BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1046|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1046
Author: Hill (D), et al.
Amended: 4/13/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 3/29/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Driving under the influence: ignition interlock
device
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires a driving under the influence (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.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides it is unlawful for any person who is under the
influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the
SB 1046
Page 2
combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to
drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 23152(a).)
2)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).)
3)Establishes penalties and sanctions for a person convicted of
a DUI. (Vehicle Code §§ 1335 et seq)
4)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.)
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. (Vehicle Code §§ 13352(a)(3)(B); (a)(4) (B); (a)(5)(C);
(a)(6)(B); (a)(7)(B)&(C))
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. (Vehicle
Code § 23700)
This bill:
1)Extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2017.
2)Provides that beginning July 1, 2017 all DUI offenders will be
SB 1046
Page 3
required to install an IID for a specified period of time in
order to have their license reinstated.
3)Removes the time a person must have a suspended license before
he or she is able to apply for a restricted license if he or
she installs an ignition interlock.
4)Allows a court to order a person convicted of a "wet reckless"
to install an IID on his or her car.
5)Provides that the Bureau of Automotive Repair, within the
Department of Consumer Affairs, shall have oversight over the
cost of the installation of an IID.
Comments
This bill requires any person convicted of a DUI to install an
IID 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.
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 removes that mandatory suspension
and allows a person to immediately get an IID 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
SB 1046
Page 4
suspension."
According to the latest Department of Motor Vehicle (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 one-year recidivism rates
for all first DUI offenders decreased to the lowest level seen
in the past 21years. (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 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)
Reduced Fine
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.
Sliding scale
SB 1046
Page 5
This bill provides that the Bureau of Automotive Affairs 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 IID. The IID is
one cost but the monitoring costs are additional.
This 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriation Committee:
IID program automation: Significant one-time programming
costs in excess of $500,000 (Special Fund*) for DMV to update
programs. Costs are estimated to be covered by the authority
of the DMV to charge a fee for administration of the program.
DMV field offices: Potential increase in annual costs of
$700,000 to $750,000 for additional transaction time required
in field offices to verify IID installation for applications
for restricted driver licenses. Costs are estimated to be
covered by the authority of the DMV to charge a fee for
administration of the program.
DMV headquarters: Ongoing increase in workload costs of
$400,000 to $450,000 resulting from processing proof of IID
installation forms and reinstatements requiring manual review
and processing. One-time costs for the development of
SB 1046
Page 6
regulations, changes to existing forms, and
preparation/distribution of notifications. Costs are estimated
to be covered by the authority of the DMV to charge a fee for
administration of the program.
Legislative report: One-time costs (Special Fund*) of
$500,000 (Special Fund*) for the DMV to research, develop, and
submit the report on the IID program.
IID vendor oversight: Unknown, but potentially significant
ongoing costs (Special Fund) for enforcement to the Bureau of
Electronic Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation of the Department of Consumer Affairs to the extent
a significant number of violations materialize resulting from
substantive complaints as a result of this bill.
DUI violations: Unknown, potential future impact on the
number of DUI arrests and convictions that would result in
related impacts to the costs incurred by the courts, treatment
programs, law enforcement, local jails, and state prisons.
SUPPORT: (Verified5/27/16)
AAA Automobile Club of Nor Cal and So Cal
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Alameda District Attorney O'Malley
Alcohol Justice
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Air Shock Trauma Rescue
California Ambulance Association
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Medical Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
SB 1046
Page 7
City of El Cajon
Crime Victims United of California
Emergency Nurses Association
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones
John Muir Health serving Contra Costa, Solano, Alameda and Marin
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
National Transportation Safety Board
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Regional Medical Center of San Jose
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Safety Council
San Diego County
San Francisco Chief of Police Greg Suhr
San Marcos Prevention Coalition
Tulare County Supervisor Ennis
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/27/16)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
ARGUMENTS IN 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
SB 1046
Page 8
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 drunk driving incidents per month in
California.
ARGUMENTS IN 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.
SB 1046
Page 9
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
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.
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
5/28/16 16:50:11
**** END ****