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 ****