BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |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  ****