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