BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1046 Hearing Date: March 29, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hill |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 17, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Driving Under the Influence: Ignition Interlock
Device
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 61 (Hill) - Chaptered 350, Stats. 2015
SB 55 (Hill) - held in Assembly Appropriations
(2013)
AB 520 (Ammiano) - Chapter 657, Stats. 2011
SB 598 (Huff) - Chapter 193, Stats. 2009
AB 91 (Feuer) - Chapter 217, Stats. 2009
SB 1190 (Oropeza) - Chapter 392, Stats. 2008
SB 1361 (Correa) - Vetoed (2008)
SB 1388 (Torlakson) - Chapter 404, Stats. 2008
AB 2784 (Feuer) - until August 28, 2008 version
SB 177 (Migden) - did not move (2007)
AB 4 (Bogh) - held in Assembly Appropriations
(2005)
AB 979 (Runner) - Chapter 646, Stats. of 2005
AB 638 (Longville) - prior to 7/2/2003 amends
died on Concurrence (2003)
AB 1026 (Levine) - failed Senate
Public Safety (2003)
AB 762 (Torlakson) - Chapter 756,
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
2 of ?
Stats. of 1998
Support: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Alcohol
Justice; Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs;
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association;
Crime Victims United California; Fraternal Order of
Police; Long Beach Police Officers Association; Los
Angeles City Attorney; Mothers Against Drunk Driving;
Peace Officers Research Association of California;
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; San
Marcos Prevention Coalition
Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require a DUI offender to install
an ignition interlock device (IID) on his or her vehicle for a
specified period of time in order to get a restricted license or
to reinstate his or her license and to remove the required
suspension time before a person can get a restricted license.
Existing law provides 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. (Vehicle Code § 23152(a).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person, while
having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood to drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 23152(b).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI is subject to the following penalties when given probation:
possible 48 hours to 6 months in jail;
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
3 of ?
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
completion of a 3-month treatment program or a 9-month
program if the BAC was .20% or more;
6 month license suspension or 10 month suspension if
9-month program is ordered; and
Restricted license may be sought upon proof of
enrollment or completion of program, proof of financial
responsibility and payment of fees. However, the court may
disallow the restricted license. (Vehicle Code §§ 13352
(a)(1); 13352.1; 13352.4; 23538(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that a person who is convicted of a first
DUI with injury is subject to the following penalties:
16 months, 2 or 3 years in state prison or 90 days to 1
year in county jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments; and
1 year driver's license suspension.
Or, when probation is given:
5 days to one year in jail;
$390 to $1,000 fine plus 250% penalty assessments;
1 year license suspension;
3 month treatment program or a 9-month program if the
BAC was .20% or more; and
the additional penalties that apply to a first DUI
without injury. (Vehicle Code § 23554.)
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a second DUI that after
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions:
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month
driving-under- the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code § 13352
(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall advise the person convicted of a third DUI that after
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
4 of ?
completion of 12 months of the suspension period, the person may
apply for a restricted license subject to the following
conditions:
Proof of enrollment in an 18 month or 30 month
driving-under-the influence program.
The person agrees to continued satisfactory
participation in the program.
The person submits proof of installation of an ignition
interlock device.
The person provides proof of insurance.
The person pays all fees. (Vehicle Code § 13352
(a)(5).)
Existing law provides that if a first-offender DUI is found to
have a blood concentration of .20% BAC or above or who refused
to take a chemical test, the court shall refer the offender to
participate in a 9-month licensed program. (Vehicle Code §
23538 (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a first-time DUI offender sentenced
to a 9-month program because of a high BAC or a refusal shall
have their license suspended for 10 months. The law further
provides that their license may not be reinstated until the
person gives proof of insurance and proof of completion of the
required program. (Vehicle Code § 13352.1.)
Existing law provides that a person convicted of a first-time
DUI may apply for a restricted license for driving to and from
work and to and from a driver-under-influence program if
specified requirements are met, paying all applicable fees,
submitting proof of insurance and proof of participation in a
program. (Vehicle Code § 13352.4.)
Existing law provides that a second or subsequent DUI offender
can get his or her license reinstated earlier if he or she
agrees to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) along with
his or her enrollment in the required program, proof of
insurance and payment of specified fees. (Vehicle Code §§
13352(a)(3)(B); (a)(4) (B); (a)(5)(C); (a)(6)(B); (a)(7)(B)&(C))
Existing law 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 5 months upon a first
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
5 of ?
offense, 12 months for a second offense, 24 months for a 3rd
offense and for 36 months for a 4th or subsequent offense.
(Vehicle Code § 23700)
Existing law 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. (Vehicle Code
§ 23701)
This bill extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2017.
This bill provides that beginning July 1, 2017 all DUI offenders
will be required to install an IID for a specified period of
time in order to have their license reinstated.
This bill removes the time a person must have a suspended
license before he or she is able to apply for a restricted
license.
This bill would allow a court to order a person convicted of a
"wet reckless" to install an ignition interlock device on his or
her car.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
6 of ?
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
7 of ?
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
A recent report by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
found that IIDs in California have prevented over 1
million instances of drinking and driving since 2010:
http://www.madd.org/local-offices/ca/documents/Californi
a-Report.pdf
According to DMV data, during the last 30 years, over
50,000 people have died in California because of drunk
drivers and over 1 million have been injured. Under
current law, installation of IIDs is optional for DUI
offenders. A four county pilot program is currently
underway in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and
Tulare counties requiring IIDs for any convicted drunk
driver (AB 91 of 2009). SB 61 (Hill, 2015) temporarily
continued the 4-county pilot program so the legislature
has time to review the DMV report in 2016 and determine
the best way to move forward.
Currently, 25 states have laws requiring ignition
interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), requiring or highly incentivizing interlocks for
all convicted drunk drivers reduces drunk driving
recidivism by 67 percent. The CDC recommends Ignition
interlocks for everyone convicted of DWI, even for
first offenders.
Since New Mexico's interlock law was implemented in
2005, drunk driving fatalities are down by 38 percent.
Since Arizona and Louisiana implemented their interlock
law in 2007, drunk driving deaths have decreased by 43
and 35 percent, respectively. In Oregon, as a result of
2008 interlock law, DUI deaths are down 42 percent.
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
8 of ?
About half of California DUI offenders drive illegally
after their arrest and choose not to participate in
treatment or IID programs. SB 1046 will seek to bring
more offenders into the legal system by creating an
incentive program allowing offenders to drive soon
after their arrest if they show proof of IID
installation. The legislation will also continue &
expand assistance for low-income offenders.
The bill is consistent with reports from the National
Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Centers for
Disease and Prevention which both recommend that all
people convicted of drunk driving should have ignition
interlock devices installed in their cars. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found
that "ignition interlocks, when appropriately used,
prevent alcohol-impaired driving by DWI offenders,
resulting in increased safety for all roadway users."
2. The Pilot Project
In 2009, AB 91 (Feuer) created an IID pilot project in four
counties which mandates the use of an IID for all DUI offenders.
DMV will issue a soon 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 in California. While
the impact of IID has been studied elsewhere, with mixed
results, the comparisons are not perfect because while some of
the other states began mandating IID at the same time they
strengthened other sanctions, California has had a complex group
of sanctions including high fines, jail time, licensing
sanctions, mandatory drinker-driver treatment programs and
optional IID in place since the mid-1980's with sanctions being
evaluated, changed and strengthened on an ongoing basis since.
The thought was that with a pilot project, DMV can evaluate how
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
9 of ?
best a mandatory IID system should work in California. By
evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory
programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.
Evaluating how the DUI sanctions work is something DMV
researchers have been doing with great success since 1990. DMV's
reports have helped inform the Legislature on where changes
needed to be made and have helped reduce recidivism in
California.
Last year, SB 61 (Hill) extended the pilot project until January
1, 2016.
3. Results From the Pilot Project
In January of 2015, DMV released their report on the pilot
project entitled "General Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition
Interlock Pilot Program in California." The report found that
even though "[d]uring the pilot period, 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 license-based 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." (California DMV, "General Deterrent Evaluation of the
Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California" January 2015
Executive Summary p. vii) Thus the pilot projects showed no
"general deterrent" effect of requiring the installation of an
IID by all offenders. Requiring the installation did not result
in fewer DUI's in the pilot counties.
By the January 2015 due date, DMV was not able to gather the
appropriate data to do an additional report on specific
deterrent but is finishing up that additional report. While
general deterrent shows whether the threat of an IID will keep a
person from committing a DUI the first time, a report on a
specific deterrent will show whether the installation of an IID
by a DUI offender will keep that person from becoming a repeat
offender. Both are relevant goals in deciding what sanctions
shall be imposed on a DUI offender.
Because the report of the pilot projects showed no general
deterrent and it is not yet known what the results on specific
deterrent will show, DMV recommends "that subsequent legislative
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
10 of ?
action take into consideration the findings of the specific
deterrence evaluation of this pilot program." (CA DMV id at p.5)
This report has not been released yet but is expected to be
released sometime soon.
4. Rates of Installation in the Pilot Counties
As the author notes in his background, the installation rates
for IID in this mandatory program increases significantly in the
pilot counties from a pre pilot average of 2.1% to an average of
42.4% installation rates. Non-pilot counties also saw a small
increase in installation during this time frame, from 2.1% to
4.3% because of a incentivized voluntary installation program
that began at the same time as the pilot. While the increase is
significant, once could ask that in a mandatory program why the
installation is not higher. A person with a DUI cannot get his
or her license back until he or she has shown that he or she has
installed an IID. First offenders make up most of the DUI
offenders and most first time DUI offenders can get their
license back within 6 months and many are eligible for a
restricted license sooner. The installation rate may indicate a
significant number of offenders who have not gone back to get a
valid license. They may not be driving or they may be driving
without a valid license and insurance.
5. Mandatory Installation of IID
This bill would require any person convicted of a DUI to install
an ignition interlock device on all the cars he or she owns for
a specified period of time. A person convicted of a first
offense has a six month suspension and the IID must be installed
for six months. A person with a second offense has a two-year
suspension and the IID must be installed for 12 months. A
person with a third offense has a three year suspension and the
IID must be installed for 24 months. A person with a fourth or
subsequent offense has a four year suspension and the ID must be
installed for 36 months.
For repeat offenders, the mandatory IID time frame is shorter
than the time for the suspended license. As discussed more
below, this bill allows the IID to be installed immediately
after conviction, maybe as soon as an administrative suspension.
It is unclear how this works. A person with a 2nd DUI
immediately installs the IID and does the mandatory time of 12
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
11 of ?
months but would then still have an additional 12 months to
serve out their suspension. If he or she has complied with the
12 months can he or she remove the IID and still drive on a
restricted license?
6. Removal of Hard Suspension
Under existing law, a person convicted of a DUI must wait a
period of time before they can apply to DMV for a restricted
license. Since 2005, all licensing actions have gone through
DMV not the courts. This bill would remove that mandatory
suspension and allow a person to immediately get an ignition
interlock device if he or she installs an IID and meets the
other requirements. It may also allow the installation during
any time of and any administrative suspension since it allows
the installation without "any suspension."
According to the latest DMV report on the DUI Management
Information System, DUI arrests in 2011 decreased by 8.0%
following decreases of 6.1% in 2010 and 2.9% in 2009.
(California DMV 2013 Annual Report of the California DUI
Management Information System p. iii)
The report further indicated that the 1-year recidivism rates
for all first DUI offenders decreased to the lowest level seen
in the past 21years. The DUI re-offense rate for first
offenders arrested in 2010 was 46.1% lower than the re-offense
rate for first offenders arrested in 1990. The 1-year
re-offense rate for second DUI offenders continued to remain at
the lowest level in the past 21years. And recidivism decreased
from 9.7% in 1990 to 5.2% in 2010, a 46.4% relative decrease for
second DUI offenders. (Id atp. 33)
The 2013 and prior reports have all indicated a link between the
decline in DUIs and the mandatory suspension of a license
because a significant decline occurred after a mandatory
administrative suspension (APS) was indicated:
The re-offense rates of second offenders remain higher
than those of first offenders across all years
Previous DUI -MIS reports suggested that, while many
factors may be associated with the overall decline in
DUI incidents for both first and second offenders, the
reduction may largely be attributed to the
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
12 of ?
implementation of APS suspensions in 1990. An
evaluation (Rogers, 1997) of the California APS Law
documents recidivism reductions of up to 21.1% for
first offenders and 19.5% for repeat offenders,
attributable to the law. (Id 37)
The Committee may wish to consider whether it is good policy to
eliminate a sanction that has been studies and appears to reduce
the recidivism rate in California and replace it with a sanction
that the first study has indicated has no general deterrence and
the data has yet to be finally analyzed as to specific
deterrence.
7. Reduced Fine if Interlock Installed Early
If a person installs an interlock during his or her hard
suspension as discussed above, this bill provides that the court
shall reduce his or her fine by $500.
8. Payment for IID
This bill purports to set up a sliding scale for payment of an
IID but it is not clear how it would work.
First it is not clear who has the authority to verify whether
the IID installers are actually following the sliding scale set
up.
The sliding scale language in the bill describes the provider
absorbing portions of "the cost of the ignition interlock
device" for those that meet specified income limits. It does
not specify what is included in the cost of the device. The
device is one cost but the monitoring costs are additional. Are
these included?
The bill says that the cost of the IID can only be raised equal
to the Consumer Price Index but does not indicate where that
price shall currently start.
9. What if You Don't Own a Car?
This bill provides that a driver can indicate he or she does not
own a vehicle any longer in order to not be subject to the IID
requirement. However, that request must be made 30 days after
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
13 of ?
the DMV notifies the person of the requirement. Thirty days may
not be enough time for an offender to realize the true cost of
the fines, fees, programs and now IID costs associated with a
DUI. An offender may at first think they can keep their car and
not drive it during the time of their license only to realize
later that they need to sell it or the cost is just not worth it
when they are facing the cost of the DUI. Is the 30 days
realistic for someone with a 2-year or more license suspension?
10. Support
According to Advocates for Highway Safety:
Drunk driving is a deadly and costly threat to
California families. While nationally drunk driving
fatalities decreased 2.5 percent in 2013, California
experienced a 6 percent increase from the previous year
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)), and statistics for 2014 alcohol involved
crashes show that fatalities remain high. In 2014,
1,053 people were needlessly killed in alcohol-related
crashes on California's streets and roads, accounting
for over one quarter (29 percent) of all traffic
fatalities. Moreover, drunk driving is costly.
California taxpayers were burdened by $5.4 billion in
drunk driving related costs in 2013 (MADD). Clearly,
this is a serious and expensive problem on California's
roads which requires urgent attention and the effective
solution of IIDs.
California's current law allows optional use of IIDs
statewide, but only about 20 percent of convicted drunk
drivers who have a choice of installing an IID or
driving on a limited restricted license opt for IID
installation. The state also continues to maintain a
pilot program requiring the use of IIDs for all
offenders in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and
Tulare counties. Data from the California Department of
Motor Vehicle (DMV) shows a higher rate of IID use in
the pilot program counties.1 A recent MADD report on
the effectiveness of IIDs in California noted that
since the California pilot program began, IIDs have
"prevented vehicles from starting over 1 million times
because alcohol was detected on the driver's breath."2
According to the MADD report, IIDs prevent over 1,900
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
14 of ?
drunk driving incidents per month in California.
11. Opposition
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice oppose this bill
stating:
Currently, four counties are experimenting with
mandatory IID in EVERY case even if a judge makes an
alternative finding.
There are sample studies supporting the effectiveness
of IID use and greater compliance when ordered on a
case-by-case basis or included in a negotiated plea.
SB 1046 simply imposes the 4-county experiment
statewide. Thus far DMV has not concluded that such a
blanket approach is more effective than current law in
54 counties.
Furthermore, California law incentivizes the
installation of IID's for second time offenders with
significant success. SB 1046 conflicts with this
proven approach by mandating its usage for every
first-time offenders.
For years DMV statistics have shown that, under current
law and using best practices, very few drivers reoffend
with the first six months, which is the period covered
by SB 1046. As such, a statewide mandate seems to be
inconsistent with empirical evidence.
A 54-county expansion will result in an exponential
increase in business for IID companies and there has
been limited oversight of these companies, especially
those who plan to be rewarded with significant increase
in revenues as a result of SB 1046. This artificial
spike in profits should be contemplated only after a
thorough assessment of the practices of the IID
businesses in California. This is especially critical
when DMV studies do support such a mandatory approach.
Lastly, the four-county experiment of eliminating
SB 1046 (Hill ) Page
15 of ?
judicial discretion has not been fully analyzed to
determine whether this is the most appropriate public
policy. We anticipate the DMV report will address many
of these concerns and the Legislature can explore the
department's findings to determine appropriate next
steps. Until then, any action on this issue is
premature.
-- END -