BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 55
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 55 (Hill) - As Amended: August 5, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-0
Transportation 12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires, effective July 1, 2015 through January 1,
2016, a person convicted of an alcohol-related driving under the
influence (DUI) for a second or subsequent offense, to install
an ignition interlock device (IID) on his or her vehicles in
order to receive a restricted driver's license or to reinstate
driving privileges.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time Motor Vehicle Fund costs to DMV of about $350,000 for
computer programming.
2)One-time Motor Vehicle Fund costs of about $220,000 for
staffing for manual workarounds regarding records review,
document imaging, record clearance, and installation
verifications.
3)Ongoing Motor Vehicle Fund costs to DMV in the range of
$200,000 for DMV operating costs, including monitoring IDD
installation and maintenance, tracking and administration.
These costs, however, should be fully offset by a fee DMV is
authorized to set to cover its administrative costs. The fee
would be in the range of $50.
4)Private costs to persons required to install an IID would
likely range from about $100 per year to about $1,000,
depending on the person's income level and to what extent the
reduced fee schedule in the bill covers actual costs. (It is
not clear whether the fee schedule applies to the IID itself,
SB 55
Page 2
or also to the maintenance, monitoring, and calibrating that
must be performed regularly. The language references only the
device itself.)
SUMMARY CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the 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)Provides that before a driver's license may be returned to a
person after a suspension or revocation of driving privilege
that requires an IID, the person must: (a) arrange for each
vehicle he or she owns or operates to be fitted by an IID by a
certified IID provider; (b) provide DMV proof of installation
of the IID; and (c) pay a fee to be determined by DMV to cover
DMV administrative costs. Requires DMV to place a restriction
on the driver's license record that states the driver is
restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with an IID.
3)Requires a person convicted of DUI to install an IID for 12
months for a second offense, 24 months for a third offense,
and 36 months for a fourth or subsequent offense.
4)Requires a person convicted of DUI with injury to install an
IID for 24 months for a second offense, 36 months for a third
offense, and 48 months for a fourth or subsequent offense.
5)Requires a person subject to the IID requirement to have each
vehicle with an IID serviced by the installer every 60 days
for recalibration and monitoring. Requires the installer to
notify DMV if the person has attempted to remove or tampered
with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to
comply with maintenance or calibration requirements. Requires
DMV to monitor installation and maintenance of the IID.
6)Provides that failure to comply with IID requirements resets
the mandatory IID requirements.
7)Requires every IID manufacturer to adopt the following fee
schedule, with the IID provider absorbing the balance of the
cost not paid by the person. IID costs may only be annually
SB 55
Page 3
raised pursuant to the Consumer Price Index.
a) If the person's income is 100% of poverty level and
below, the person is responsible for 10% of the cost.
b) If the person's income is 101% to 200% of the poverty
level, the person is responsible for 25% of the cost.
c) If the person's income is 201% to 300% of the poverty
level, the person is responsible for 50% of the IID cost.
d) All other offenders are responsible for 100% of the IID
cost.
8)Allows a person required by this bill to install an IID in
each vehicle he or she operates, to operate a vehicle without
an IID in the course of employment if the vehicle is owned by
the employer and the employer has been notified of the
person's driving restrictions.
9)Requires DMV to use best practices and information collected
from the implementation of the pilot program established by AB
91 (Feuer), Statutes of 2009 in implementing this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author notes that, aside from the current pilot
program in four counties that affects about 35% of the state's
population until January 1, 2016, current law makes IIDs
optional for repeat offenders. The author contends the
deterrent value of IIDs is such that it should be made
mandatory statewide before the results of the pilot program
are reviewed.
2)Current Law .
a) Allows the court to require a first-time DUI offender to
install a certified IID on any vehicle the person owns or
operates and prohibits that person from operating a vehicle
without an IID.
b) Creates an IID pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles,
Sacramento and Tulare counties requiring a person convicted
of a DUI to install an IID for five 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
SB 55
Page 4
causing injury.
Requires DMV, on or before January 1, 2015, to report to
the Legislature regarding the efficacy of the IID pilot
program.
3)IID Background . IIDs are devices that consist of an alcohol
breath testing unit linked to the ignition switch of a motor
vehicle. The driver blows into the device. If the sample
contains more than a predetermined amount of alcohol, the
device locks the vehicle's ignition. Subsequent random
"rolling retests" are required after the engine has started.
If a breath sample isn't provided, or the sample exceeds the
preset blood alcohol level, the device records the event,
warns the driver and sets off an alarm (flashing lights
flashing, honking horn) until the ignition is turned off. IIDs
are equipped with anti-circumvention features to minimize
tampering and must be checked regularly by the installer.
The use of IIDs started with a pilot program in 1986.
Legislation was later enacted to authorize judges to order
IIDs. In 1993, the Legislature eliminated that discretion and
required judges to order IIDs for all repeat offenders.
Despite this requirement, judges rarely ordered IIDs. In
1998, the Legislature shifted the focus of mandatory IID from
repeat DUI offenders to drivers convicted of driving on a
suspended or revoked license following a DUI conviction and
established an early license reinstatement option for repeat
offenders with the installation of an IID and other
requirements.
In 2009 courts were still not ordering mandatory IID upon
conviction, and the Legislature enacted AB 91 (Feuer), a
four-county IID pilot intended to model a mandatory IID
program and provide the Legislature hard data on deterrence
and process.
While there are number of IID studies, conclusions are mixed
and comparisons are difficult, as a wide range of other
factors are involved. California has a complex and
ever-changing set of sanctions, including fines,
incarceration, licensing sanctions, mandatory DUI treatment,
and IIDs. In "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition
Interlock in California (2004), DMV concluded, "The results of
this study are mixed and somewhat complex regarding the
SB 55
Page 5
effectiveness of IIDs in California. IIDs are not the "silver
bullet" that will solve the DUI problem, but they are
effective in some situations with some offenders."
One of the central concerns regarding IID efficacy is to what
extent making IID installation a requirement for reinstatement
keeps offenders from regaining their driving privilege. Due to
cost, complexity and requirements, many offenders simply
choose to drive without a license, which also means they are
driving without insurance.
4)IID Pilot Program in Progress . As a result of conflicting
studies and reports, in light of concerns regarding the
propensity to drive without a license, and with the goal of
determining the best way to use IIDs, the Legislature enacted
the AB 91 pilot program to evaluate how best a mandatory IID
system could work in California. From July 1, 2010, through
December 31, 2015, all offenders who are cited and convicted
of a DUI violation in Alameda, L.A., Sacramento and Tulare
Counties are required to install an IID on every vehicle they
drive.
5)It is not clear why the state would create a statewide program
without the benefit of the pilot program information that was
created for this specific purpose.
6)Support includes law enforcement and the National
Transportation Safety Board, which stated in an April 2013
letter, "Research evaluation of 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."
7)Opposition includes the CA DUI Lawyers Association and CA
Attorneys for Criminal Justice, who state, "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.
SB 55
Page 6
"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?.
"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."
8)Previous Legislation .
a) AB 520 (Ammiano), Statutes of 2011, authorizes 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.
b) AB 91 (Feuer), Statutes of 2009, established a
four-county pilot program through 2015 requiring
installation of IIDs on the vehicles of all persons
convicted of a DUI.
c) SB 598 (Huff), Statutes of 2009, allows 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), 2008, was similar to SB 55. It was
amended in this committee to require DMV to advise a person
convicted of a repeat DUI offense, with a blood alcohol
content of .08% or more, that the person may receive a
restricted license upon installation of an IID. The bill
was later amended and used for an unrelated purpose and
vetoed.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916)
319-2081