BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 2020
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2020 (Pan)
          As Amended  April 19, 2012
          Majority vote 

           PUBLIC SAFETY       4-0         APPROPRIATIONS      16-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Knight, Hagman, Mitchell, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey,          |
          |     |Skinner                   |     |Blumenfield, Bradford,    |
          |     |                          |     |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
          |     |                          |     |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto,   |
          |     |                          |     |Hall, Hill, Mitchell,     |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Solorio,  |
          |     |                          |     |Wagner                    |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Removes the option of providing urine samples, and 
          mandates blood tests, for determining the level of drug 
          intoxication when a person is accused of driving under the 
          influence of drugs.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Deletes the option for persons alleged to be driving under the 
            influence of drugs to choose a chemical test of his or her 
            urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his 
            or her blood.  The bill would require blood tests where 
            available.  

          2)Requires that if a blood test is unavailable, then the person 
            is deemed to have given his or her consent to a urine test. 

          3)Requires that if the person is lawfully arrested for driving 
            under the influence of a drug or the combined influence of an 
            alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person only has the 
            choice of either a blood or breath test.  This bill would 
            delete the option of a urine test, except as required as an 
            additional test.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)States that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to 
            have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or 
            her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the 
            alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested 








                                                                  AB 2020
                                                                  Page  2


            for an offense allegedly committed in violation of driving 
            under the influence.  If a blood or breath test, or both, are 
            unavailable, then the person shall submit to the remaining 
            test in order to determine the presence, by weight, of alcohol 
            in the person's blood or if both are unavailable the person 
            shall submit a urine test.    

          2)States that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to 
            have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or 
            her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug 
            content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an 
            offense allegedly committed in violation of driving under the 
            influence.  

          3)Specifies that the testing shall be incidental to a lawful 
            arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer 
            having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a 
            motor vehicle in violation of driving under the influence.     


          4)Requires that the person shall be told that his or her failure 
            to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required 
            chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment 
            if the person is convicted of a violation of driving under the 
            influence, and the suspension of the person's privilege to 
            operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, the 
            revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor 
            vehicle for a period of two years if the refusal occurs within 
            10 years of a separate violation specified driving under the 
            influence provisions.  

          5)States that if the person is lawfully arrested for driving 
            under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the person has 
            the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood or 
            breath and the officer shall advise the person that he or she 
            has that choice. If the person arrested either is incapable, 
            or states that he or she is incapable, of completing the 
            chosen test, the person shall submit to the remaining test.  
            If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then the 
            person shall submit to the remaining test in order to 
            determine the presence, by weight, of alcohol in the person's 
            blood or if both are unavailable the person shall submit a 
            urine test.  









                                                                  AB 2020
                                                                  Page  3


          6)Provides if the person is lawfully arrested for driving under 
            the influence of any drug or the combined influence of an 
            alcoholic beverage and any drug, the person has the choice of 
            whether the test shall be of his or her blood, breath, or 
            urine, and the officer shall advise the person that he or she 
            has that choice.  

          7)States that a person who chooses to submit to a breath test 
            may also be requested to submit to a blood or urine test if 
            the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person 
            was driving under the influence of a drug or the combined 
            influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug and if the 
            officer has a clear indication that a blood or urine test will 
            reveal evidence of the person being under the influence. The 
            officer shall state in his or her report the facts upon which 
            that belief and that clear indication are based. The person 
            has the choice of submitting to and completing a blood or 
            urine test, and the officer shall advise the person that he or 
            she is required to submit to an additional test and that he or 
            she may choose a test of either blood or urine. If the person 
            arrested either is incapable, or states that he or she is 
            incapable, of completing either chosen test, the person shall 
            submit to and complete the other remaining test.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, unknown, likely minor nonreimbursable local costs if 
          blood draws prove slightly more costly than urine tests.  
          Preliminary information from several counties indicates that 
          while some large counties have phlebotomists on site at county 
          jails, other counties may have to pay for blood draws at local 
          hospitals, whereas collecting a urine sample requires less 
          expertise.  The impact on peace officer time and attention also 
          does not appear to be significant. 

          To the extent blood tests prove more effective than urine tests, 
          and reduce the number of legal challenges to urine tests, there 
          could be minor state trial court savings, though to the extent 
          blood tests prove more effective, there could be additional 
          local incarceration costs. 

          There were about 210,000 DUI arrests in 2009. Current 
          statistical sources do not identify whether the arrest was for 
          alcohol, drugs, or both.









                                                                  AB 2020
                                                                  Page  4


           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "Under current law, DUI 
          offenders suspected of being under the influence of drugs or the 
          combination of drugs and alcohol can opt for a blood or urine 
          test.  While the urine test used to be an option for those 
          suspected of driving under the influence of only alcohol, the 
          test was removed as an option in 1998 because of its 
          unreliability.  However, the test is still an option for those 
          driving under the influence of drugs or the combination of drugs 
          and alcohol.  This minor loophole results in more DUI court 
          cases being dismissed because of unreliable urine tests, and 
          puts the safety of the public at risk.  Tighter DUI laws mean 
          safer citizens and safer communities.  AB 2020 is a necessary 
          piece of legislation to ensure that DUI drug and combination 
          drug and alcohol offenders can be accurately prosecuted."

          Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion 
          of this bill.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 
          319-3744 


                                                                FN: 0003332