BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    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