BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  June 28, 2016


                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS


                                  Rudy Salas, Chair


                       SB 1046(Hill) - As Amended June 8, 2016


          SENATE VOTE:  39-0


          NOTE: This bill is double-referred and is scheduled to be heard  
          in the Assembly Committee on Transportation on Monday, June 27,  
          2016.


          SUBJECT:  Driving under the influence:  ignition interlock  
          device


          SUMMARY:  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.  


          EXISTING LAW:   


          1)Makes it unlawful for any person who is under the influence of  
            any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined  
            influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a  
            vehicle.  (Vehicle Code (VEH)  23152(a))








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  2







          2)Makes it unlawful for any person, while having 0.08 percent or  
            more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a  
            vehicle.  (VEH  23152(b))
          3)Establishes the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV's)  
            administrative penalties and sanctions for a person convicted  
            of a DUI.  (VEH  13350-13392)


          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)Authorizes the DMV to reinstate the license of a second or  
            subsequent DUI offender earlier if the offender agrees to  
            install an IID along with the offender's enrollment in the  
            required program, proof of insurance, and payment of specified  
            fees.  (Vehicle Code  13352)


          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)


          7)Establishes the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair,  
            Home Furnishings, and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI) under the  
            supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs  
            and requires the director to administer and enforce the  
            Electronic the Appliance Repair Dealer Registration Law.   
            (Business & Professions Code (BPC)  9800 - 9874)








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  3







          8)Authorizes a registered service dealer to install, calibrate,  
            service, maintain, and monitor IIDs.  (BPC  9807)  


          9)Authorizes the director to deny, suspend, revoke, or place on  
            probation the registration of an electronic and appliance  
            repair service dealer for violations of the Appliance Repair  
            Dealer Registration Law, including fraud, dishonest dealing,  
            and untrue or misleading statements.  (BPC  9830 - 9833)


          10)Establishes the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) under the  
            supervision and control of the Director of Consumer Affairs  
            and requires the director to administer and enforce the  
            Automotive Repair Act, which provides for the registration and  
            regulation of automotive repair dealers (ARDs).  (BPC  9880  
            - 9889.68)


          11)Requires the BAR to cooperate with the Office of Traffic  
            Safety to adopt standards for installation, maintenance, and  
            servicing of IIDs by ARDs.  (BPC  9882.14)


          12)Authorizes ARDs to install, maintain, and service an IID.   
            (Title 16 California Code of Regulations  3363.1 - 3363.4)


          13)Authorizes the director to deny, suspend, revoke, or place on  
            probation the registration of an ARD for violations of the  
            Automotive Repair Act, including dishonesty, fraud, or deceit.  
             (BPC  9889.1 - 9889.10) 


          THIS BILL: 










                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  4





          14)Extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2017.


          15)Provides that beginning July 1, 2017 all DUI offenders will  
            be required to install an IID for a specified period of time  
            in order to have their license reinstated, as specified.


          16)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 IID.


          17)Allows a court to order a person convicted of a "wet  
            reckless" to install an IID on his or her car.


          18)Requires the DMV to issue a report to the Legislature by June  
            1, 2021, regarding the implementation and efficacy of the  
            requirements under this bill.


          19)Requires IID manufacturers to adopt a fee schedule under  
            which the manufacturer will absorb a varying amount of an  
            offender's cost for the IID based on the offender's income  
            relative to the federal poverty level.


          20)Clarifies that the BAR and BEARFHTI may bring an  
            administrative action against an ARD or registered service  
            dealer for failing to adhere to the fee schedule.


          21)Makes other conforming changes.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Senate Appropriation Committee:










                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  5





          1)IID program automation:  Significant one-time programming  
            costs in excess of $500,000 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.
          2)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.


          3)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  
            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.


          4)Legislative report:  One-time costs of $500,000  for the DMV  
            to research, develop, and submit the report on the IID  
            program.


          5)IID vendor oversight:  Unknown, but potentially significant  
            ongoing costs 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. 


          6)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.








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  6







          COMMENTS:  


          Purpose.  This bill is sponsored by the author and  Mothers  
          Against Drunk Driving  (MADD).  According to the author, "In  
          California, each year about 1,000 people die from drunk drivers  
          and more than 20,000 are injured?.  Over the last five years  
          ignition interlock devices have prevented drinking and driving  
          over one million times in California.  Let me state that again:  
          California's ignition interlock program for DUI offenders has  
          prevented someone from drinking and driving over 1 million times  
          during the last five years.  This bill expands the program  
          statewide so all Californians can benefit from safer roadways."


          Background.  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.  As proposed by this bill, 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 IID  
          must be installed for 36 months.


          Pilot Project.  AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009,  
          created an IID pilot project in four counties which mandates the  
          use of an IID for all DUI offenders.  The rationale for a pilot  
          project was to see what impact a mandatory IID program has on  
          recidivism in California.  


          While the impact of IID has been studied elsewhere, with mixed  
          results, the comparisons are not perfect because while some of  
          the other states began mandating IID at the same time they  








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  7





          strengthened other sanctions, California has had a complex group  
          of sanctions including high fines, jail time, licensing  
          sanctions, mandatory DUI treatment programs and optional IID in  
          place since the mid-1980's with sanctions being evaluated,  
          changed and strengthened on an ongoing basis since.  


          The thought was that with a pilot project, the DMV can evaluate  
          how best a mandatory IID system should work in California.  By  
          evaluating four counties, the counties without the mandatory  
          programs act like a control group for the researchers at DMV.   
          Evaluating how the DUI sanctions work is something the DMV  
          researchers have been doing with great success since 1990.  The  
          DMV's reports have helped inform the Legislature on where  
          changes needed to be made which may have contributed to reduce  
          recidivism in California.


          DMV Reports on AB 91.  So far, the DMV has released two studies  
          on the efficacy of the county pilot programs.  The first report  
          was published in 2015 and was entitled General Deterrent  
          Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in  
          California.  In the report, the DMV found that:


            The IID pilot program? does not appear to be associated with a  
            reduction in the number of first-time DUI convictions and  
            repeat DUI offenses in the pilot counties?. Even though the  
            IID pilot program was not found to have a general deterrent  
            effect on the occurrence of DUI convictions in designated  
            pilot counties, this evaluation does not provide information  
            about the specific deterrence effect of this pilot program.   
            To determine if this IID pilot program is associated with  
            changes in the specific behavior of individual drivers who  
            were convicted of DUI subsequent to the implementation of the  
            AB 91 law and thus were subject to the IID pilot program  
            requirements, a separate, so called, specific deterrence  
            evaluation needs to be conducted.









                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  8






          The second report was the DMV's Specific Deterrent Evaluation of  
          the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California, published on  
          June 17, 2016, which found that: 


          1)Pilot participants had lower DUI recidivism rates than other  
            DUI offenders, but these lower rates significantly diminished  
            over time; and, 
          2)Individuals obtaining an IID-restricted license had a higher  
            increase in crashes, including fatal/injury crashes, compared  
            to DUI offenders whose licenses remained suspended or revoked.  



          In discussing the results, the DMV noted that: 


            Although the reduction in DUI recidivism provides evidence of  
            benefits associated with IID restrictions, the increased crash  
            risks associated with the AB 91 pilot program suggest that  
            additional investigation and research could be beneficial.   
            Inclusion of information regarding crash responsibility (i.e.  
            at-fault/not-at-fault), alcohol involvement, or severity level  
            (i.e., fatal/injury crashes versus property-damage only  
            crashes) may provide further insight.


            Future discussions regarding IID requirements should consider  
            the effectiveness of IIDs as a single countermeasure or  
            whether combining IIDs with driver license revocation or  
            suspension actions and other countermeasures, could provide a  
            more effective approach to enhancing traffic safety.


          In sum, the DMV found that, while the pilot programs did not  
          demonstrate a greater general deterrent effect (i.e. preventing  
          drinking and driving before it happens), it did find that IID  
          installation is associated with a lower risk of DUI recidivism  








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  9





          (i.e. potentially more effective at preventing DUI offenders  
          from offending again).  However, because the DMV contends that  
          there may be superior combinations of mandatory suspension  
          periods and IID installations based on offender types, the DMV  
          does not recommend expanding the pilot program statewide at this  
          time.  Specifically, the DMV recommends:


          1)Convene a task force including representatives from the  
            Legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, and other public  
            agencies to develop recommendations for strengthening  
            components of California's comprehensive DUI countermeasure  
            system.
          2)Evaluate the traffic safety benefits of the IID program  
            implemented under SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of  
            2009, including the effectiveness of shortening a hard license  
            suspension or revocation period for those DUI offenders who  
            choose to obtain an IID-restricted license.


          3)Collaborate with representatives from the courts, law  
            enforcement, and other entities to explore options for using  
            IIDs as an effective DUI countermeasure, including using IIDs  
            as an "alcohol-abstinence-compliance" monitoring tool in a  
            modified version of the traditional DUI court model.


          4)Conduct and report to the Legislature an evaluation of prior  
            studies on the effectiveness of DUI countermeasures in place  
            in California (including IIDs).  This report will offer  
            recommendations on legislative reforms to both retain and/or  
            expand effective countermeasures and revise and/or strengthen  
            less effective countermeasures.


          Hard Suspension.  Under existing law, a person convicted of a  
          DUI must wait a period of time before they can apply to the DMV  
          for a restricted license.  Since 2005, all licensing actions  
          have gone through the DMV not the courts.  This bill removes  








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  10





          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 any administrative suspension since it allows the  
          installation without "any suspension."


          According to the latest 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).  The report further indicated that the  
          one-year recidivism rates for all first DUI offenders decreased  
          to the lowest level seen in the past 21 years. 


          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.


          Sliding Scale for IID Costs.  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.  Further, this bill says that the cost of the IID  








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  11





          can only be raised equal to the Consumer Price Index but does  
          not indicate where that price shall currently start.


          Regardless, this bill specifies that the BAR and the BEARHFTI  
          have the authority to verify whether ARDs and registered service  
          dealers who install IIDs are following the sliding scale.  This  
          is a clarifying change, as both bureaus have the authority to  
          require an ARD or registered service dealer to follow the fee  
          schedule.  For instance, both practice acts prohibit  
          overcharging, an act of dishonesty, and negligence. 


          Prior Related Legislation.  SB 61 (Hill), Chapter 350, Statutes  
          of 2015, extended the operation of the pilot program until July  
          1, 2017.


          SB 55 (Hill) of 2013, would have established a statutory scheme  
          under which, as a condition of being issued a restricted  
          driver's license, being reissued a driver's license, or having  
          the privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated for a 2nd or  
          subsequent conviction for a an alcohol-related violation of the  
          above offenses, a person would be required to install for a  
          specified period of time an ignition interlock device on all  
          vehicles he or she owns or operates, except as provided. NOTE:  
          This bill was held in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.


          SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 193, Statutes of 2009, requires the DMV  
          to advise a person convicted of a second or third offense of DUI  
          with a BAC of .08% or more that he or she may receive a  
          restricted license, as specified, if he or she shows  
          verification of installation of a certified IID and pays a fee  
          sufficient to include the costs of administration, as specified.


          AB 91 (Feuer), Chapter 217, Statutes of 2009, established an IID  
          pilot project in four counties which mandates the use of an IID  








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  12





          for all DUI offenders.


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 


          The  Advocates for Highway Safety  write in support, "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 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.  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.'  According  
          to the MADD report, IIDs prevent over 1,900 drunk driving  
          incidents per month in California."


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:








                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  13







          The  California Attorneys for Criminal Justice  write in  
          opposition, "This bill will eliminate judges' discretion in 54  
          counties, to require an ignition interlock device (IID) for  
          first time DUI offenders as part of sentencing and applicable  
          probation conditions.  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.


          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 [this bill].  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 [this  
          bill].  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 not appear to support such a mandatory approach.










                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  14






          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." 


          REGISTERED SUPPORT:


          Mothers Against Drunk Driving (co-sponsor) 


          AAA Automobile Club of Northern and Southern California 
          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









                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  15






          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 


          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 









                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  16






          Long Beach Police Officers Association 


          Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer


          Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association


          Los Angeles Police Protective League


          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 









                                                                    SB 1046


                                                                    Page  17






          San Marcos Prevention Coalition 


          Tulare County Supervisor Ennis


          REGISTERED OPPOSITION:


          California Attorneys for Criminal Justice


          Analysis Prepared by:Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301