BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1046 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1046 (Hill) As Amended August 19, 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 January 1, 2019. 2)Requires, beginning January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2026, all DUI offenders to install an IID for a specified period of time in order to have their license reinstated, except as specified. 3)Removes, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2026, the time a person must have a suspended license before applying for a restricted license if the person installs an IID. 4)Allows a court, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2026, to order a person convicted of a "wet reckless" to install an IID on a car the person operates. SB 1046 Page 3 5)Requires the Transportation Agency to issue a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2024, regarding the implementation and efficacy of the requirements under this bill and authorizes the Transportation Agency to collect the necessary data and contract with educational institutions. 6)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to submit specified data to the Transportation Agency by March 1, 2024, for purposes of issuing the report to the Legislature. 7)Requires, commencing January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2026, 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 technical and conforming changes to both the existing pilot program and the program under this bill. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: SB 1046 Page 4 1)DMV. The DMV will incur one-time special fund costs in 2018-19 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 2019-20, 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 DMV 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)Transportation Agency. Unknown costs. 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. 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 SB 1046 Page 6 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: 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 SB 1046 Page 7 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 Transportation Agency, the DMV's parent agency, to issue the next report. It also requires the DMV to provide information to the Transportation Agency for the report and authorizes Transportation Agency 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 requirements. It may also allow the installation during any time of any administrative suspension since it allows the installation without "any suspension." SB 1046 Page 8 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, 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. SB 1046 Page 9 Analysis Prepared by: Vincent Chee / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0004738