BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1571
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1571 (Lackey) - As Amended April 25, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|6 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the court to consider a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of .08 or more, in combination with the
presence of specified drugs, excluding marijuana and drugs
prescribed by a physician, as an aggravating factor that may
justify enhancing the terms and conditions of probation and
referral to a licensed program, for first time
driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offenders. It also requires
the court to refer a person with a second or subsequent DUI
conviction to a program, as specified, as a condition of
probation.
AB 1571
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Cost to DOJ in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. Bureau of
Forensics Services has identified a need for three Senior
Criminalists to handle the increase in toxicology screening of
samples for controlled substances. Along with these positions,
$75,000 one-time costs would be needed for a Dynex screening
instrument along with $25,000 of ongoing costs for reagent
supplies.
Absorbable cost to the courts.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Under current law, courts have the power to
increase punishments in situations when the combined use of
alcohol and drugs warrant such an increase. Courts have broad
general discretion to fashion and impose additional probation
conditions that are particularized to the defendant. Courts
may impose any "reasonable conditions" necessary to secure
justice, make amends to society and individuals injured by the
defendant's unlawful conduct, and assist the "reformation and
rehabilitation of the probationer." A condition of probation
is valid if it is reasonably related to the offense and aimed
at deterring such misconduct in the future.
If the facts demonstrate that the type or level of drugs in the
individual's system increased the dangerousness of conduct
resulting in a DUI, the court can require the defendant to
attend a longer DUI program. Under existing law, the court
could also impose additional probation conditions such as
substance abuse treatment or testing for drugs, as long as the
AB 1571
Page 3
conditions were reasonably related to the offense.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Drugged-driving has seen a
dramatic increase in the past several years. According to the
DMV's annual report of the DUI Management Information System
(MIS), the number of drug-involved crash fatalities increased
by 15.4% in 2012. Drug-involved fatalities represent 28.7% of
the total number of deaths associated with car crashes?., this
bill allows the courts to consider any blood-alcohol
concentration in combination with a controlled substance as
special factor that may justify enhancing the terms of a DUI
treatment program."
Research has established that there is a close relationship
between BAC level and impairment. However, the behavioral
effects of other drugs are not as well understood compared to
the behavioral effects of alcohol. Certain generalizations
can be made: high doses generally have a larger effect than
small doses; well-learned tasks are less affected than novel
tasks; and certain variables, such as prior exposure to a
drug, can either reduce or accentuate expected effects,
depending on circumstances. Also, the presence of a drug
metabolite in a biological fluid may or may not reflect
consumption of the drug recently enough to impair driving
performance. Furthermore, there are individual differences in
absorption, distribution, and metabolism. Some individuals
will show evidence of impairment at drug concentrations that
are not associated with impairment in others. Thus, the
ability to predict an individual's performance at a specific
dosage of drugs other than alcohol is limited.
This bill requires the court to consider specified drug
consumption as an aggravating factor in sentencing even if
there was no corresponding impairment in the individual's
ability to drive.
3)Support. According to the California Police Chiefs
AB 1571
Page 4
Association, DUI Treatment programs have been proven to
significantly reduce DUI recidivism for first and repeat
offenders. AB 1571 will significantly reduce the number of
repeat concurrent use offenders in California.
4)Opposition. The Drug Policy Alliance, is opposed on three
grounds: there is poor correlation between the presence of
drugs and impairment; drug testing is technical and imperfect;
and AB 1571 cross references federal law that may or may not
be aligned with California law.
5)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 780 (Emmerson), of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session,
would have increased minimum county jail time to 180 days
upon conviction of a third DUI. SB 780 was held in the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
b) AB 1487 (Berryhill), of the 2007-2008 Legislative
Session, would have decreased the blood alcohol content
(BAC) of a person convicted of DUI for referral to a
lengthier driving under the influence program, as
specified. AB 1487 died in the Senate Public Safety
Committee,
c) AB 1352 (Liu), Chapter 164, Statutes of 2005, requires a
first time DUI offender with blood alcohol content .20 or
more to attend a 9 month DUI educational program.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1571
Page 5