BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      SB 61


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          61 (Hill)


          As Amended  April 7, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  40-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Transportation  |16-0 |Frazier, Achadjian,   |                    |
          |                |     |Baker, Bloom, Campos, |                    |
          |                |     |Chu, Daly, Dodd,      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Gomez, Kim, Linder,   |                    |
          |                |     |Medina, Melendez,     |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, O'Donnell   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonta,         |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Eggman,     |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |








                                                                      SB 61


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Extends the existing Department of Motor Vehicles'  
          (DMV) Ignition Interlock Device (IID) pilot project to July 1,  
          2017.
          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Provides that 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.   
           2)Provides that it is unlawful for any person to drive a  
            vehicle, while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol  
            (BAC) in his or her blood.   


          3)Provides that a person convicted of driving under the  
            influence of alcohol (DUI) for the first time may apply for a  
            restricted license if specific requirements are met and all  
            applicable fees are paid.
          4)Authorizes the court to require a person convicted of a  
            first-time DUI, as specified, to install an IID on any vehicle  
            that person operates and to further prohibit the operation of  
            any vehicle without an installed IID.  Additionally, directs  
            the court to give heightened consideration of this requirement  
            to a first-time violator convicted of a DUI with a BAC of  
            0.15% or greater.  


          5)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.










                                                                      SB 61


                                                                    Page  3





          6)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 third offense  
            and for 36 months for a fourth or subsequent offense.   
            Requires the IID pilot project to end on January 1, 2016.


          7)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. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, 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 DMV is  
          authorized to collect fees to reimburse its costs for the  
          program. [Motor Vehicle Account]


          COMMENTS:  AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, created  
          an IID pilot project in four counties which mandates the use of  
          an IID for all, including first-time, DUI offenders.  AB 91  
          required DMV to provide a report to the Legislature by January  
          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 amongst motorist within  
          the state.  While the effectiveness of IIDs has been studied by  
          a number of organizations, the results have been mixed because  
          in many cases, states began mandating IIDs at the same time they  
          strengthened other sanctions.  As a result, it has been  
          difficult for researchers to determine if an IID mandate is an  
          effective deterrent in reducing DUI recidivism without also  
          factoring in other sanctions at the same time.   








                                                                      SB 61


                                                                    Page  4







          California has had a complex group of sanctions including high  
          fines, jail time, licensing sanctions, mandatory drinker-driver  
          treatment programs and optional IID policies in place since the  
          mid-1980's.  AB 91 was enacted to allow DMV to evaluate how best  
          a mandatory IID system should work if implemented statewide.  By  
          evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory  
          programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.   
          DMV would then issue a report to the Legislature to provide  
          direction on the appropriate policy changes, if necessary, are  
          to be made to help reduce DUI recidivism in California.   


          In January of this year, DMV released their report on the pilot  
          project with the report finding 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), the study found that there were no  
          differences in the 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.   
          As a result, the pilot project showed no "general deterrent"  
          effect of requiring the installation of an IID by all offenders.  
           Thus, requiring the installation did not result in fewer DUI's  
          in the pilot counties. 


          However, by the report's January 2015 due date, DMV was not able  
          to gather sufficient data to fully assess the overall  
          effectiveness that an IID mandate has on motorist in  
          participating counties.  This bill extends the pilot project  
          until July 1, 2017, to give time for the DMV complete a full  
          assessment of the pilot program.  The author notes that  
          extending the program for one and a half years will allow DMV to  
          complete this assessment and provide the Legislature with time  
          to review and determine if and how to move forward with a  
          statewide mandatory IID program.  









                                                                      SB 61


                                                                    Page  5








          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093  FN:  
          0001640