BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair S 2009-2010 Regular Session B 8 9 5 SB 895 (Huff) As Amended April 6, 2010 Hearing date: April 13, 2010 Vehicle Code (URGENCY) MK:mc VEHICLES: DRIVER'S LICENSE: SUSPENSION HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: SB 598 (Huff) - Ch. 193, Stats. 2009 Support: Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety Opposition:None known KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF LEGISLATION PASSED LAST YEAR TO ALLOW A PERSON CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) TO GET A RESTRICTED LICENSE AFTER A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME IF HE OR SHE INSTALLS AN IGNITION INTERLOCK, WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF HIS OR HER LICENSE IS A COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION? PURPOSE The intent of this bill is to correct a drafting error in a law passed last year to allow a person convicted of DUI to get a (More) SB 895 (Huff) PageB restricted license after a specified period of time if he or she installs an ignition interlock device on his or her vehicle. Existing law that will become operative on July 1, 2010, authorizes a person who has been convicted of specified driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and has had his or her driving privilege suspended or revoked by the court to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a restricted driver's license if specified conditions are met including that the person has installed an ignition interlock device (IID). (Vehicle Code 13352, 13352.5, 23109, 23550, 23550.5, 23552, 23566, and 23568.) Existing law provides that the DMV shall suspend the driving privilege of a person if the person was driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more, or if the person was under 21 years of age and blood alcohol of 0.01% or more. If the person has had a prior driving in excess of the blood alcohol limits within 10 years, the length of suspension shall be for 24 months with ability to seek a restricted license within 12 months. (Vehicle Code 23542.) Existing law provides that an order to suspend a person's driving privilege by DMV shall become effective 30 days after the person is served with notice and specifies how long the suspension of the driving privilege shall last. (Vehicle Code 13353.3.) This bill clarifies that the DMV suspension shall terminate if the person has been convicted of the violation arising out of the same occurrence and the person is eligible for a restricted license upon the installation of an ignition interlock device and meets all other applicable conditions of a suspended license. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In (More) SB 895 (Huff) PageC 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 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 (More) SB 895 (Huff) PageD 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 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. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation, is not anticipated until later this year or 2011. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. (More) --------------------------- <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). COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: SB 895 is a clean-up measure needed in order to clarify the goal of SB 598 (Huff) from 2009 regarding restricted driver's license changes. The intent of SB 598 was to apply the restricted driver's license changes to both the administrative and criminal suspension of DUI conviction. The way the measure was drafted, however, the changes are only applied to the criminal suspension side of the process. A DUI offender who has had his driving privilege suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles would still be required to serve out the one-year suspension. Existing law that will become operative on July 1, 2010, authorizes a person who has been convicted of a DUI offense who has had her driving privilege suspended or revoked to apply to the DMV for a restricted driver's license, if certain conditions, including that the person has installed an ignition interlock device, are met. Existing administrative law requires DMV to immediately suspend the driving privilege of a person under certain circumstances. SB 895 will require the one-year administrative suspension to terminate if the person has been convicted of a violation arising out of the same occurrence and the person meets specified conditions. (More) SB 895 (Huff) PageF Due to the fact that SB 598 from 2009 becomes operative July 1, 2010, SB 895 declares that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. 2. Intent to Allow a Restricted License Sooner With IID Installation The intent of SB 598 (Huff) (Chapter 193, Statutes. 2009) was to allow a person to serve a shorter restricted license period upon the installation of an ignition interlock device (IID). While the law prior to SB 598 taking effect allows a person to get a restriction after 12 months, the idea was to shorten that time frame and get more people driving with a valid yet restricted license. Because of the confusing nature of the cross over between the administrative license suspension and the court license suspension, there were drafting errors in the bill that still required the person to serve their entire 12 month DMV suspension even if that suspension went beyond the post conviction suspension time in SB 598. This bill corrects that error by saying the administrative suspension will end when the requirements of SB 598 are met. The reality is many DUI offenders that fall under this bill and its predecessor will still end up serving close to, if not the full DMV administrative suspension because they are repeat offenders. Unless they offer a plea right away these cases can take months before they go to trial or a plea is entered. 3. Urgency SB 598 takes effect on July 1, 2010. SB 895 contains an urgency clause to take effect immediately. Hopefully, the confusion raised by the drafting error does not delay the implementation of SB 598 as it was intended. *************** SB 895 (Huff) PageG