BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 61
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 61
(Hill) - As Amended April 7, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Transportation |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill extends operation of the DMV's pilot program, which
mandates installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) on
every vehicle owned or operated by all DUI offenders in four
specified counties, for an additional 18 months, until July 1,
SB 61
Page 2
2017.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time administrative special fund costs of $1.2 million to
$1.5 million, including minor one-time programming costs, for
DMV to extend the pilot by 18 months. The department is
authorized to collect fees to reimburse its costs for the
program. [Motor Vehicle Account]
COMMENTS:
Background and Purpose. AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of
2009, created an IID pilot program effective July 1, 2010
through January 1, 2016, in the counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare, which requires 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.
The rationale for a pilot project was to gauge the impact of a
mandatory IID program on recidivism within the state. By
evaluating the four counties subject to the pilot, the other
counties without the mandatory programs act like a control
group.
In January, DMV released their report on the pilot project,
SB 61
Page 3
which found that, even though 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), there were no differences in the rates of DUI
convictions in the pilot counties compared to the pre-pilot
program. As a result, the pilot project showed no "general
deterrent" effect of requiring the installation of an IID by all
offenders. Requiring the installation therefore did not result
in fewer DUI's in the pilot counties.
By the report's due date, however, DMV was not able to gather
sufficient data to fully assess the overall effectiveness that
an IID mandate has on motorists in participating counties. SB 61
extends the pilot project until July 1, 2017, to give time for
the DMV complete a full assessment of the pilot program.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081