BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1046
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1046
(Hill) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Transportation |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Business and Professions | |16 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill, effective July 1, 2018, and until January 1, 2025,
requires 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:
SB 1046
Page 2
1)Extends, until July 1, 2018, the existing four-county pilot
project requiring a person
convicted of a DUI to install an
IID, as specified.
2)Requires, beginning July 1, 2018, 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.
3)Removes, with installation of the IID, the time period that a
person currently has his or her license suspended before he or
she is able to apply for a restricted driver's license.
4)Requires IID manufacturers to adopt and to inform an offender
about a sliding scale fee schedule, under which the
manufacturer will absorb a varying amount of an offender's
costs for IID installation and monitorying, based on the
offender's income, as verified by specific means, relative to
the federal poverty level.
5)Stipulates that a DUI offender that provides proof of receipt
of CalFresh benefits is responsible for 50% of the cost for
IID installation and monitoring.
6)Requires registered service dealers and repair dealers who
install IIDs to inform individuals receiving IIDs of the
SB 1046
Page 3
sliding scale fee schedule and income verification standards
per (4), and authorizes the Director of Consumer Affairs to
suspend, revoke, or place on probation the registration of a
dealer for noncompliance with requirements in (4) or to impose
a citation of up to $1,000 for noncompliance.
7)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to report, as
specified, to the Legislature regarding the implementation and
efficiency of the statewide IID program by January 1, 2024.
8)Authorizes the DMV to impose an administrative service fee to
cover its costs.
FISCAL EFFECT:
DMV. The department will incur one-time special fund costs in
2017-18 of about $300,000 for staff to promulgate regulations
and to revise programs, forms, and procedures, and $700,000 for
computing programming. Ongoing costs, starting in 2018-19, will
be $2.4 million for headquarters and field office processing of
submission of proof of IID installation for DUI offenders
seeking a restricted license. The bill authorizes DMV to collect
an administrative fee to cover its reasonable costs. Under the
existing four-county pilot, the department charges a $45 fee. In
addition, the state may be eligible for up to $1.5 million
annually in federal transportation funds that are earmarked for
states that mandate IIDs for DUI offenders.
DCA. Costs will be minor and absorbable for additional
enforcement.
SB 1046
Page 4
LAO. Costs for LAO to provide the evaluation report should be
absorbable. Contrary to the most recent amendments, however, the
data collection responsibility should rest with another
statewide entity.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. DUI sanctions in California including significant
fines and penalty assessments, jail time, licensing sanctions,
mandatory DUI treatment programs, and optional IID policies.
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 requiring for all DUI
offenders. Instead 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 violation, then return to the DMV to obtain a
restored license at the end of the suspension period.
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 the
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 extended by SB 61 (Hill), Chapter 350, Statutes of
2015, to allow the department additional time to analyze the
program's results.
In evaluating the pilot program, the DMV concluded that the
program did not demonstrate a greater general deterrent effect
(i.e. preventing drinking and driving before it happens), but
that the IID installation is associated with a lower risk of
DUI recidivism (i.e. potentially more effective at preventing
SB 1046
Page 5
DUI offenders from offending again). The DMV contends,
however, that there may be superior combinations of mandatory
suspension periods and IID installations based on offender
types, and does not recommend expanding the pilot program
statewide at this time.
2)Purpose. According to the author, 25 states already have laws
requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers.
The author indicates that the Centers for Diseases Control and
Prevention (CDC) has found that requiring or highly
incentivizing interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers
reduces drunk driving recidivism by 67%. The CDC, as well as
the National Transportation Safety Board, recommends IIDs for
everyone convicted of DUI, even for the first-time offenders.
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?This bill expands the program statewide so all
Californians can benefit from safer roadways." SB 1046 is
cosponsored by the author and Mothers Against Drunk Driving
(MADD), and is supported by numerous law enforcement groups.
The installation rates for mandated IIDs in the four-county
pilot program increased significantly-from a pre-piloted
averaged of 2.1% to an average of 42.4%. In non-pilot
counties, the installation rate increased only slightly during
the same time frame-from 2.1% to 4.3%. (This increase
coincided with implementation of SB 598 (Huff), Chapter 196,
Statutes of 2009, which allowed someone convicted of a second
or third DUI to apply for a restricted license upon
installation of an IID). Installation rates in the pilot
counties ranged from 46.7% for the first time offenders to
33.2% for the second time offenders to 15.7% for third-or-more
offenders, suggesting that even though installation of the
devices is mandatory, offenders are more often than not still
choosing not to comply with IID requirement.
SB 1046
Page 6
The author addresses 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 included into complying with the mandatory IID
requirement.
3)Opposition. The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
(CACJ) opposes the elimination of judges' discretion over IID
installation for DUI offenders, and cites the inconclusiveness
of the DMV report on the pilot program.
4)Related Legislation. SB 1066 (Jim Beall), also on today's
committee agenda, authorizes the use of 24/7 Sobriety programs
for DUI offenders, whereby a participant must abstain from
alcohol or controlled substance use for a designated time
period and be subject to at least twice-per-day breath testing
for alcohol or periodic testing for controlled substances at a
testing location or by wearing a transdermal monitoring
device.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081