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