BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1046
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1046 (Hill)
As Amended August 15, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 39-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Transportation |10-0 |Frazier, Linder, | |
| | |Baker, Brown, Chu, | |
| | |Daly, Dodd, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, Kim, | |
| | |O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Business & |16-0 |Salas, Brough, Baker, | |
|Professions | |Bloom, Campos, | |
| | |Chávez, Dahle, Dodd, | |
| | |Eggman, Gatto, Gomez, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Mullin, Ting, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
SB 1046
Page 2
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood, | |
| | |McCarty | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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. Specifically, this bill:
1)Extends the existing pilot project until July 1, 2018.
2)Provides that, beginning July 1, 2018, and until January 1,
2025, all DUI offenders will be required to install an IID for
a specified period of time in order to have their license
reinstated, unless the court finds it would not be in the best
interests of justice to do so, as specified.
3)Removes, commencing July 1, 2018, and until January 1, 2025,
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.
4)Allows a court, commencing July 1, 2018, and until January 1,
2025, to order a person convicted of a "wet reckless" to
SB 1046
Page 3
install an IID on his or her car.
5)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to issue a
report to the Legislature by June 1, 2024, regarding the
implementation and efficacy of the requirements under this
bill and authorizes the LAO to collect the necessary data.
6)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to submit
specified data to the LAO by March 1, 2023 for purposes of
issuing the report to the Legislature.
7)Requires, commencing July 1, 2018, until January 1, 2025, 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.
8)Authorizes the relevant bureaus under the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA), the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)
and the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home
Furnishing, and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI), to impose a
civil assessment not to exceed $1,000 upon a manufacturer or
manufacturer's agent certified to provide ignition interlock
devices who fails to inform a DUI offender of the fee schedule
or who fails to comply with the fee schedule requirements.
9)Makes other conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
SB 1046
Page 4
1)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. This 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.
2)DCA. Costs will be minor and absorbable for additional
enforcement.
3)LAO. Costs for LAO to provide the evaluation report should be
absorbable.
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."
SB 1046
Page 5
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
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-1980s 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
SB 1046
Page 6
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.
The second report was the DMV's Specific Deterrent Evaluation of
the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California, published on
June 17, 2016. 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 (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:
SB 1046
Page 7
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.
This bill requires the LAO, instead of the DMV, to issue the
next report. It also requires the DMV to provide information to
the LAO for the report and authorizes LAO to collect other
information necessary to do so.
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
that mandatory suspension and allows a person to immediately get
an IID if he or she installs an IID and meets the other
SB 1046
Page 8
requirements. It may also allow the installation during any
time of any administrative suspension since it allows the
installation without "any suspension."
The DMV's 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 [management information system] 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
(California DMV 2013 Annual Report of the California DUI
Management Information System).
Sliding Scale for IID Costs. The sliding scale language in the
bill describes the provider absorbing portions of
"manufacturer's standard ignition interlock device program
costs, and any additional costs accrued by the person for
noncompliance with program requirements" for those that meet
specified income limits. The BAR and BEARHFTI already have the
authority to enforce compliance with the fee schedule among its
registrants through administrative action.
The bill also specifies that the DCA has the authority to impose
a $1000 fine upon a manufacturer or manufacturer's agent
certified to provide IIDs who does not inform an offender of the
fee schedule or fails to comply with the fee schedule. However,
SB 1046
Page 9
it is not clear how the bureaus enforce the penalty against
those who are not registered with either bureau since there is
no registration to revoke.
Analysis Prepared by:
Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN:
0004090