BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  July 6, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                                   Mike Eng, Chair
                       SB 598 (Huff) - As Amended:  May 5, 2009

           SENATE VOTE  :  39-0
           
          SUBJECT  :  Vehicles: driving under the influence

           SUMMARY  :  Provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)  
          is to advise a person convicted of a second or third offense of  
          driving under the influence (DUI) with a blood alcohol content  
          (BAC) of .08% or more that he or she may receive a restricted  
          license, if he or she shows verification of installation of a  
          certified ignition interlock device (IID) and pays a fee  
          sufficient to include the costs of administration, as specified.  
           Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Provides that for a second DUI offense, DMV is to notify the  
            person that they can apply for a restricted license, as  
            specified, after 90 days of suspension if he or she meets the  
            requirements of existing law and submits proof of a certified  
            IID.  

          2)Provides that for a third DUI offense, DMV is to notify the  
            person that they can apply for a restricted license after six  
            months of suspension if he or she meets the requirements of  
            existing law and submits proof of a certified IID.  

          3)Provides that if the driver convicted of DUI installs and  
            maintains an IID and otherwise complies with existing law  
            including enrollment and participation in DUI classes required  
            by DMV, the only restriction on his or her license shall be  
            the requirement to only drive a vehicle with an installed IID,  
            as specified.  

          4)States the provisions of this bill shall become operative on  
            July 1, 2010.  

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Requires a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle to be  
            suspended or revoked, if the person has been convicted of  
            violating specified provisions prohibiting driving a motor  








                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  2

            vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or  
            drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and  
            drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in the  
            blood stream, or who is addicted to the use of any drug.  

          2)Authorizes a person whose privilege is suspended or revoked in  
            that manner to receive a restricted driver's license if  
            specified requirements are met, including, in some instances,  
            the installation of a certified IID on the person's vehicle.  

          3)Authorizes the court to require that a person convicted of a  
            first offense violation of DUI and DUI causing bodily injury  
            to install a certified IID on any vehicle that the person owns  
            or operates and prohibits that person from operating a motor  
            vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning,  
            certified IID.  

          4)Provides that the court shall give heightened consideration to  
            applying this sanction to a first-offense violator with 0.20%  
            or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at arrest,  
            or with two or more prior moving traffic violations, or to  
            persons who refused the chemical tests at arrest.  If the  
            court orders the IID restriction, the term shall be determined  
            by the court for a period not to exceed three years from the  
            date of conviction.  

          5)Requires DMV to advise a person to apply for a restricted  
            driver's license after completion of 12 months of the  
            suspension period, which may include credit for a specified  
            concurrent suspension, subject to certain conditions,  
            including, among other things, submitting proof of  
            installation of a certified IID and agreeing to maintain the  
            IID and paying fees, including, but not limited to all  
            administrative fees or reissue fees.  

          6)Provides that a person convicted of a second or subsequent DUI  
            faces a license suspension period of 2 or more years.  After a  
            12 month suspension, in which a person cannot drive at all, a  
            person may apply for a restricted license and drive to and  
            from work and to and from a treatment program, if an ignition  
            interlock is installed, is enrolled in a required treatment  
            program, provides proof of automobile insurance, and pays all  
            required fees.  

          7)States a person whose driving privilege is restricted by the  








                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  3

            court pursuant to this section shall arrange for each vehicle  
            with an IID 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.  

          8)Provides that the installer shall notify the court 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 IID.  There is no  
            obligation for the installer to notify the court if the person  
            has complied with all of the requirements of this article.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, DMV has identified implementation costs of $267,172  
          related to necessary programming changes and form revisions.   
          These costs would be incurred prior to the collection of any  
          fees, but could be reimbursed once collection begins.  Ongoing  
          staffing costs of approximately $173,000 would be fully covered  
          by fees authorized by this bill.  

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "Only a small percentage of  
          people convicted of multiple DUIs are required by court to  
          install an IID on their vehicles to discourage recidivism. This  
          bill will increase the use of ignition interlocks among repeat  
          offenders while they are in treatment and will reduce the  
          incidence of driving while on a suspended license.  The measure  
          provides one more tool to proactively fight drunk driving."  

          The IID prevents anyone with alcohol in his or her system from  
          operating a vehicle equipped with the device, and stops drunk  
          driving before it starts by locking the vehicle's ignition until  
          the driver submits an alcohol-free breath sample.  

          A 2002 survey conducted by DMV entitled "An Evaluation of the  
          Implementation of Ignition Interlock in California," sought to  
          obtain a better understanding of the effectiveness of IIDs based  
          on those offenders that were required to use them.  When  
          offenders were asked whether the device (the IID) prevented them  
          from driving after drinking, 88% said that it did.  A second  
          question asked whether respondents thought that IID's prevented  
          others from drinking and driving; 75% of offenders said that  
          these devices did prevent other people from driving after  
          drinking.  Clearly, these findings show that the significant  
          majority of offenders (IID users) believe that IID's are  








                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  4

          effective in preventing drinking and driving."  

          According to DMV, installing an IID on each DUI offender's  
          vehicle would reduce recidivism by an estimated 75% and  
          alcohol-related fatalities by seven percent.  The IID would cost  
          approximately $1,320 per vehicle and would be paid for by the  
          DUI offender.  

          In September 2004, DMV released a report pursuant to AB 762  
          (Torlakson), Chapter 756, Statutes of 1998, regarding the  
          implementation and effectiveness of IIDs entitled "An Evaluation  
          of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California."  The  
          DMV report does recommend introduction of legislation that would  
          allow repeat DUI offenders who install IIDs to reinstate their  
          driver's licenses early, after serving their suspension or  
          court-ordered DMV suspension.  

          The results of this study show that second DUI offenders who  
          serve half of their sentence suspension period and install an  
          IID in order to obtain a restricted driver license, have a lower  
          risk of DUI recidivism that their counterparts who remain  
          suspended.  The DMV report suggests, "One way to encourage more  
          repeat offenders to install interlocks is to shorten their  
          period of suspension if they install the device."  

           This bill is similar to a bill that was vetoed last year  .  This  
          bill is substantially similar to SB 1361 (Correa) of 2008 which  
          was vetoed by the Governor last year.  Unlike the vetoed bill,  
          this bill's provisions would apply only to second and subsequent  
          DUI offenders, rather than including first time offenders as  
          well.  

          In the veto message of SB 1361 (Correa) of 2008, the Governor  
          stated that "Drunk driving is a serious public safety hazard,  
          and I fully support any meaningful efforts to curb this  
          practice.  Unfortunately, this bill would not diminish the  
          occurrence of DUI in a meaningful way as it would restore the  
          driving privileges of DUI offenders - many of whom have multiple  
          DUI convictions - much sooner than currently allowed.  Although  
          ignition interlock devices have a good track record in  
          preventing drunk driving, this bill would only mandate their  
          installation in the vehicles of persons who would, under current  
          law, be off the streets entirely."  

           Related legislation  :  AB 91 (Feuer) establishes a three-county  








                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  5

          pilot program within the DMV that requires a person convicted of  
          DUI to install an IID, as specified, on all vehicles he or she  
          owns or operates and to participate in a county alcohol and drug  
          problem assessment program, as specified.  This bill passed out  
          of the Assembly floor on a 77-0 on June 2, 2009.  This bill now  
          awaits hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.  

           Prior legislation  :  AB 2784 (Feuer) of 2008, would have required  
          a person convicted of DUI, as specified, to install an IID, as  
          specified, in order to be reissued a license, receive a  
          restricted license, or receive a reinstated license.  AB 2784's  
          provisions were removed from that bill in the Assembly Committee  
          on Appropriations and replaced with the provisions of SB 1361.   
          AB 2784 was gutted, amended into an unrelated bill, and  
          subsequently vetoed.  

          SB 177 (Migden) of 2008, would have, among other things, recast  
          and revised provisions of law authorizing restricted licenses  
          and imposing additional requirements with respect to IIDs on  
          those restricted licenses and established the IID Assistance  
          Fund in the State Treasury.  SB 177 was never heard by the  
          Senate Committee on Public Safety.  
          SB 1361 (Correa) of the 2008, would have required installation  
          of an IID, as specified, for all offenders convicted of a DUI  
          under certain conditions.  Those conditions included where there  
          is a high BAC for a first offender and for a second or  
          subsequent offender.  SB 1361's provisions amended relevant  
          portions of the Vehicle Code to authorize DMV to reinstate the  
          offender's license earlier than provided in existing law if he  
          or she shows proof of installation of an IID.  SB 1361 was  
          vetoed.  

          SB 1388 (Torlakson), Chapter 404, Statutes of 2008, required  
          that a person immediately install a certified IID on all  
          vehicles he or she owns or operates for a period of one to three  
          years when he or she has been convicted of violating specified  
          provisions relating to DUI and driving a motor vehicle when his  
          or her license has been suspended or revoked as a result of a  
          DUI-related conviction.  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

          Support 
           
          Distilled Spirits Council of the United States 








                                                                  SB 598
                                                                  Page  6

           
            Opposition 
           
          None on file

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :   Alejandro Esparza / TRANS. / (916)  
          319-2093