BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1046
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
SB
1046 (Hill) - As Amended June 8, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
SUBJECT: Driving under the influence: ignition interlock
device
SUMMARY: Extends and expands an existing pilot program to
require the installation of an ignition interlock device (IID)
for a specified period of time as a mandatory condition of
receiving a restricted or reinstated driver's license for all
driving under the influence (DUI) offenders statewide.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Extends the existing pilot project requiring a person
convicted of a DUI in one of four counties to install an IID,
as specified, until July 1, 2017.
2)Requires, beginning July 1, 2017 every DUI or alcohol-related
reckless driving offender to install an IID for a specified
period of time, depending on the nature of a violation, in
every motor vehicle they own or operate as a condition of
having his or her driver's license reinstated.
SB 1046
Page 2
3)Removes the time requirement a person must have a suspended
license before he or she is able to apply for a restricted
driver's license.
4)Provides that the Bureau of Automotive Repair, within the
Department of Consumer Affairs, has oversight over the cost
and installation of an IID.
5)Requires, by June 1, 2021, the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) to report to the Legislature regarding the
implementation and efficacy of the expanded IID program, as
specified.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits any person from driving a vehicle while under the
influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the
combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, and
establishes numerous sanctions for a violation of this
prohibition, including jail time, fees, participation in a DUI
treatment program, and license suspension or revocation, as
specified.
2)Prohibits any person from driving a vehicle while having 0.08%
or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood (BAC).
3)Provides that a person convicted of DUI for the first time may
apply for a restricted license if specific requirements are
met and all applicable fees are paid.
4)Authorizes the court to require a person convicted of a
SB 1046
Page 3
first-time DUI, as specified, to install an IID on any vehicle
that person operates and to further prohibit the operation of
any vehicle without an installed IID. Additionally, directs
the court to give heightened consideration of this requirement
to a first-time violator convicted of a DUI with a BAC of .15%
or greater.
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 providing proof of his or her
enrollment in the required DUI treatment program, proof of
insurance, and payment of specified fees.
6)Creates a mandatory 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 offense, 12
months for a second offense, 24 months for a third offense and
for 36 months for a fourth or subsequent offense. Requires
the mandatory IID pilot project to end on July 1, 2017, and
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: California has had a complex group of DUI sanctions
including high fines, jail time, licensing sanctions, mandatory
DUI treatment programs, and optional IID policies in place since
the mid-1980s. In most counties, a repeat DUI offender may by
ordered to install an IID as a condition of applying for and
receiving his or her restricted driver's license, but, unless
ordered by the court, installation is not required for all DUI
offenders - that is, an offender can choose not to drive at all
and wait out the full duration of his or her license suspension
while complying with all other sanctions resulting from the
SB 1046
Page 4
violation, and return to DMV to obtain a restored license after
that suspension period ends. In 2009, the Legislature passed
and the Governor signed SB 598 (Huff, Chapter 193) that
incentivized the installation of IIDs for repeat offenders by
shortening the suspension period an offender must serve before
applying for a restricted license, if he or she chooses to
install an IID.
AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, established a
pilot project in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare
counties mandating the installation of an IID for all DUI
offenders, including first-time offenders. AB 91 required DMV
to report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the
pilot project in reducing the number of first-time violations
and repeat offenses in the specified counties. The pilot was
intended to provide guidance for how best a mandatory IID system
could be implemented statewide by using the counties without the
mandatory program as a control group. The pilot was extended
last year by SB 61 (Hill, Chapter 350) to allow DMV more time to
analyze the program's results.
SB 1046 would expand the mandatory IID program statewide for all
offenders, including first-time offenders. In doing so, the
author seeks to prevent further instances of drinking and
driving by reducing DUI recidivism rates.
IID Research: Even after an extended pilot period, the effects
of California's mandatory IID program are still being understood
and compared to results from elsewhere in the United States. At
the federal level, the National Transportation Safety Board, the
United States Centers for Disease Control, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have all recommended or
endorsed the use of IIDs to reduce alcohol-related fatalities.
Data from other states with similar laws, including New Mexico,
Arizona, Louisiana, and Oregon suggest drunk driving fatalities
have decreased since those laws' enactment.
SB 1046
Page 5
Research conducted specifically on the effects of California's
mandatory IID program, however, has rendered inconclusive
results. For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving cites data
provided by IID manufacturers that suggest IIDs have prevented
over 1 million instances of drinking and driving in California
where the BAC of the driver was greater than .025 since 2010
(the legal limit is .08). Concurrently, DMV's analysis of the
AB 91 pilot found that mandatory DUI programs had little
evidence of a general deterrent effect (that is, on initial
offenders) but did appear to result in reduced rates of DUI
recidivism, suggesting a deterrent effect on subsequent
convictions. However, these lower rates significantly
diminished over time. Due to these seemingly inconsistent
results, consensus as to the full extent of California's
mandatory IID program's impact on DUI rates and traffic safety
remains elusive.
Committee concerns:
1)Analysis of the mandatory pilot program found that IID
installation rates in the four counties ranged from 46.7% for
first time offenders to 33.2% for second-time offenders to
15.7% for third-or-more, suggesting that even though
installation of the devices is mandatory, offenders are more
often than not choosing not to comply with the IID
requirement. The author intends to address this lack of
compliance by eliminating the mandatory suspension period that
offenders must wait out before applying for restricted
driver's licenses.
By allowing an offender to immediately apply for a license
upon installation of an IID, the author believes more
offenders will be induced into complying with the mandatory
IID requirement. This may, however, have unintended
SB 1046
Page 6
consequences. Research has demonstrated that the threat of
losing one's license through a DMV administrative action is an
effective deterrent due to the swiftness and certainty of the
punishment. Removing or hampering DMV's ability to suspend
licenses could actually have the unintended consequences of
weakening the desired deterrent effects.
2)As recently as this session, the Legislature has examined
establishing alternative DUI sanctions that could have
measureable and significant traffic safety impacts when used
in lieu of or in addition to existing sanctions, such as IIDs.
By making IID installation a mandatory condition of receiving
a restricted driving privilege in all cases, SB 1046 may
reduce the ability of a court to use its discretion to order
an offender to comply with sanctions that may be better suited
to the context of the offender's particular situation. For
example, if a court wished to require an offender to
participate in a 24/7 sobriety program as a substitute for
installation of an IID as a condition of receiving a
restricted driving privilege, the court would be precluded
from doing so by this bill.
While DMV's analysis of California's four pilot mandatory IID
program demonstrates some effect on lowering recidivism rates
of DUI offenders, it has yet to be proven that IIDs are
superior to alternative DUI sanctions in all circumstances, as
implied by this bill, in reducing rates of DUI and achieving
the state's other traffic safety goals. Mandating the
installation of IIDs in all offenders' vehicles and limiting
the suspension or revocation actions may unnecessarily limit
the court's abilities to tailor the sanctions imposed on an
offender to the specific circumstances of the violation.
3)In addition to the issue of picking one specific method as the
universal sanction in all DUI cases, this bill includes a
number of technical issues that would need to be resolved for
SB 1046
Page 7
this bill to be implemented as successfully as possible. For
example, this bill creates potential technical inconsistencies
between the suspension imposed under DMV's administrative
process beginning at the time of arrest and the suspension
imposed by the court upon conviction, leading to a potential
scenario where an offender installs an IID to receive a
restricted driver's license and avoid the court-imposed
suspension while still being required to sit out the DMV
administrative suspension.
Related legislation: AB 933 (Frazier) would authorize the court
to order a repeat DUI offender, to enroll, participate in, and
successfully complete, a qualified "24/7 Sobriety" monitoring
program, as defined, as a condition of probation, parole,
sentence, or work permit. AB 933 is pending in the Senate Rules
Committee.
AB 2367 (Cooley) would authorize the court to order a repeat DUI
offender, to enroll, participate in, and successfully complete,
a qualified "24/7 Sobriety" monitoring program, as defined, as a
condition of probation. AB 2367 was held on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
Previous legislation: AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of
2009, established a four-county pilot program requiring every
DUI offender to install an IID on all vehicles he or she owns or
operates.
SB 61 (Hill), Chapter 350, Statutes of 2015, extended the
existing AB 91 mandatory IID pilot program to July 1, 2017.
SB 55 (Hill) of 2013, would have required a second or subsequent
DUI offender to install an IID on his or her vehicles for a
specified time period in order to receive a restricted driver's
SB 1046
Page 8
license or to reinstate his or her driving privileges. SB 55
was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
AB 520 (Ammiano), Chapter 657, Statutes of 2011, allowed a
person convicted of alcohol-related reckless driving to apply
for a restricted license early if he or she complies with
specified requirements, including installation of an IID.
SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009, required DMV to
advise a person convicted of a second or third DUI offense with
a BAC of .08% or more that he or she may receive a restricted
license upon installation of an IID.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AAA Northern California, Nevada, and Utah
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Alcohol Justice
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
SB 1046
Page 9
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
Automobile Club of Southern California
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 Medical Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
City of El Cajon
County of San Diego
Crime Victims United of California
SB 1046
Page 10
Emergency Nurses Association, California State Council
Fraternal Order of Police
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones
John Muir Health
League of California Cities
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
National Safety Council
National Transportation Safety Board
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Regional Medical Center of San Jose
SB 1046
Page 11
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Todd Spitzer, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Third District
Opposition
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Analysis Prepared by:Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093