BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 881 Hearing Date: 4/12/2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Hertzberg | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |3/17/2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Erin Riches | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Vehicles: violations DIGEST: This bill makes a number of changes to existing law relating to suspended licenses for individuals who have failed to pay a traffic fine or failed to appear in court. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Authorizes a court to notify the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) when an individual fails to pay a traffic fine (FTP), fails to appear in court (FTA), or fails to comply with a court order (FTC). Existing law requires the court to notify the DMV if the individual later pays the fine. 2)When an individual appears before a traffic referee or superior court judge regarding a traffic offense, requires the court to consider the individual's ability to pay if he or she so requests. 3)Existing law prohibits the DMV from issuing or renewing a license for an individual when: a) A license previously issued to the individual has been suspended, until the end of the suspension period, unless the cause for the suspension has been removed. b) A license previously issued to the individual has been SB 881 (Hertzberg) Page 2 of ? revoked, until one year after the date of revocation, unless a different period of revocation has been prescribed or the cause for revocation has been removed. c) The DMV has received a notice from the court of an FTP or FTA. d) The individual's driving record shows two or more FTPs and/or FTAs, until all FTPs and FTAs have been reported to DMV as cleared or adjudicated. 1)Requires DMV to suspend the driver's license of an individual when DMV receives a notice from the court of an FTP or FTA for that individual, until the individual's driving record is cleared. This bill: 1)Deletes the existing law provision prohibiting DMV from issuing or renewing a driver's license for an individual when DMV has received a notice from the court of an FTA or an FTP. 2)Deletes the existing law provision requiring the DMV, upon notice from the court of an FTA or FTP, to suspend the individual's driver's license. 3)Requires the DMV to, upon request of the driver, restore all driving privileges that have been suspended due to a notice of an FTA or FTP, by July 1, 2017. 4)Provides that this bill applies to commercial driver's licenses as well as Class C (common driver's licenses) and Class M (motorcycle driver's licenses). 5)Provides that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to specified offenses related to reckless driving or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. The author states that in California, a ticket for an infraction such as a broken tail light, expired registration tags, or fare evasion can ultimately lead to a suspended driver's license if a defendant does not pay or make a court SB 881 (Hertzberg) Page 3 of ? appearance. Suspending a license for failure to appear, or failure to pay a fine, is an overly harsh punishment that does not fit the offense and undermines the defendant's ability to hold a job and make amends. Studies show that people who lose their driver's licenses often end up losing their jobs, making it difficult to pay any fines or fees. In addition, unnecessary driver's license suspensions add to the burden and costs of state agencies, law enforcement, and courts. This bill will help ensure that courts and counties will not suspend driver's licenses as a means of collecting court-ordered debt associated with non-safety traffic offenses. This bill explicitly excludes reckless and drunk driving offenses from this change. 2)Background. The state Judicial Council annually adopts a uniform traffic penalty schedule for all non-parking infractions outlined in the Vehicle Code. Due to additional surcharges, penalties, and assessments, a base fine of $100, for example, results in a total fine of $541. For many individuals, a traffic violation can become prohibitively expensive and can lead to a suspended driver's license. To address this concern, the 2015-16 budget agreement authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program for delinquent debt. Under this program, the $300 civil assessment imposed by collection programs for an FTA or FTP is waived. Individuals then receive a 50% reduction in the total amount of court-ordered debt owed for traffic infractions and certain traffic misdemeanors as long as specified criteria are met. In addition, participants in the amnesty program, as well as individuals currently making payments for the same violations included in the amnesty program, can have their driver's licenses reinstated. Moreover, SB 405 (Hertzberg, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015) requires courts to allow individuals to schedule court proceedings even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed. 3)LAO recommendations. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) issued a report in January 2016 titled "Improving California's Criminal Fine and Fee System." In it, the LAO identified a number of problems, such as the fact that the complexity and piecemeal nature of the system makes it difficult to control the use of fine and fee revenues and to distribute revenue accurately. The LAO made two major recommendations. First, the Legislature should re-evaluate the structure of the system, giving consideration to system goals, ability to pay, SB 881 (Hertzberg) Page 4 of ? consequences for failure to pay, and whether fines and fees should be adjusted. Second, the Legislature should increase legislative control of criminal fine and fee expenditures by depositing most revenue in the General Fund; consolidating most fines and fees; evaluating existing programs supported by the revenues; and mitigating impacts on local government. 4)What about violation points? The DMV assigns violation points against an individual's driver's license for certain traffic offenses to identify a driver as a negligent operator. Violation points vary with the gravity of the offense; for example, a "fix-it" ticket does not count for any violation points, a speeding ticket counts for one violation point, and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs counts for two violation points. Existing law authorizes the DMV to suspend an individual's driver's license for six months if he or she receives four points in one year, six points in two years, or eight points in three years. The DMV does not assign violation points until it receives a notice of conviction from the court. By removing the existing law provision requiring DMV to suspend/not issue/not renew the driver's license of an individual for an FTP or FTA, this bill could potentially remove the incentive for an individual to adjudicate a moving violation and indirectly encourage him or her to simply leave the violation in an FTA or FTP state indefinitely. This bill would, for example, prevent the DMV from issuing violation points and eventually suspending the license of an individual with multiple violations for running red lights, if the individual chooses to never adjudicate the FTAs or FTPs. 5)Opposition concerns. The California Police Chiefs Association, writing in opposition to this bill, states that "We agree that our laws should encourage compliance, which is why the system was set up to give individuals facing court charges time and notification to ensure they can abide by our laws. However, removing the penalties for disregarding our rules will only foster further disregard." 6)Issues to consider. The author may wish to consider addressing several issues as the bill moves forward: a)Should additional serious offenses be excluded from this bill? This bill excludes DUI and reckless driving offenses. It does not, however, exclude "wet reckless" offenses, SB 881 (Hertzberg) Page 5 of ? specifically reckless driving involving alcohol that can be plea-bargained in place of a DUI. The author may wish to consider amending this bill to exclude this serious offense. b)Should moving violations be excluded from this bill? The author states that suspending an individual's driver's license for what started as a minor infraction such as broken tail light is an overly harsh punishment that does not fit the crime. This bill, however, goes beyond non-moving violations to include all but the most serious moving violations. The author may wish to consider narrowing this bill to apply only to non-moving violations, to ensure that deterrents remain in place for more serious violations. c)Should commercial driver's license holders be excluded from this bill? This bill applies to commercial driver's licenses as well as the more common Class C or motorcycle driver's licenses. The author indicates it is important to include commercial drivers because a suspended driver's license can result in temporary or permanent loss of employment for a truck driver. However, the state and federal governments have generally chosen to hold commercial drivers to a higher standard, imposing a much more rigorous set of training and testing requirements for commercial driver's licenses. The author may wish to consider excluding commercial driver's licenses from this bill. 1)Double-referral. Should this bill pass this committee, it will be heard next in the Public Safety Committee. This committee will focus on the provisions relating to the Vehicle Code; the provisions of this bill relating to the Penal Code will be addressed by the Public Safety Committee. Related Legislation: SB 405 (Hertzberg, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2015) requires courts to allow individuals to schedule court proceedings, even if bail or civil assessment has been imposed, and clarifies the traffic amnesty program. SB 85 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 26, Statutes of 2015) authorized an 18-month traffic amnesty program, beginning October 1, 2015, for delinquent debt. SB 881 (Hertzberg) Page 6 of ? FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 6, 2016.) SUPPORT: American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-sponsor) Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-sponsor) A New Way of Life Reentry Project California Association of Local Conservation Corps Californians United for a Responsible Budget Community Housing Partnership Courage Campaign Forward Together Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Los Angeles Conservation Corps Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Prison Policy Initiative Rubicon Programs San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program W. Haywood Burns Institute OPPOSITION: California Police Chiefs Association -- END --