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 --