BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                         SB 61|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 61
          Author:   Hill (D), et al.
          Amended:  4/7/15  
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:  7-0, 3/24/15
           AYES:  Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning, Stone

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:  7-0, 5/28/15
           AYES:  Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

           SUBJECT:   Driving under the influence:  ignition interlock  
                     device


          SOURCE:    Author
          
          DIGEST:   This bill extends the existing Ignition Interlock  
          Device pilot project until July 1, 2017.
          
          ANALYSIS:   


          Existing law:
           
          1)Provides it is unlawful for 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 § 23152(a).)  
              
           2)Provides that it is unlawful for any person, while having  
            0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to  
            drive a vehicle.  (Vehicle Code § 23152(b).)








                                                                      SB 61  
                                                                    Page  2



          3)Provides that a person convicted of a first-time DUI may apply  
            for a restricted license for driving to and from work and to  
            and from a driver-under-influence program if specified  
            requirements are met, paying all applicable fees, submitting  
            proof of insurance and proof of participation in a program.   
            (Vehicle Code § 13352.4.)

          4)Provides that a second or subsequent DUI offender can get his  
            or her license reinstated earlier if he or she agrees to  
            install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) along with his or  
            her enrollment in the required program, proof of insurance and  
            payment of specified fees. (Vehicle Code §§ 13352(a)(3)(B);  
            (a)(4) (B); (a)(5)(C); (a)(6)(B); (a)(7)(B)&(C))

          5)Creates an IID pilot project 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 3rd offense  
            and for 36 months for a 4th or subsequent offense. (Vehicle  
            Code § 23700)

          6)Requires DMV to report to the Legislature regarding the  
            effectiveness of the IID pilot project to reduce the number of  
            first-time violations and repeat DUI offenses. (Vehicle Code §  
            23701)

          This bill extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2017.

          Background


          In 2009, AB 91 (Feuer, Chapter 217) created an IID pilot project  
          in four counties which mandates the use of an IID for all DUI  
          offenders.  DMV will report on the pilot project in January of  
          2015 regarding the effectiveness of the pilot project in  
          reducing the number of first-time violations and repeat offenses  
          in the specified counties.

          The rationale for a pilot project was to see what impact a  
          mandatory IID program has on recidivism in California.  While  
          the impact of IID has been studied elsewhere, with mixed  
          results, the comparisons are not perfect because while some of  
          the other states began mandating IID at the same time they  







                                                                      SB 61  
                                                                    Page  3


          strengthened other sanctions, California has had a complex group  
          of sanctions including high fines, jail time, licensing  
          sanctions, mandatory drinker-driver treatment programs and  
          optional IID in place since the mid-1980's with sanctions being  
          evaluated, changed and strengthened on an ongoing basis since.   
          The thought was that with a pilot project, DMV can evaluate how  
          best a mandatory IID system should work in California.  By  
          evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory  
          programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.   
          Evaluating how the DUI sanctions work is something DMV  
          researchers have been doing with great success since 1990.   
          DMV's reports have helped inform the Legislature on where  
          changes needed to be made and have helped reduce recidivism in  
          California.   

          In January of this year, DMV released their report on the pilot  
          project entitled "General Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition  
          Interlock Pilot Program in California."  The report found that  
          even though "[d]uring the pilot period, IID installation rates  
          increased dramatically in the pilot counties to include 42.4% of  
          all DUI offenders combined, compared to 2.1% during the  
          pre-pilot period" the study found that " there were no  
          differences in the license-based rates of DUI convictions in the  
          pilot counties among first, second, and third-or-more DUI  
          offenders during the pilot program as compared to the pre-pilot  
          program." (California DMV, "General Deterrent Evaluation of the  
          Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California" January 2015  
          Executive Summary p. vii)  Thus the pilot projects showed no  
          "general deterrent" effect of requiring the installation of an  
          IID by all offenders.  Requiring the installation did not result  
          in fewer DUI's in the pilot counties. 

          By the January 2015 due date, DMV was not able to gather the  
          appropriate data to do an additional report on specific  
          deterrent but intends to have such a report completed by the  
          fall of 2015.  While general deterrent shows whether the threat  
          of an IID will keep a person from committing a DUI the first  
          time, a report on a specific deterrent will show whether the  
          installation of an IID by a DUI offender will keep that person  
          from becoming a repeat offender.  Both are relevant goals in  
          deciding what sanctions shall be imposed on a DUI offender.

          Because the report of the pilot projects showed no general  
          deterrent and it is not yet known what the results on specific  







                                                                      SB 61  
                                                                    Page  4


          deterrent will show, DMV recommends "that subsequent legislative  
          action take into consideration the findings of the specific  
          deterrence evaluation of this pilot program.  This evaluation is  
          anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2015."  (CA DMV id at  
          p.5)

          This bill extends the pilot project until July 1, 2017 to give  
          time for the final DMV report to be completed.


          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   No


          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:


           Administrative expenditures of $1.2 million to $1.5 million  
            (Special Fund*) to DMV to extend operation of the pilot for 18  
            months.  Costs are estimated to be reimbursed through the  
            authority of the DMV to collect fees.

           One-time minor DMV programming costs of less than $30,000  
            (Special Fund*) to enable extension of the pilot program.

            *Motor Vehicle Account


          SUPPORT:   (Verified  5/29/15)


          Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
          Alameda County District Attorney
          Alameda County Sheriff's Office
          American Nurses Association
          California Council on Alcohol Problems
          California State Council
          California; California State Sheriffs' Association
          County of San Diego
          Emergency Nurses Association 
          Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility
          Mothers Against Drunk Driving
          National Safety Council
          National Transportation Safety Board







                                                                      SB 61  
                                                                    Page  5


          Peace Officers Research Association of California

          OPPOSITION:   (Verified  5/29/15)

          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
          California Public Defenders Association
           
           

          Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB.S. / 
          5/31/15 9:25:40


                                   ****  END  ****