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