BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 55
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 55 (Hill) - As Amended: August 5, 2013
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUMMARY : Requires a person convicted of driving under the
influence (DUI), as specified, for a second or subsequent time
to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on his or her
vehicles for a specified time period in order to receive a
restricted driver's license or to reinstate his or her driving
privileges. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) to inform a
person convicted of a specified second or subsequent DUI
offense of the requirements of the offender to install a
certified IID on each vehicle he or she owns or operates.
2)Requires DMV to advise the person that the installation of the
IID on a vehicle does not allow a person to drive without a
valid driver's license.
3)Provides that before a driver's license may be issued,
reissued, or returned to a person after a suspension or
revocation of his or her driving privilege that requires an
IID, the person is required to arrange for each vehicle he or
she owns or operates to be fitted by an IID by a certified IID
provider; provide DMV proof of installation of the IID, as
specified; and pay specified costs to DMV to administer the
IID requirements. Requires DMV to place a restriction on the
driver's license record that states the driver is restricted
to driving only vehicles equipped with a certified IID.
4)Requires a person who is notified of the IID requirement by
this bill to arrange for each vehicle with an IID to be
serviced by the installer at least every 60 days for
recalibration and monitoring of the device by the installer.
5)Requires the installer to notify DMV if the device is removed
SB 55
Page 2
or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass,
or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or
more times to comply with any maintenance or calibration
requirements of the IID. Requires DMV to monitor the
installation and maintenance of the IID.
6)Requires a person who is convicted of an alcohol-related DUI
(with no injury) to install an IID for 12 months if convicted
of a second offense, 24 months if convicted of a third
offense, and 36 months if convicted of a fourth or subsequent
offense.
7)Requires a person who is convicted of an alcohol-related DUI
with injury to install an IID for 24 months if convicted of a
second offense, 36 months if convicted of a third offense, and
48 months if convicted of a fourth or subsequent offense.
8)Provides that the terms prescribed directly above shall begin
once the person has given DMV proof of installation of the IID
and driving privileges have been restored.
9)Provides that a person is exempt from the requirements of
installing an IID if within 30 days of the notification by
DMV, the person certifies to DMV all of the following:
a) The person does not own a vehicle;
b) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or
her residence;
c) The person no longer has access to the vehicle that was
driven by the person at the time he or she was arrested for
a violation that subsequently resulted in a conviction for
a violation listed in this bill;
d) The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed
to drive a vehicle that is fitted with a functioning IID;
and,
e) The person acknowledges that he or she is required to
have a valid driver's license before he or she can drive.
10)Requires every IID manufacturer to adopt the following fee
schedule, with the IID provider absorbing the remainder of the
cost not paid by the person:
SB 55
Page 3
a) If the person's income is 100% of the poverty level and
below, the person is responsible for 10% of the IID cost;
b) If the person's income is 101%-200% of the poverty
level, the person is responsible for 25% of the IID cost;
c) If the person's income is 201%-300% of the poverty
level, the person is responsible for 50% of the IID cost;
and,
d) All other offenders are responsible for 100% of the IID
cost.
11)Provides that the cost of the IID may only be raised annually
equal to the Consumer Price Index.
12)Provides that an offender's income may be verified by
presentation of that person's current federal income tax
return or three months of monthly income statements.
13)Provides that "vehicle" does not include a motorcycle until
the state certifies an IID that can be installed on a
motorcycle, and a person subject to an IID restriction shall
not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the IID
restriction period.
14)Allows a person who is otherwise required by the provisions
of this bill to install an IID into each vehicle he or she
operates, to operate a vehicle without an IID in the course
and scope of his or her employment if the vehicle is owned by
the employer (that is not completely or partly owned by the
person) and the employer has been notified of the person's
driving restrictions pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
15)Requires DMV to utilize best practices and use information
collected from the implementation of the pilot program
established by AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009
(Vehicle Code Section 23700) in implementing the provisions of
this bill.
16)Prohibits the disclosure, selling, or transfer to any third
party, except as specified, of the personally-identifiable
information that is obtained by any ignition interlock company
pertaining to persons who are required to install IIDs
SB 55
Page 4
pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
17)Provides that the provisions of this bill are in effect from
July 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits any person who is under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of
any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. [Vehicle
Code Section 23152(a).]
2)Prohibits any person, while having 0.08% or more, by weight,
of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. [Vehicle
Code Section 23152(b).]
3)Prohibits any person, while under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of
any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and
concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty
imposed by law in driving the vehicle, and consequently
proximately causing bodily injury to any person other than the
driver. [Vehicle Code Section 23153(a).]
4)Prohibits any person, while having 0.08% or more, by weight,
of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle and
concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty
imposed by law in driving the vehicle, and consequently
proximately causing bodily injury to any person other than the
driver. [Vehicle Code Section 23153(b).]
5)Subjects a person who is convicted of a first DUI (without
injury) of the following penalties:
a) Possible 48 hours to 6 months in jail;
b) $390 to $1,000 fine plus penalty assessments;
c) Completion of a 3-month treatment program, or a 9-month
program if the blood alcohol content (BAC) was .20% or
more; and,
d) Suspension or revocation of driving privileges for 6
months, or 9 months if a treatment program was ordered.
SB 55
Page 5
e) Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of a program, proof of financial
responsibility, and payment of fees; however, the court may
disallow the restricted license. [Vehicle Code Sections
13352(a)(1), 13352.1, 13352.4, 23538(a)(3).]
6)Subjects a person who is convicted of a second DUI (without
injury) within 10 years of a prior specified offense of the
following penalties:
a) If the sentence includes probation:
i) 96 hours to 1 year in jail;
ii) $390 to $1,000 fine plus penalty assessments;
iii) Completion of an 18-month or 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program; and,
iv) Suspension of driving privileges for 2 years.
v) Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of a program, proof of financial
responsibility, and payment of fees; however, the court
may disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code
Section 23542.)
b) If the sentence does not include probation:
i) 90 days to 1 year in jail;
ii) $390 to $1,000 fine plus penalty assessments; and,
iii) Suspension of driving privileges for 2 years.
iv) Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of a program, proof of financial
responsibility, and payment of fees; however, the court
may disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code
Section 23540.)
7)Subjects a person who is convicted of a third or subsequent
DUI (without injury) within 10 years of a prior specified
offense of the following penalties:
SB 55
Page 6
a) Imprisonment in county jail pursuant to realignment or
for 180 days to 1 year in jail;
b) $390 to $1,000 fine plus penalty assessments; and,
c) Suspension of driving privileges for 4 years.
d) Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of a program, proof of financial
responsibility, and payment of fees; however, the court may
disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code Section
23550.)
8)Subjects a person who is convicted of a first DUI with injury
of the following penalties:
a) If the sentence includes probation:
i) 5 days to one year in jail;
ii) $390 to $1,000 fine plus penalty assessments;
iii) 1 year driver's license suspension;
iv) 3-month treatment program or a 9-month program if
the BAC was .20% or more or if the person refused to take
a chemical test; and,
v) The additional penalties that apply to a first DUI
without injury offense. (Vehicle Code Section 23556.)
b) If the sentence does not include probation:
i) 16 months or 2 or 3 years in state prison or 90 days
to 1 year in county jail;
ii) $390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
and,
iii) 1 year driver's license suspension. (Vehicle Code
Section 23554.)
9)Provides that the DMV is required to advise a person convicted
of a second or third DUI offense that after completion of 12
months of the driver's license suspension period, generally,
SB 55
Page 7
the person may apply for a restricted license if the following
conditions are met:
a) The person provides proof of enrollment in an 18-month
or 30-month driving-under-the-influence program;
b) The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program;
c) The person submits proof of installation of an IID;
d) The person provides proof of financial responsibility
(insurance); and,
e) The person pays all specified fees. [Vehicle Code
Section 13352(a)(3),(5).]
10)Provides that if a first-time DUI offender is found to have a
BAC of .20% or above or who refused to take a chemical test,
the court shall refer the offender to participate in a 9-month
licensed program, as specified. [Vehicle Code Section
23538(b)(2).]
11)Provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced to a
9-month program because of a high BAC or a refusal shall have
his or her license suspended for 10 months and that the person
may not have his or her license reinstated until the person
gives proof of insurance and proof of completion of the
required program. (Vehicle Code Section 13352.1.)
12)Provides that a person convicted of a first-time DUI may
apply for a restricted license for driving to, from, and for
work and to and from a driving-under-the-influence program if
specified requirements are met, including payment of all
applicable fees, submission of proof of insurance and proof of
participation in a program. (Vehicle Code Section 13352.4.)
13)Provides that a second or subsequent DUI offender can get his
or her license reinstated earlier if he or she agrees to
install an IID along with his or her enrollment in the
required program, proof of insurance and payment of specified
fees. [Vehicle Code Sections 13352(a)(3)(B), (a)(4)(B),
(a)(5)(C), (a)(6)(B), (a)(7)(B)-(C).]
14)Allows the court to require a first-time DUI offender to
SB 55
Page 8
install a certified IID on any vehicle that the person owns or
operates and prohibit that person from operating a vehicle
unless it is equipped with a functioning, certified IID.
(Vehicle Code Section 23575.)
15)Creates an IID pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles,
Sacramento and Tulare counties requiring a person convicted of
a DUI (without injury) to install an IID for 5 months upon a
first offense, 12 months for a second offense, 24 months for a
third offense, and 36 months for a fourth or subsequent
offense and 12 months for a first offense, 24 months for a
second offense, 36 months for a third offense, and 48 months
for a fourth or subsequent conviction of a DUI with injury.
(Vehicle Code Section 23700.)
16)Allows a person who is otherwise required by the pilot
program described above or as a first-time DUI offender to
install an IID into each vehicle he or she operates, to
operate a vehicle without an IID in the course and scope of
his or her employment if the vehicle is owned by the employer
(that is not completely or partly owned by the person) and the
employer has been notified of the person's driving
restrictions pursuant to this bill. (Vehicle Code Section
23576.)
17)Requires DMV, on or before January 1, 2015, to report to the
Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the IID pilot
program to reduce the number of first-time and repeat DUI
offenses. (Vehicle Code Section 23701.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Under current
law, installation of IIDs is optional for repeat offenders.
Only about 20 percent of those who have a choice of installing
an IID or driving on a restricted license opt for IID
installation.
"In 2009, the most recent year in which conviction data is
available, there were 161,074 DUI convictions in California.
Of those, 117,642 or 73 percent were first time offenders and
43,432 or 27 percent were repeat offenders. The same year,
drunk drivers killed more than 1,200 people and injured 26,000
SB 55
Page 9
in California. Repeat DUI offenders were responsible for a
third of the deaths and two-thirds of the injuries."
2)Pilot Program : In 2009, the Legislature created a pilot
program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare
counties that mandates the use of IIDs for all DUI offenders.
(Vehicle Code Section 23700; AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217,
Statutes of 2009.) The rationale for a pilot program was to
determine the impact of a mandatory IID program on reducing
recidivism in California. While the impact of IIDs has been
studied elsewhere, with mixed results, the comparisons are not
perfect. While some of the other states began mandating IID,
at the same time they strengthened other sanctions. California
has had a complex group of sanctions including high fines,
jail time, licensing sanctions, mandatory
driving-under-the-influence treatment programs, and optional
IIDs in place since the mid-1980s with sanctions being
evaluated, changed, and strengthened on an ongoing basis.
With a pilot program, DMV can evaluate how best a mandatory
IID system should work in California. By evaluating four
counties, which encompass urban and rural areas, the counties
without the mandatory programs serve as the control group for
the researchers at DMV. DMV's reports have helped inform the
Legislature on where changes need to be made and have helped
reduce recidivism in California. The author points to the
number of DUI arrests in 2009, but that number actually was a
decrease from the year before. Some other relevant statistics
from the 2012 DMV report, which looked at data from 2010,
include:
a) Alcohol-involved crash fatalities decreased by 15.1% in
2010, the biggest decline since a decreasing trend started
4 years ago.
b) The number of persons injured in alcohol-involved
crashes decreased by 6.6% in 2010, following a decrease of
8.4% in 2009.
c) DUI arrests decreased by 6.1% in 2010, after decreasing
by 2.9% in 2009.
d) The DUI arrest rate per 100 licensed drivers was 0.8 in
2010, slightly lower than 0.9 in 2007-2009, and unchanged
from 0.8 in 2000-2006. This represents a 56% reduction
from the 1.8 rate in 1990.
SB 55
Page 10
e) The percentage of DUI arrests that were felonies
(involving bodily injury or death) decreased slightly, from
2.6% in 2009 to 2.5% in 2010. Felony DUI arrests continue
to constitute a relatively small percentage of all DUI
arrests.
f) The 1-year recidivism rates for all first DUI offenders
decreased to the lowest level seen in the past 20 years.
The DUI re-offense rate for first-time offenders arrested
in 2009 was 44.7% lower than the re-offense rate for
first-time offenders arrested in 1990.
g) The 1-year re-offense rate for second-time DUI offenders
also decreased to the lowest level seen in the past 20
years. Recidivism decreased from 9.7% in 1990 to 5.2% in
2009, a 46.4% relative decrease for second-time DUI
offenders.
h) After 5 years, the percentage of DUI offenders
reoffending in the 1994 group was much lower, 18%, compared
to the percentages reoffending in the 1984 group, 27%, and
in the 1980 group, 35%, and was equivalent to the
percentage reoffending in the 2004 group, 18%. (DMV, 2012
Annual Report of The California DUI Management Information
System (January 2012) p. iii, 6, 35, and 36
.)
DMV will report to the Legislature by January 1, 2015 on the
effectiveness of the pilot program in reducing the number of
first-time and repeat violations in the specified counties
(Vehicle Code Section 23701.) This report conceivably could
include recommendations by DMV on how to improve a mandatory
IID scheme. Consequently, a policy consideration facing this
committee is whether it would be more prudent to wait until
DMV reports its findings before deciding on renewing or
extending mandatory implementation of IIDs, as the mandate
created by this bill will be required of all repeat DUI
offenders statewide who sustain an alcohol-related DUI
conviction during the operative period of this bill regardless
of whether the provisions are later repealed or allowed to
sunset.
3)Compliance vs. Effectiveness : The author's office states that
SB 55
Page 11
currently-available raw data shows that the participation rate
for the pilot program is around 45% while the participation
rate in the non-pilot program counties in voluntarily
installing IIDs is at about 20%, and this difference is
indicative of the effectiveness of mandatory IID installation
in reducing drunk driving. Compliance, however, is not
necessarily indicative of effectiveness. Furthermore, the IID
installation compliance rate in the pilot program counties is
driven primarily by first-time offenders, who would not be
subject to the installation requirement of this bill, and
drops significantly with the greater number of DUI offenses a
person has sustained. (Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Mandatory
Actions AB 91 Status Summary: IID Pilot Program Statistics,
July 1, 2010 thru October 17, 2012, p.2.) The effectiveness
of IIDs in reducing recidivism in California will not be known
until DMV releases its report of the pilot program findings.
4)IID Costs & the Ability to Pay : The cost of an IID varies
depending on the nature and type of the device and the
jurisdiction in which it is installed. In New Mexico and
Arizona, USA Today placed the cost of an IID per year at
$1,000. (Haya El Nasser, States Turn on to Idea of Ignition
Locks, USA Today (June 23, 2005)
news/nation/2005-06-23-drunk-driving_x.htm>.) Costs also vary
depending on whether the unit is rented or purchased, with the
latter being more expensive.
This bill provides that an offender is required to pay the
cost of the IID, unless the person qualifies for a
reduced-cost IID based on his or her income. In which case,
the IID provider is responsible for absorbing the portion of
the cost not paid by the offender. According to DMV, the
reduced-cost assistance is for the cost of the device only and
does not include fees imposed by the installer, such as for
installation, removal, or on-going maintenance (which is
required at least every 60 days under this bill). (Patrick
Barrett, Department of Motor Vehicle, July 2, 2013.)
Moreover, the provisions of this bill do not provide any
clarity on if the reduced-cost provision of this bill applies
solely to the installation of an IID, the rental of the device
(if the device is not purchased), the servicing of the device,
all of these costs, or just some of these costs. As a
practical consideration, the committee may wish to consider
how a person subject to the IID mandate is able to meet his or
her financial obligations under this bill if he or she
SB 55
Page 12
qualifies for cost assistance, but the assistance does not
apply to the installation, bimonthly recalibration and
monitoring, and removal, which cumulatively would cost more
than the IID device itself.
Another practical consideration this committee may wish to
explore is how a person satisfies his or her obligations under
this bill if he or she otherwise meets the criteria for a
reduced-cost IID but cannot provide the required documents
(e.g., the person did not file a tax return and/or is
unemployed so cannot provide income statements) and cannot
afford the full cost of the IID. The concern this type of
situation raises is that it might create a greater
disincentive for a person to not comply with the law and drive
unlicensed and uninsured.
5)Loss of Control Group : The pilot program is repealed
statutorily on January 1, 2016. (Vehicle Code Section 23702.)
Consequently, DMV is required to mandate all persons
convicted of a DUI offense in the pilot counties through that
date to install IIDs on their vehicles. The provisions of
this bill take effect on July 1, 2015 and cease on January 1,
2016. (Page 7, lines 13-18.) During the operative period of
this bill, the pilot program will be in effect resulting in
the loss of the control group of the pilot program, i.e., the
54 counties that are not subject to the IID requirement. The
purpose of the control group is to determine how effective
mandating IIDs is in reducing repeat DUI offenses by providing
a comparison in the rate of DUI offenses in the pilot program
counties and the non-pilot program counties. The control
group remains important during this latter period of the
program particularly in comparing the recidivism rate of
persons convicted of a third or subsequent DUI, as additional
time is needed to determine how often a person offends, should
DMV issue a final report after the pilot program has ended.
6)Dual Mandates in Pilot Program Counties : As last heard in
this committee, the then-current version of this bill would
have subjected repeat DUI offenders in the pilot program
counties to dual administrative service fees by DMV, as they
would be subject to the mandates of both AB 91 (Feuer),
Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, and this bill during the
overlap period discussed above, leading to a concern of
creating a greater disincentive for low- and no-income repeat
offenders to not comply with the law and consequently drive
SB 55
Page 13
unlicensed and uninsured. Recent amendments to this bill
appear to have addressed the issue of dual mandates.
7)Driving Under the Influence of Drugs & IIDs : As last heard in
this committee, the then-current version of this bill would
have required IIDs on the vehicles of all DUI offenders
irrespective of whether the offender was under the influence
of alcohol, drugs, or both alcohol and drugs while he or she
was operating a vehicle, as these crimes are listed in the
same code sections. (Page 4, lines 7-30, version 97; see
Vehicle Code Sections 23152 and 23153.) As such, a person who
was convicted of driving under the influence of solely drugs
would be required to install IIDs on all of his or her
vehicles, which would not be effective as IIDs are designed to
prevent driving under the influence of alcohol only. Recent
amendments to this bill have limited the IID requirement to
alcohol-related DUI convictions.
8)Ability to Drive Work Vehicles : As last heard in this
committee, the then-current version of this bill would have
restricted a person "to driving only vehicles equipped with a
certified ignition interlock device." (Page 3, lines 25-27,
version 97.) This restriction places an impediment to some
persons who are required to operate an employer-owned vehicle
during the course of their employment. The pilot program
provides an exception to the IID requirement for a person in
this situation if the employer has been notified and the
individual can provide DMV with proof of that notification.
Recent amendments to this bill allow a person to operate an
employer-owned vehicle without an IID during the course of his
or her employment.
9)Privacy Concerns : This bill provides that to verify an
offender's income, for purposes of determining if he or she
qualifies for a reduced-cost IID, the person can present his
or her current federal income tax return or three months of
monthly income statements. (Page 6, lines 29-31.) Recent
amendments to this bill prohibit the offender's
personally-identifiable information obtained by an ignition
interlock company to be disclosed, sold, or transferred to any
third party, except to provide information on whether the
offender successfully fulfilled the requirements of this bill.
10)Argument in Support : According to the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) , "Research evaluation of
SB 55
Page 14
ignition interlock programs over the last two decades has
found that ignition interlock devices are effective in
reducing recidivism among driving while intoxicated (DWI)
offenders, sometimes by as much as 62 to 75 percent.
According to one estimate, if all drivers with at least one
alcohol-impaired driving conviction within the 3 years prior
to the accident used zero-blood-alcohol-concentration
interlock devices, approximately 1,100 deaths could be
prevented per year. The NTSB therefore recommends that all
states mandate the use of ignition interlock devices for all
DWI offenders."
11)Argument in Opposition : According to California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice , "SB 55 is premature and should be tabled
until the Department of Motor Vehicles has an opportunity to
conduct and deliver its report to the Legislature.
"After several years of debating whether an ignition interlock
device should be required in DUI cases, the Legislature agreed
in 2009 to establish a pilot project to gather necessary data
to help determine the most effective strategy. This agreement
was reached in hopes of negating long-standing conflicts and
to commit to a data-driven approach.
"The Legislature adopted a dual strategy contained in AB 91
and SB 598. Pursuant to AB 91, four counties were selected to
trial a 'mandatory' IID installation for all DUI offenses.
Simultaneously, the Legislature adopted SB 598 which, based
upon a recommendation of the DMV, utilized an incentive
approach to IID installation. AB 91 and SB 598 were made
contingent upon each both - both must pass and receive a
Governor's signature. Fortunately, both bills were enacted.
"SB 55 now attempts to undermine the 2009 decision of the
Legislature. Whatever the merits of SB 55, it fails to abide
by the data-first principle agreed upon by the Legislature."
12)Previous Legislation :
a) AB 520 (Ammiano), Chapter 657, Statutes of 2011,
authorized a person convicted of alcohol-related reckless
driving to apply for a restricted driver's license early if
he or she complies with specified requirements, including
installation of an IID.
SB 55
Page 15
b) AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009,
established a 4-county pilot program administered by DMV to
require the installation of IIDs on the vehicles of all
persons convicted of a DUI, as specified.
c) SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009, allowed a
person convicted of a second or third DUI offense to
receive a restricted driver's license if he or she installs
an IID, as specified.
d) AB 2784 (Feuer), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required a person convicted of a DUI, as
specified, to install an IID, as specified, in order to be
reissued a license, receive a restricted license, or
receive a reinstated license. AB 2784's provisions were
removed from that bill in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations and replaced with the provisions of SB 1361.
AB 2784 was gutted, amended, and subsequently vetoed.
e) SB 177 (Migden), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have, among other things, recast and revised
provisions of law authorizing restricted licenses and
imposing additional requirements with respect to IIDs on
those restricted licenses and established the Ignition
Interlock Device Assistance Fund in the State Treasury. SB
177 was never heard in the Senate Committee on Public
Safety.
f) SB 1361 (Correa), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required installation of an IID, as specified,
for all offenders convicted of a DUI under certain
conditions. Those conditions included where there is a
high BAC for a first offender and for a second or
subsequent offender. SB 1361's provisions amended relevant
portions of the Vehicle Code to authorize DMV to reinstate
the offender's license earlier than provided in existing
law if he or she shows proof of installation of an IID. SB
1361 was vetoed.
g) SB 1388 (Torlakson), Chapter 404, Statutes of 2008,
required that a person immediately install a certified IID
on all vehicles he or she owns or operates for a period of
one to three years when he or she has been convicted of
violating specified provisions relating to DUI and driving
a motor vehicle when his or her license has been suspended
SB 55
Page 16
or revoked as a result of a DUI-related conviction.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Century Council
County of San Diego
Diageo
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States
Los Angeles Police Protective League
National Transportation Safety Board
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Smart Start
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California DUI Lawyers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744