BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 353|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 353
Author: Cedillo (D)
Amended: 6/16/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 7/5/11
AYES: Hancock, Calderon, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Vehicles: checkpoints
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill amends provisions relating to sobriety
checkpoints to focus on DUI (driving under the influence)
violators and other drivers who have been proven to be
dangerous and to limit the impounding of vehicles of other
unlicensed drivers.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a board of
supervisors may, by ordinance, establish a combined vehicle
inspection and sobriety checkpoint program to check for
violations of smog standards and to identify drivers who
are DUI. (Vehicle Code Section 2814.1)
Existing law provides that a driver of a motor vehicle
CONTINUED
AB 353
Page
2
shall stop and submit to an inspection when signs and
displays are posted requiring that stop. (Vehicle Code
Section 2814.1(b))
This bill separates vehicle inspection checkpoints from
sobriety checkpoints.
This bill provides that the Department of the California
Highway Patrol and the governing body of a city, county or
city and county may adopt an ordinance or resolution to
establish on the highways under its jurisdiction a sobriety
checkpoint program, to identify drivers who are DUI.
This bill provides that a driver of a motor vehicle shall
stop and submit to an inspection when signs and displays
are posted requiring that stop.
This bill provides that notwithstanding provisions for
impoundment of vehicles, a peace officer or any other
authorized person shall not cause the impoundment of a
vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint established pursuant to
this section unless one of the following applies:
1. The driver of the vehicle is suspected of driving in
violation of specified driving on a suspended or revoked
license provision or while DUI.
2. The vehicle is subject to impoundment because it was
used to evade a peace officer.
3. There is probable cause to believe that the vehicle was
used as a means of committing a public offense other
than being an unlicensed driver.
4. There is probable cause that the vehicle itself is
evidence of a crime.
5. The driver of the vehicle is not driving with a valid
driver's license, and none of the following apply:
A. The driver is able to obtain a validly licensed
driver to drive the vehicle.
B. The driver is able to park or move the vehicle in
CONTINUED
AB 353
Page
3
a manner that does not impeded traffic or threaten
public safety until a validly licensed driver can
retrieve the car or until the checkpoint ends.
C. A peace officer or similarly authorized traffic
enforcement officer is able to readily and lawfully
remove the vehicle to a place that does not impede
traffic or threaten public safety.
This bill provides that the public entity shall not be
liable for the parking of a vehicle driven by an unlicensed
driver.
This bill provides that it does not authorize a combined
sobriety and vehicle inspection program.
This bill provides that the registered owner of a vehicle
impounded by the section created under this bill may
retrieve the vehicle the following day after impound upon a
showing of proof of a currently valid driver's license and
vehicle registration.
Comments
According to the author:
"Traditionally, sobriety checkpoints are meant to be used
as means to stop intoxicated drivers from endangering the
safety of the public. Despite their original intent,
sobriety checkpoints are increasingly being used to
target drivers that are ineligible to obtain licenses in
order to increase local revenue. Frequently these
checkpoints are set up in the areas that do not have a
high correlation of DUI arrests or accidents; instead,
they are placed in neighborhoods and, or locations where
there are higher populations of low-income families and
communities.
"According to a report from the Investigative Reporting
Program of UC Berkeley, "Most of the state's 3,200
roadblocks over the past two years occurred in or near
Hispanic neighborhoods. Sixty-one percent of checkpoints
took place in locations with at least 31 percent Hispanic
population. About 17 percent of the state's checkpoints
CONTINUED
AB 353
Page
4
occurred in areas with the lowest Hispanic
population-under 18 percent." (California Watch, Car
Seizures at DUI Checkpoints Prove Profitable for Cities,
Raise Legal Questions (2010)).
"Also, while impoundments for DUIs are usually overnight,
impoundment for driving without a license typically last
for a term of 30 days. Often, this effectively results
in the forfeiture of the vehicle because the towing and
impoundment fees may well exceed the value of the
vehicle, which is apart from the fines already paid to
local governments. Together, checkpoints do not act like
a deterrent, but create a financial hardship for
low-income families.
"With local government revenues shrinking, cities have
begun increasing their revenue by using sobriety
checkpoints to target these communities. This occurs in
two ways. First, local governments often charge
unlicensed drivers fines to get their vehicles released
from impound, averaging more than $150. Moreover, the
second way cities increase revenue is by taking a portion
of the fees that towing operators charge vehicle owners.
This generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
The federal government provides the California Office of
Traffic Safety with $100 million dollars annually to
promote traffic safety. Thirty million of those dollars
are specifically reserved to fund programs that seek to
limit drunk driving, particularly sobriety checkpoints.
Since grants pay for the officers needed to manage the
checkpoints, local governments only benefit, without
costs, from targeting communities whose residents are not
eligible to obtain licenses. Due to this, the ratio of
drivers caught inebriated compared to those without
licenses is extremely skewed. In 2009, police impounded
more than 24,000 vehicles at checkpoints, roughly seven
times higher than 3,200 drunken driving arrests at
roadway operations.
"Lastly, the constitutional legality of impounding
vehicles is also questionable. In Miranda v. City of
Cornelius (2007), 429 F. 3d 858, the Ninth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeal ruled that impounding a vehicle without a
warrant was limited under the Fourth Amendment of the
CONTINUED
AB 353
Page
5
U.S. Constitution. Unless pursuant to a lawful arrest or
unless the 'community caretaker' provisions were present,
the courts stated that 'impounding legally parked
vehicles was unreasonable seizure when there was not
reasonable justification for removing it.' (Jones and
Mayer). Also, in a similar case titled People v.
Williams, 145 Cal. App. 4th 756, an appellate court held
that depending on the circumstances, seizing a vehicle
pursuant to V.C. section 2265(h)(1) may be
unconstitutional. Due to these rulings, some police
departments have already changed their approach to
impounding, but many still continue the aforementioned
practices. As a result, there is currently an
inconsistent application of towing and impounding between
cities and counties in California. This bill would make
towing and impounding policies at checkpoints uniform
throughout the state."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/11)
AltaMed Health Services Corporation
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Asian Pacific Islander Caucus SEIU, Local 721
California Immigrant Policy Center
California League of United Latin American Citizens
California Public Defenders Association
Centro Latino for Literacy
City of Los Angeles, Councilmember Ed P. Reyes
City of Los Angeles, Councilmember Jose Huizar
City of San Pablo, Vice Mayor Cecilia Valdez
City of South Lake Tahoe Latino Affairs Commission
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Eastmont Community Center
El Concilio
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Council of La Raza
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
Parent Institute for Quality Education
PICO California
CONTINUED
AB 353
Page
6
Sacramento League of United Latin American Citizens,
Lorenzo Patino Council
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Civil Liberties Union
states, "Uniform legal clarity is necessary on when and how
cars can be impounded at sobriety checkpoints. Without
clear guidance, sobriety checkpoints have turned into
gateway for illegal seizures of cars. The bill codifies
Miranda v. City of Cornelius, which is the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that provides that car that can
be safely parked by a licensed driver will not be impounded
under the 'community caretaker provision' and provides a
uniform policy for the number of days a car may be
impounded."
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
further notes, "Statewide statistics show that in 2009,
officers impounded over 24,000 vehicles from sobriety
checkpoints, which was a 53 percent increase from 2007.
This is around seven times higher than 3,200 arrests for
DUI that occurred at the same checkpoints. Data like this
raises the question of whether the main purpose of sobriety
checkpoints really is to confront driving."
RJG:mw 8/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED