BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    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