BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1389
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1389 (Allen) - As Amended: May 4, 2011
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:11-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
As proposed to be amended, this bill sets standards for the
establishment and operation of checkpoints to monitor for
driving under the influence (DUI). Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a law enforcement agency from conducting combined
vehicle inspection and sobriety checkpoints, which are
intended to check for driver sobriety and other violations.
2)Authorizes the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and cities and
counties to establish a sobriety checkpoint program.
3)Specifies requirements for such a program, including:
a) Selection of the checkpoint and procedures are to be
determined by supervisory law enforcement personnel and be
based upon high incidence of DUI arrests or accidents.
b) A neutral methodology for selecting vehicles to stop.
c) Assuring that drivers who display no signs of impairment
are not delayed, beyond a brief initial questioning.
d) The law enforcement agency provide advance notice of the
checkpoint's general location to the public at least 48
hours prior to checkpoint operation, consistent with
existing CHP guidelines.
4)Prohibits impoundment of a vehicle at a checkpoint unless
certain conditions exist.
AB 1389
Page 2
5)Specifies that an agency operating a checkpoint shall not be
liable for claims related to the parking or removal of a
vehicle.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible state costs.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Proponents contend that sobriety checkpoints have
increasingly targeted unlicensed drivers whose cars may then
be impounded, which, because of towing and impoundment fees,
oftentimes results in forfeiture of the vehicles. As
evidence, proponents assert that, in 2009, police impounded
vehicles at checkpoints at roughly seven times the rate they
made drunk driving arrests and, according to a UC Berkeley
study, that the percentage of vehicles seized at checkpoints
has increased 53% statewide compared to 2007.
Proponents intend this bill to provide uniform, statewide
standards that balance the need to protect public safety with
the need to protect individual rights.
2)Background. Statute addresses law enforcement response to
both driving without a license and DUI. A peace officer who
determines that a person was driving a vehicle without a
driver's license may either immediately arrest that person and
impound the vehicle or, if the vehicle is involved in a
traffic collision, impound the vehicle without arresting the
person. Impoundment under either scenario may last for 30
days.
Statute authorizes counties to establish combined vehicle
inspection and sobriety checkpoints for violations of vehicle
exhaust standards and to identify drivers driving under the
influence. The California Supreme Court in ruling on the
legality of such checkpoints, identified factors for
minimizing intrusiveness while balancing the need of society
to keep drunk drivers off the road. Factors identified by the
court include decision-making at the supervisory level, limits
on the discretion of field officers, maintenance of safety
conditions, reasonable location, time and duration, visibility
of the roadblock, length and nature of detention, and advance
publicity. A separate decision by a lower court also found
AB 1389
Page 3
that a car that can be safely parked by a licensed driver may
not be impounded.
3)Proposed Amendment Addresses CHP Concerns. The author has
proposed to amend the bill to address concerns raised by the
CHP about the requirements in the current bill that a law
enforcement agency provide advance notice of a checkpoint's
location to the public at least 48 hours prior to checkpoint
operation. The CHP has confirmed the proposed amendments
eliminate its concerns with the bill.
4)Support. This bill is supported by a long list of
organizations that regularly advocate for civil and individual
liberties and immigrant rights, as well as the City of
Coachella.
5)There is no formal opposition registered to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081