposed. (Vehicle Code 23577.)
Existing law provides that, as of July 1, 2010, the Department
of Motor Vehicles shall advise the person convicted of a second
DUI, who was not convicted in the Counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare, that after completion of 90 days
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.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory participation in the
program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition interlock
device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees.
(Vehicle Code 13352 (a)(3).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a third
DUI within seven years shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for 120 days to one year and/or a fine of $390 to
$1,000. (Vehicle Code 23546.) If the person is granted
probation, he or she is subject to the following penalties:
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageF
120 days to 1 year in county jail. (Vehicle Code 23548.)
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 190% penalty assessments. (Vehicle
Code 23548.)
3 year revocation of driver's license. (Vehicle Code
13352(a)(5).)
18 or 30 month treatment program. (Vehicle Code 23548.)
As of July 1, 2010, if convicted in the Counties of Alameda,
Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare a person shall install an
ignition interlock device for a period of 24 months. (Vehicle
Code 23700.)
Existing law provides that additional penalties also apply to a
person convicted of a third DUI within seven years including:
Restitution fine of $100-$1,000. (Penal Code 1202.4.)
The court must impound the vehicle for up to 90 days if the
offense occurred within 2 years of a prior DUI unless
"interest of justice" exception is found (defendant must be
registered owner of vehicle used in the offense. (Vehicle
Code 23594.)
The court may order forfeiture of vehicle (defendant must be
registered owner of vehicle used in the offense. (Vehicle
Code 23596.)
The court may order installation of an ignition interlock
device as a condition of probation. (Vehicle Code 23575(1).)
The Court must designate defendant as a habitual traffic
offender for three years. (Vehicle Code 13350(b),
14601.3(e)(3).)
If the person refuses to take a blood-alcohol test, he or she
is subject to 10 days in county jail whether or not probation
is imposed. (Vehicle Code 23577.)
Existing law provides that, as of July 1, 2010, the Department
of Motor Vehicles shall advise the person convicted of a third
DUI, who was not convicted in the Counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare, that after completion of 6
months of the suspension period, the person may apply for a
restricted license subject to the following conditions are met:
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageG
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month driving-under-the
influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory participation in the
program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition interlock
device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code 13352 (a)(5).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a fourth
or subsequent DUI within seven years shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not
less than 180 days and/or a fine of $350 to $1,000. (Vehicle
Code 23550.) A person who is granted probation is subject to
the following penalties:
16 months or 2 or 3 years in state prison if not probation;
180 days to 1 year if probation. (Penal Code 18; Vehicle
Code 23550 and 23552.)
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 190% penalty assessments. (Vehicle
Code 23552.)
4 year revocation of driver's license. (Vehicle Code
13352(a)(7).)
18 or 30 month treatment program. (Vehicle Code 23552.)
As of July 1, 2010, if convicted in the Counties of Alameda,
Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare, a person shall install an
ignition interlock device for a period of 36 months. (Vehicle
Code 23700.)
Existing law provides that additional penalties also apply to a
person convicted of a fourth DUI within seven years including:
Restitution fine of $100 to $1,000 for a misdemeanor or $200
to $10,000 for a felony. (Penal Code 1202.4.)
The court must impound the vehicle for up to 90 days if the
offense occurred within 2 years of a prior DUI unless
"interest of justice" exception is found (defendant must be
registered owner of vehicle used in the offense. (Vehicle
Code 23594.)
The court may order forfeiture of vehicle (defendant must be
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageH
registered owner of vehicle used in the offense. (Vehicle
Code 23596.)
The court may order installation of an ignition interlock
device as a condition of probation. (Vehicle Code
23575(1); 13325(a)(7).)
The court must designate defendant as a habitual traffic
offender for three years. (Vehicle Code 13350(b),
14601.3(e)(3).)
If the person refuses to take a blood-alcohol test, he or she
is subject to 18 days in county jail whether or not probation
is imposed. (Vehicle Code 23577.)
Existing law provides that if a person who is convicted of a
DUI, who has had a prior felony DUI or felony vehicular
manslaughter (Penal Code 192(c)(1)) within 10 years or ever
has been convicted of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated,
gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated or vehicular
manslaughter punished as a felony (Penal Code 192(c)(3)) shall
be punished as a felony punishable by 16 months, 2 or 3 years or
a misdemeanor of up to one year in jail, a fine of $390-$1,000
and a 4 or 5-year license revocation. A person granted
probation is subject to the following penalties:
Up to three years in state prison, or
Up to one year in jail.
A fine up to $1,000 plus penalty assessments.
Completion of a treatment program in order to have license
reinstated.
4-year license revocation or a 5-year revocation if it is a
3rd or subsequent DUI. (Vehicle Code 23550.5; 23600.)
Existing law provides that gross vehicular manslaughter while
intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice aforethought in the driving of a vehicle where the
driving was in violation of DUI laws, and the killing was either
the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the
proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might
produce death, in an unlawful manner and with gross negligence.
It is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 4, 6 or 10
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageI
years or if the person has a prior DUI, gross vehicular
manslaughter while intoxicated, or vehicular manslaughter the
punishment is 15 years to life in state prison. (Penal Code
191.5(a), (c)(1) and (d).)
Existing law provides that vehicular manslaughter while
intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice aforethought in the driving of a vehicle where the
driving was in violation of DUI laws, and the killing was either
the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony, but without gross negligence, or the
proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might
produce death, in unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
It is punishable as a wobbler with a penalty of up to one year
in jail or imprisonment the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3
years. (Penal Code 191.5.)
This bill provides that a court may order a 10-year revocation
of the driver's license of a person who has three or more prior
DUI convictions.
This bill provides that the court shall consider all of the
following when ordering the 10-year revocation:
The person's level of remorse for the acts.
The period of time that has elapsed since the person's
previous convictions.
The person's blood-alcohol level at the time of the violation.
The person's participation an alcohol treatment program.
The person's risk to traffic or public safety.
The person's ability to install a certified ignition interlock
device in each motor vehicle she owns or operates.
This bill provides that upon receipt of a duly certified
abstract of record showing the court has ordered a 10-year
revocation of a driver's license DMV shall revoke the person's
driver's license for 10 years.
This bill provides that five years from the date of the last
conviction of a DUI, a person whose license was revoked may
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageJ
apply to DMV to have his or her driving privilege reinstated
provided that the person agrees to have an ignition interlock
installed for two years following the reinstatement.
This bill provides that DMV shall reinstate the driver's license
if the person satisfies all of the following conditions:
The person was not convicted of any drug-or alcohol-related
offenses, under state law, during the driver's license
revocation period.
The person successfully completed a licensed driving-under-the
influence program.
The person was not convicted of driving on a suspended license
during the revocation period.
This bill provides that when a person is sentenced to jail or
prison for a DUI, the court shall postpone the term of the
license suspension or revocation until his or her release from
prison and shall notify the DMV of the postponement.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageK
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageL
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
A series of news articles in November about a Burlingame
man who had eight DUIs and was able to get his license
back only to get his ninth DUI highlighted several
problems with California law.
According to 2008 data from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration there are over 310,000
Californians with three or more DUI convictions.
Repeat DUI offenders are endangering constituents
throughout California. In 2008, over 1,000 people were
killed by drunk drivers in California and another 28,000
were injured.
-----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageM
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
estimates that one-third of the annual 1.5 million DUI
arrests are repeat offenders.
Assembly Bill 1601 would authorize judges to revoke a
license for ten years for individuals who receive three
or more DUIs in a ten-year period.
"This legislation will save lives by keeping dangerous
repeat DUI offenders off the road," said Assemblymember
Hill. "If this bill were in affect in 2008 we could
have taken over 10,000 repeat DUI offenders off our
roadways including the two individuals in San Mateo
County who have nine DUIs."
In 2008 there were 187,987 DUI convictions according to
the Department of Motor Vehicles. Of those 9,164 were
three-time DUI offenders within ten years and 3,200 were
for individuals who received four-or-more DUI
convictions within the previous ten-years.
Under current law, people with 3 DUI convictions within
ten years typically get a 3-year license revocation.
The maximum penalty under current law is a 5-year
license revocation for individuals who receive several
DUIs within a ten-year period.
"AB 1601 targets habitual repeat DUI offenders who
continue to break the law despite drug treatment
programs, fines, imprisonment, and existing license
revocation penalties," said Hill.
The bill also adds an important clarification to state
law by requiring the license revocation period to begin
after the offender is released from imprisonment.
Current law allows the license revocation period to run
concurrently with the prison term which allows the
repeat DUI offender to get their license back quicker
after they're released from prison.
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageN
2. 10-Year Revocation for 3rd DUI
a. Court revocation.
Under existing law a person who is convicted of a third DUI
within 10 years will have their license revoked for three
years. This bill provides that after a third or subsequent
DUI, the court may order a 10-year revocation of a person's
driver's license. When considering whether or not to revoke
the license the court shall consider the following:
The person's level of remorse for the acts.
The period of time that has elapsed since the person's
previous convictions.
The person's blood-alcohol level at the time of the
violation.
The person's participation in an alcohol treatment
program.
The person's risk to traffic or public safety.
The person's ability to install a certified ignition
interlock device in each motor vehicle she owns or operates.
b. Possible reinstatement in 5 years.
If the court revokes a person's license for 10 years, DMV
shall reinstate the license in five years if the person
installs an ignition interlock on the vehicle for two years:
The person was not convicted of any drug-or alcohol-related
offenses during the driver's license revocation
period.
The person successfully completed a licensed
driving-under-the-influence program.
The person was not convicted of driving on a suspended
license during the revocation period.
3. Information From the 2010 Annual Report of the California
DUI Management System
In accordance with AB 757 Chapter 450, Statutes 1989, DMV does
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageO
an annual report on the California DUI Management System
compiling and analyzing information of DUI arrests, convictions
and sanctions in California. The 2010 report included the
following information.
DUI arrests increased for the third consecutive year, by
5.4% in 2008, following an increase of 3.4% in 2007, and an
increase of 9.4% in 2006. (p. 8)
The DUI arrest rate per 100 licensed drivers was 0.9 in
2008, unchanged from 2007, and up from 0.8 in 2000-2006.
This represents a 50% reduction from the 1.8 rate in 1990.
(p.8)
The percentage of DUI arrests that were felonies
(involving bodily injury or death) decreased slightly from
3.0% in 2007 to 2.7% in 2008. Felony DUI arrests continue
to constitute a relatively small percentage of all DUI
arrests.
Among 2007 DUI arrestees subsequently convicted, 73.6%
were first offenders, 19.8% were second offenders, 4.9%
were third offenders, and 1.7% were on their fourth-or-more
offense. (The statutorily defined time period for counting
priors in California has traditionally been 7 years,
although that period was changed to 10 years by SB 1694,
Torlakson, effective 1/1/2005.) The proportion of all
convicted DUI offenders that are repeat offenders (26.4%)
has increased ever since the counting period for priors
changed from 7 to 10 years. (p.15)
In summary, the 1994 offenders have long-term re-offense
rates that are higher among those with more DUI priors
(within 10 years) among males and among younger-aged
drivers. These findings are not surprising and are
consistent and supported by previous studies. In comparing
the re-offense rates between the 1994 and 2000 groups with
the 1980 and 1984 offenders, it was found that the
cumulative proportions of re-offenses was much lower among
the 1994 and 2000 offenders. The dramatically lower
re-offense rates of the 1994 and 2000 groups could be
attributed, in part, to the enactment of more stringent
sanctions for DUI offenders in the past 2 decades,
including the APS suspension law of 1990. (p. 48)
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageP
(http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/DUI_MIS_Report2010%2
0.pdf)
4. Revocation After the 3rd Offense
This bill provides for the 10-year revocation after the third
offense. Would it be more appropriate after a person has faced a
felony conviction? What incentive does a person have to
immediately attend the drinking-driver treatment program if they
cannot seek reinstatement of their license for 5 years? Will
this result in more people driving on a revoked license who have
not had the benefit of attending a treatment program or opting
to install an ignition interlock device and drive legally?
WILL A LONGER REVOCATION RESULT IN MORE PEOPLE DRIVING
ILLEGALLY?
WILL A LONGER REVOCATION DELAY PARTICIPATION IN A TREATMENT
PROGRAM?
5. Third DUI in What Time Frame?
This bill provides for a 10-year revocation of the driver's
license for a third offense no matter when the offenses
occurred. It does not require the offense to be the third
within 10 years, which since 2006 has been the time frame for
using a violation as a prior. A person could have had two DUIs
20 years ago and had the third offense with a low blood-alcohol
level more recently. Is this the type of person who should face
the 10 year restriction? If the DUIs are more than 10 years,
the court may not have access to the old files to even know any
details about the older priors.
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT THE OFFENSES SHOULD
ALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK OF 10 YEARS?
(More)
6. Court-Ordered Revocation With DMV Reinstatement
This bill has the court evaluating factors and determining
whether a third time offender should have his or her license
revoked for 10 years. After five years, DMV shall reinstate the
license.
a. Court
In recent years, legislation has been passed to try to remove
the courts from the business of restricting and revoking
licenses in DUI cases. This was done in part to deal with
confusion that can arise between court-ordered license
sanctions and DMV administrative per se license restrictions.
Should the courts be the entity to order the revocation of the
driver's license in these cases? While a person with a third
DUI clearly has a problem, the court may be in the best
position to determine whether this person is an appropriate
person for a 10-year revocation. Talking to people who run
the programs, one can learn that there are many success cases
with third time offenders, people who realize they have a
problem and work to deal with it. There may be others who
refuse to accept that they have a problem and are resistant to
change. Perhaps those are the people the court could
determine should face a longer restriction.
b. DMV reinstatement.
The bill provides that DMV shall reinstate the license after 5
years if specified conditions are met. Since the
reinstatement is at DMV there is no discretion and no input
for the court or the district attorney. Should the
reinstatement be automatic if the conditions are met?
7. Ignition Interlock
In two different places in the process, a person's ability to
install an ignition interlock (IID) may affect his or her
ability to have valid license. First, when determining whether
(More)
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageR
to revoke the license for 10 years, the court shall consider the
person's ability to install an IID. Presumably, if the person
can install the IID, he or she may not get the revocation. In
order to have a license reinstated after five years, a person
must agree to installation of an IID for two years. According
to ignitioninterlockdevice.org:
The installation of the device typically costs from
$100-$200. The monthly rental fee can range from $70 to
$100. These fees do not include the additional charges
for maintenance or having the device calibrated.
Do these costs mean that only a person who can afford the
interlock will avoid the initial revocation or have their
license reinstated in five years?
8. Suspension or Revocation Does Not Start Until Release From
Incarceration
This bill provides that the court shall postpone the license
revocation or suspension of the license of a person convicted of
a DUI until the term of imprisonment is served. The bill says
the court shall notify DMV of the term of imprisonment. While
the court will know what sentence a person will face, it will
not know when the person will be released from incarceration.
Many things can affect how long a person really serves of any
sentence including credits, behavior of the individual while
incarcerated, and jail overcrowding. What information is the
court supposed to give DMV? How will DMV know when to commence
the suspension or revocation? How will the defendant know when
they can get a valid license? Will the fact that the APS
restriction can occur before a person goes to trial on a DUI
cause confusion?
HOW WILL DMV KNOW WHEN THE LICENSE RESTRICTION IS SUPPOSED TO
COMMENCE?
9. AB 1443 (Huffman)
AB 1443 (Huffman) which was a gut and amend of a non-germane
AB 1601 (Hill)
PageS
bill in the Senate in February of this year is also set for
hearing on June 29, 2010. AB 1443 in part mandates a permanent
revocation by a driver's license after a third offense with a
possible reinstatement in five years. Historically, this
Committee has not passed out two bills with contrary policy, nor
has the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Historically, this
Committee has also respected the work of the Committees of the
Assembly, and they have reciprocated with the same respect.
This bill went through the Assembly Public Safety Committee and
the Assembly Appropriations Committee where it was substantially
amended. AB 1443, because it was a gut and amend in the Senate,
has not been heard by any Committee in the Assembly.
***************