BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
5
2
0
AB 520 (Ammiano)
As Amended June 28, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
DUI: IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES
HISTORY
Source: California DUI Lawyers Association
Prior Legislation: SB 895 (Huff) - Chapter 30, Statutes of 2010
SB 598 (Huff) - Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009
SB 1190 (Oropeza) - Chapter 392, Statutes of 2008
SB 1361 (Correa) - vetoed 2008
SB 1388 (Torlakson) - Chapter 404, Statutes of 2008
AB 2784 (Feuer) - until 8/28/08, version
AB 4 (Bogh) - held Assembly Appropriations 2005
AB 979 (Runner) - Chapter 646, Statutes of 2005
AB 638 (Longville) - prior to 7/2/03 amends failed
on Concurrence 2003
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate Public
Safety 2003
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Chapter 756,
Statutes of 1998
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Opposition:None known
(More)
AB 520 (Ammiano)
Page 2
Assembly Floor Vote: Not relevant
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF A WET RECKLESS BE PERMITTED TO
APPLY FOR A RESTRICTED LICENSE EARLIER IF HE OR SHE INSTALLS AN
IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE ON HIS OR HER CAR AND MEETS OTHER
REQUIREMENTS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow a person who is convicted
of a "wet reckless" the ability to apply for a restricted
license early if he or she complies with specified requirements
including installing an ignition interlock device.
Existing law , which became operative on July 1, 2010, authorizes
a person who has been convicted of specified driving under the
influence (DUI) offenses and who has had his or her driving
privilege suspended or revoked by the court to apply to 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 Department of Motor Vehicles
(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 with a 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 the 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
(More)
AB 520 (Ammiano)
Page 3
the person is served with notice and specifies how long the
suspension of the driving privilege shall last. (Vehicle Code §
13353.3.)
This bill would allow a person who is convicted of reckless
driving under Vehicle Code section 13353.2 (wet reckless) to
apply to DMV for a restricted driver's license if specified
conditions are met including that the person has installed an
ignition interlock device.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
(More)
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under current law, persons with a current DUI who also
have a prior DUI have the option to participate in the
(More)
AB 520 (Ammiano)
Page 5
Ignition Interlock Device program after 90 days of
license suspension. However, persons with a "wet and
reckless" violation who have a prior DUI do not have
this same option to participate, even though a "wet
and reckless" offense is a lower offense. AB 520
would simply correct this oversight and allow for
persons with a "wet and reckless" without bodily
injury, and who have a prior DUI, to participate in
the Ignition Interlock Device program after 90 days of
license suspension.
2. IID for Wet Reckless
SB 895 (Huff) 2010 and SB 598 (Huff) 2009 provided that a person
convicted of a DUI could get his or her license earlier if he or
she opted to install and ignition interlock on his or her car
and met other requirements, such as attending a drinking driver
treatment program, paying fees, and showing proof of insurance.
Those bills neglected to include a person who is convicted of a
"wet reckless" which is a reckless driving where the person had
originally been charged with a DUI and the person plead to a
reckless driving instead, usually because it was a low blood
alcohol level or there was another issue with proof in the case.
By not including a person who has been convicted of a "wet
reckless" this has actually created a situation where a person
who was convicted of a DUI is actually eligible for a restricted
license before a person who has been convicted of the lesser
offense of a "wet reckless." This bill remedies that anomaly by
allowing a person convicted of "wet reckless" to apply for a
restricted license after a 90-day suspension, if he or she
installs an ignition interlock on his or her car and complies
with all the other requirements.
***************
AB 520 (Ammiano)
Page 6