BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1462 (Huff) - Vehicles: driving under the influence: drug
testing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 21, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 9, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1462 would allow the use of an oral fluid screening
test to determine the presence or concentration of drugs, to
assist an officer in making a determination that a person was
driving under the influence of drugs.
Fiscal
Impact:
Local law enforcement agencies : Potentially major
non-reimbursable local costs in the millions of dollars (Local
Funds) statewide for screening kits, training, and associated
operational costs.
CHP : To the extent the California Highway Patrol (CHP) opts
to utilize this investigatory tool, potentially significant
one-time and ongoing costs potentially in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars (Special Fund*/Federal Funds) to purchase
the screening kits. To the extent the CHP seeks federal grant
funding to purchase the screening kits would serve to mitigate
SB 1462 (Huff) Page 1 of
?
state costs. To the extent federal funding is not granted or
is insufficient to cover total costs, these costs would be
funded by state funds. The costs associated with training on
the use of the tests are estimated to be minor and absorbable.
DMV : Minor costs of less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) to
distribute memoranda to the courts and law enforcement
agencies.
State prisons : Potentially significant increase in state
costs (General Fund) for new commitments to state prison to
the extent the use of oral fluid screening tests results in
additional felony convictions to state prison. The CDCR
indicates over 1,700 commitments in 2015 under the applicable
DUI offenses. The number of additional commitments resulting
from the bill cannot be known with certainly. For every one
percent increase in annual commitments, costs are estimated at
$500,000 (General Fund) assuming the contract bed rate of
$29,000 per year.
Local jails : Potentially major increase in local costs (Local
Funds) for additional misdemeanor convictions that result in a
greater number of sentences to county jail. The DMV data
indicates nearly 118,000 convictions in 2015 for the DUI
offenses applicable to this measure. Even a one percent
increase in convictions would result in a significant impact
to local jails.
*Motor Vehicle Account
Background: Existing law provides that it is unlawful for a person who is
under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under
the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to
drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code (VC) § 23152.)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for a person, while
under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or while
under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug,
to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law,
or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which
act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person
other than the driver. (VC § 23153.)
SB 1462 (Huff) Page 2 of
?
Under existing law, a preliminary alcohol screening test based
on a breath sample in order to establish reasonable cause to
believe the person was driving a vehicle in violation of
specified DUI laws may be used by an officer. If the officer
decides to use a preliminary alcohol screening test, the officer
is required to advise the person that he or she is requesting
that person take the test to assist the officer in determining
if that person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a
combination of both. Existing law provides that a person's
obligation to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test for the
purposes of determining the alcohol or drug content of that
person's blood is not satisfied by the person submitting to the
preliminary test. The officer is required to advise the person
of that fact and of the person's right to refuse to take the
preliminary alcohol screening test. (VC § 23612.)
This bill seeks to additionally authorize the use of preliminary
oral fluid screening tests to assist officers in establishing
reasonable cause to believe a person is driving under the
influence of drugs.
According to the U.S. Governmental Accounting Office (GAO)
report to Congress, Drug-Impaired Driving - Additional Support
Needed for Public Awareness Initiatives (February 2015):
Various state and national-level data sources-including surveys,
arrest data, drug-testing results, and crash data-provide
limited information on the extent of drugged and drug-impaired
driving in the United States. For example, based on preliminary
results from a representative sample of weekend-nighttime and
Friday daytime drivers, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of
Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers (NRS) estimated that 20 percent
of drivers would have tested positive for at least one drug,
with marijuana being the most common drug. However, the survey
does not capture the extent to which drivers were impaired by
drugs. Arrest data and drug-testing results provide some
information on drug-impaired driving, but these data are
limited. For example, data for drug impairment may not be
separated from that for alcohol impairment and drug testing is
not standardized. According to NHTSA officials, currently
available data on drug involvement in crashes are generally
SB 1462 (Huff) Page 3 of
?
unreliable due to variances in reporting and testing.
The lack of a clear link between impairment and drug
concentrations in the body makes it difficult to define drug
impairment, which, in turn, exacerbates challenges related to
enforcement and public awareness. Compared to alcohol, defining
and identifying impairment due to drugs is more complicated due
to the large number of available drugs and their unpredictable
effects. For example, the NRS includes tests for 75 illegal
prescriptions, and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs identified as
potentially impairing. Additionally, law enforcement processes
for obtaining samples for drug testing can be time consuming and
result in a loss of evidence. For example, there is no validated
device for roadside drug testing, and obtaining a search warrant
to collect a blood sample to confirm the presence of drugs in a
driver's system could take several hours, during which time the
concentration of the drug in the driver's system could
dissipate. Further, state officials identified limited public
awareness about the dangers of drugged driving as a challenge.
As a result, members of the public may drive while impaired
without knowing the risks, potentially leading to collisions,
injuries, and fatalities.
Proposed Law:
This bill would allow the use of an oral fluid screening test
by a state or local law enforcement officer to determine the
presence or concentration of drugs, to assist an officer in
making a determination that a person was driving under the
influence of drugs. Specifically, this bill:
Provides that a preliminary oral fluid screening test
that indicates the presence or concentration of a drug or
controlled substance based on a sample is a field sobriety
test and may be used in order to establish reasonable cause
to believe the person was driving a vehicle in violation of
specified driving under the influence offenses.
States that if an officer decides to use an oral fluid
screening test, the officer shall advise the person that he
or she is requesting that person to take an oral fluid
screening test to assist the officer in determining if that
person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a
combination of alcohol and drugs.
SB 1462 (Huff) Page 4 of
?
States that a person's obligation to submit to a blood,
breath, or urine test, as required after arrest, for the
purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of that
person's blood, is not satisfied by the person submitting
to an oral fluid screening test. The officer shall advise
the person of that fact.
Requires the officer to advise the person of his or her
right to refuse to take the oral fluid screening test.
Related
Legislation: AB 1356 (Lackey) 2015 was substantially similar to
this measure. AB 1356 failed passage in the Assembly Committee
on Public Safety.
Staff
Comments: By authorizing the use of oral fluid screening tests,
this bill could result in major costs to law enforcement
agencies to purchase the oral fluid screening tests and provide
officer training on their use. Costs would be dependent on the
number of kits purchased, the number of officers trained to use
the investigatory advice, and the associated operational
activities required.
To the extent the use of oral fluid screening tests leads to
additional arrests and subsequent convictions for DUI offenses,
this bill could result in additional costs for state and local
incarceration of an unknown, but potentially significant amount.
Staff notes there is currently no per se level at which a person
is presumed intoxicated due to a controlled substance, and a
standard level has not been established at which a person is
presumed to be impaired. The lack of such a standard could lead
to future cost pressure on the courts related to challenges
brought forward on cases involving the use of these devices.
SB 1462 (Huff) Page 5 of
?
-- END --