BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1601
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2009
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1601 (Hill) - As Amended: February 4, 2010
SUMMARY : Permits judges to permanently revoke the license of a
driver convicted of three driving under the influence (DUI)
offenses and eliminates the 10-year washout period for previous
DUI convictions for the purposes of enhancing misdemeanor and
felony penalties. Specifically, this bill :
1)States that a court may order the permanent revocation of the
driver's license of a person who was previously convicted of
three or more separate DUI violations. When making this
order, the court shall consider all of the following:
a) The person's level of remorse for the acts;
b) The period of time that has elapsed since the person's
previous convictions;
c) The person's blood-alcohol level at the time of the
violation;
d) The person's participation in an alcohol treatment
program.
e) The person's risk to traffic or public safety;
f) The person's ability to install a certified ignition
interlock device (IID) in each motor vehicle that he or she
owns or operates; and,
g) Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record
of the court showing the court has ordered permanent
revocation of a driver's license pursuant to this section,
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall permanently
revoke the person's driver's license.
2)Eliminates the 10-year period in which previous DUI
AB 1601
Page 2
convictions may be used to enhance penalties in subsequent DUI
penalties, and raises misdemeanor conduct to felony conduct.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that it is unlawful for any person 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 Section 23152 (a).]
2)States that it is unlawful for any person who has a 0.08% or
more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a
vehicle. [Vehicle Code Section 23152(b).]
3)Provides that a person convicted of a second DUI within 10
years of a specified prior DUI conviction shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail for 90 days to one year and/or
a fine of $390 to $1,000. (Vehicle Code Section 23540.)
4)Provides that a person convicted of a third DUI within 10
years of two separate specified DUI convictions shall be
punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than
120 days nor more than one year. The person is also subject
to a fine of $390 to $1,000 and revocation of his or her
driver's license. [Vehicle Code Section 23546(a).]
5)Provides that a person convicted of a DUI within 10 years of
three or more separate specified DUI convictions is guilty of
an alternate felony/misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years or in the county
jail for not less than 180 days nor more than one year. The
person is also subject to a fine of $390 to $1,000 and
revocation of his or her driver's license. (Vehicle Code
Section 23550.)
6)Mandates a court granting probation to a DUI first offender
who had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.20% or more,
or who refused to take a chemical test, to order the defendant
to participate for at least six months in a licensed program
that consists of at least 45 hours of education, group
counseling, individual interview sessions, and other specified
program activities. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section
11837(c)(2).]
7)States that each county shall develop, implement, and operate
AB 1601
Page 3
an alcohol and drug assessment program that shall assess a
person convicted of a second or subsequent DUI violation who
failed to comply with the rules and policies of the drinking
driver treatment program. [Vehicle Code Section 23646(a).]
8)Requires a person convicted of DUI or DUI with bodily injury
within seven years of conviction of a separate violation of
DUI or DUI with bodily injury to participate in a drug problem
assessment program. [Vehicle Code Section 23646(b).]
9)States that if the court grants probation to a person
convicted of a third DUI offense, the court may order as a
condition of probation that the person participate in a
30-month licensed DUI program. [Vehicle Code Section
23548(b).]
10)Provides that each county shall prepare an alcohol and drug
problem assessment report on each person ordered by the court
to participate in such program. [Vehicle Code Section
23648(a).]
11)States that the assessment report shall include, if
applicable, a recommendation for any additional treatment and
the duration of such treatment. Provides that such treatment
shall be in addition to the education, group counseling and
individual interview sessions prescribed by HSC Section 11837.
[Vehicle Code Section 23648(b).]
12)Provides that within 30 days of receipt of the assessment
report, the court shall order the person to complete the
recommendations set forth in the report and in satisfaction
of, and consistent with, the conditions of probation. States
that if the court elects not to order the completion of the
recommended plan, the court shall specify on the record its
reason for not adopting these recommendations. [Vehicle Code
Section 23648(c).]
13)In addition to any other provisions of law, the court may
require that a person convicted of a first offense DUI install
a certified IID on any vehicle that the person owns or
operates and prohibit that person from operating a motor
vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning,
certified IID. The court shall give heightened consideration
to applying this sanction to a first offense violator with
0.15% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at
AB 1601
Page 4
arrest, or with two or more prior moving traffic violations,
or to persons who refused the chemical tests at arrest. If
the court orders the IID restriction, the term shall be
determined by the court for a period not to exceed three years
from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the DMV,
as specified in Vehicle Code Section 1803(a), of the terms of
the restrictions in accordance with Vehicle Code Section
1804(a). The DMV shall place the restriction in the person's
records in the DMV. [Vehicle Code Section 23575(a)(1).]
14)The court shall require a person convicted of a violation of
driving on a suspended license because of a DUI to install an
IID on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and
prohibit the person from operating a motor vehicle unless the
vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified IID. The
term of the restriction shall be determined by the court for a
period not to exceed three years from the date of conviction.
The DMV shall place the restriction in the person's records in
the DMV. [Vehicle Code Section 23575(a)(2).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Should a DUI
conviction be deleted from a driver's record after 10 years as
is allowed under current state law allowing repeat DUI
offenders to get their license back quicker and easier? AB
1601 changes state law so that eight DUIs means eight DUIs.
This will ensure that the penalty truly fits the crime. In
the case of my constituent, his eighth DUI was treated as his
third DUI because the previous convictions fell outside of the
10-year window.
"Should a repeat DUI driver have to hurt or kill someone before
their license is revoked as is required by state law or should
judges be given the discretion to revoke licenses from repeat
DUI offenders after taking several factors into consideration?
AB 1601 authorizes judges to revoke one's driver's license
upon their third DUI conviction after taking various
considerations into account, including but not limited to:
the period of time that has elapsed since the person's
previous convictions; the person's participation and
successful completion of an alcohol treatment program; the
person's risk to traffic or public safety; and the person's
AB 1601
Page 5
ability to install an IID."
2)Dangers of Driving under the Influence : Alcohol impairs one's
reaction time, tracking and steering, coordination, judgment,
and speed control - making driving under the influence a
dangerous activity. While the number of alcohol-related
deaths due to traffic fatalities has increased, so too has the
total number of traffic deaths, though the percentage of total
traffic fatalities due to alcohol remains at or near 40%.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), fatally injured drivers with BAC of 0.08% (for
example, a 170-pound man drinking three drinks in one hour
would have a 0.08% BAC) or greater were nine times as likely
to have a prior DUI conviction compared to fatally injured
sober drivers. NHTSA further reports that the risk of a
driver who has one or more DUI convictions becoming involved
in a fatal crash is about 1.4 times the risk of a driver with
no DUI convictions. About one-third of drivers arrested or
convicted of DUI are repeat offenders. Thus, it is clear that
repeat DUI offenders present a special concern to public
safety, though the question remains as to the best approach to
dealing with the problem.
3)Current Penalties for Repeat Drunk Drivers : Under current
law, a person convicted of a second DUI faces the following
possible punishment: up to one year in jail, up to $1,000 in
fines plus assessments, a two-year driver's license suspension
that will not be reinstated until proof of completion of a
treatment program is provided, vehicle impoundment, and
installation of an IID as a condition of probation. The
punishments are even more severe if the DUI resulted in
injuries. A person convicted of a third DUI faces the
following possible punishment: up to one year in jail, a fine
of up to $1,000 plus assessment, vehicle impoundment,
designation as a habitual traffic offender for three years,
license revocation, and a 30-month treatment program. A
person convicted of a DUI within 10 years of three or more
separate specified DUI convictions is guilty of an alternate
felony/misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years or in the county jail for
not less than 180 days nor more than one year. The person is
also subject to a fine of $390 to $1,000 and revocation of his
or her driver's license.
AB 1601
Page 6
4)Gives the Court Authority to Permanently Revoke a License to
Drive Rather than the DMV : Under current law, there are two
systems for dealing with alleged intoxicated drivers. When a
person is arrested for driving under the influence, he or she
is subjected to two separate procedures: (a) a judicial
criminal proceeding to determine his or her criminal
liability, and (b) an administrative process conducted by the
DMV to determine whether the driver should face a suspension
or revocation of his or her license. A criminal defendant is
afforded numerous constitutional protections in criminal
procedures because his or her liberty is at stake. In the
administrative procedure to determine the right of the
individual to drive, only the privilege to drive is at stake.
In general, courts of law have not been in the business of
determining whether an individual has a right to drive; this
has been conducted in the purview of the DMV. The DMV has
administrative hearing officers who conduct hearings on a
daily basis, with the appropriate level of constitutional
scrutiny as applied to the privilege to drive. Courts of law
conduct proceedings, hearings, and trials with a criminal
defendant's liberty at stake. This bill does not articulate a
standard of review for the court to use, nor does this bill
outline a hearing process on the issue of permanently revoking
a driver's right to drive.
5)No Process to Eventually Overturn a Court's Decision to
Permanently Revoke : There is no process in this bill to
permit a review of a court's decision to permanently revoke a
driver's right to drive. Under this bill, an individual could
be deprived of the right to drive in his or her early
twenties. That individual could then become a valuable member
of society. At age 60, this person could not drive his or her
grandchildren to or from soccer practice due to conduct
committed in his or her twenties. It seems good policy to
include a provision in this bill that would permit an
individual, after a reasonable period of time, to petition to
have his or her right to drive restored. The petition could
be filed with either the DMV or a court of law.
6)Effectiveness of License Revocation in Diminishing Incidents
of DUI : Up to 75% of DUI offenders continue to drive while
their licenses are suspended. A 1998 survey found that while
DUI offenders continued to drive with suspended licenses, they
AB 1601
Page 7
reported driving less and more carefully. Studies confirm
that even though DUI offenders continue to drive with
suspended licenses, they present a lower risk to the public
than if they are allowed to retain their full driving
privileges.
The practical effect of a suspended or revoked license is the
same - it is unlawful for that person to drive a car. It is
unclear if DUI offenders who continue to drive with suspended
licenses would stop driving simply because their licenses had
been revoked.
7)Permanent License Revocation Undermines Incentives for
Treatment : Upon conviction of DUI, the defendant may be
ordered to attend a treatment program; the DMV will not
reinstate a driver's license until proof of completion of a
treatment program is provided, or both. If a driver's license
is permanently revoked, there is one less incentive for a
person convicted of a DUI to undergo treatment. The treatment
programs provided for a DUI violation range from three months
to 30 months.
According to the American Council on Alcoholism, "[Those with
high BAC and repeat offender drunk drivers] usually have some
sort of drinking problem, i.e., alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
These drivers represent the core and most difficult part of
the drunk-driving problem. The traffic safety community has
long recognized this, but traditional means of prevention have
had little or no effect. We know that education programs,
license suspension or revocation, and other sanctions do not
deter these drivers. And even jail time does not stop them
from drinking and driving after they are released from jail
(and the sad truth is that even drunk drivers who kill
innocent victims spend relatively little or no time in jail).
Why does not education or punishment seem to work? Because
the root cause of their drunk driving is their drinking
problem. Until that problem is recognized and treated, the
vast majority of repeat offense drunk drivers will continue
their pattern of drinking and driving, unfortunately all too
often with deadly and tragic consequences.
"The highly successful drug courts offer a model for dealing
with high BACs and repeat offense drunk driving. We can learn
from the success of the drug courts and apply the concepts
used to address the issue of high BAC and repeat offender
AB 1601
Page 8
drunk driving. How? By making treatment a central and
integral part of the solution. We know from experience that
treatment-based drug courts work. We know that people can
recover from alcoholism and addiction. According to Judge
Darrell Stevens in Chico, California, the results are nothing
short of 'amazing'. It is time to take this proven concept of
addressing drug addiction that incorporates treatment to help
people recover and apply it directly to alcoholism and alcohol
abuse as it relates to drunk driving.
"We need to understand that alcoholism and alcohol abuse is a
significant part of the drunk driving problem. And we need to
recognize that treatment works. If we do not treat the
problem, then the seemingly endless and deadly circle of drunk
driving will not be broken. Some drug courts already include
drunk driving as part of their docket. And NHTSA has funded a
DUI treatment court project specifically for repeat offenders
in Phoenix, Arizona. This is a step in the right direction.
But we need a larger and more comprehensive effort to develop
and establish DUI treatment courts across the country.
"If we are going to stop the carnage of repeat offender drunk
driving, we need to go beyond traditional prevention through
education and education. We need to break the pattern of
repeated drunk driving before the offender kills or injures an
innocent victim. We need to treat the problem. That means
using the broad range of available treatment programs,
services, and approaches - from the Alcoholics Anonymous'
12-step program to inpatient treatment centers to
pharmacological treatment such as naltrexone, just to name a
few - to deal with the core problem of alcoholism and alcohol
abuse as it relates to drunk driving. We need prevention
through intervention."
8)License Revocation is not the Solution : NHTSA reports that
not many repeat DUI offenders are deterred by broad impaired
driving laws. NHTSA suggest four alternative sanctioning
approaches that have proven especially effective at reducing
repeat offenses. Those approaches are as follows:
a) Automobile Impoundment: Impounding vehicles after a
conviction for DUI or driving with a suspended license can
decrease recidivism by an estimated 38% and DUI accidents
by about 4%. Overall, per vehicle impounded, enforcement
would cost California approximately $1,100 and save on
AB 1601
Page 9
average $5,700.
b) IIDs: Breath testing IIDs are designed to prevent any
person with a positive BAC from starting or driving a car.
Attaching an IID to a car for one year after its operator
is convicted of driving while intoxicated would reduce
recidivism by an estimated 75% and alcohol-related
fatalities by 7%, and save almost $11,000 per vehicle
equipped. Including equipment and case management costs,
IID costs would total approximately $1,320 per vehicle.
c) Electronically Monitored House Arrest: Electronic
monitoring is an alternative to incarcerating repeat
offenders. Electronic monitoring provides assurance of an
offender's presence within an assigned area. A device
attached to the offender's wrist or ankle and relays a
continuous signal to a computer. Monitoring may also a
require offender to relay a breath test when prompted by a
random phone call. Implementation of this program could
decrease recidivism by an estimated 31%, causing DUI
accidents to decrease by about 3% in California. Per
person arrested, the program would cost nearly $1,900,
could avoid an estimated $7,200 in automobile accident
costs, and save almost $2,480 in incarceration costs.
d) Intensive Probation Supervision with Treatment:
Intensive probation supervision with treatment is an
alternative to incarcerating repeat offenders. This early
intervention program seeks to reduce alcohol-impaired
driving by addressing repeat offenders' drinking habits and
provides intensive individual counseling and monitoring.
Implementation of this program in California could decrease
recidivism by an estimated 48%, causing DUI accidents to
decrease by 4%. Typically, per person arrested, this
program costs approximately $1,700 and can save an
estimated $8,100 in accident costs and $700 in
incarceration costs.
9)Ability to Pay for an IID is a Consideration Used in
Determining Permanent Revocation : This bill could have an
adverse impact on a person who is unable to pay for the
installation of an IID on his or her vehicle. One of the
considerations that a judge is to consider when determining
whether to permanently revoke the right of a person to drive
is "the person's ability to install a certified ignition
AB 1601
Page 10
interlock device in each motor vehicle that he or she owns or
operates."
The cost of an IID varies depending on the nature and type of
the device and the jurisdiction in which it is installed. In
New Mexico and Arizona, USA Today placed the cost of an IID
per year at $1,000. [Nasser, States Turn on to Idea of
Ignition Locks, USA Today (June 23, 2005),
.]
Costs also vary depending on whether the unit is rented or
purchased, with the latter being more expensive. According to
information provided by the California Highway Patrol, there
are approximately eight IID providers in California, with over
158 locations. The largest provider appears to be Consumer
Safety Technology with 65 locations. As Consumer Safety
Technology is the largest provider, that model may be used to
assess average costs: it places the cost of unit rental,
installation, verification of installation, removal and reset
at a total of $265. The rental is a monthly cost of $70.
Under the terms of this bill and provisions of existing law,
the offender is required to recalibrate and maintain the
device every 60 days. Reset cost is $35; presumably reset
occurs when the machine is recalibrated - $35 every 60 days.
The cost per year to recalibrate the machine would be $210 at
$35 every six months. The cost of rental at $70 per month for
the year is $840. The total cost to maintain and rent the IID
is approximately $1,050. That amount ($1,050) is in addition
to the cost of installing and removing the device. That cost
is $135: $70 for installation and $35 for removal. All
California providers do offer fixed or sliding scale
reductions of costs based on various factors such as stated
yearly income, employment status, or federal tax returns.
10)Elimination of Washout Period : In the context of DUI, a
"washout period" is the period in which a person convicted of
DUI would no longer be subject to increased penalties for
having suffered one or more prior convictions for DUI or other
related offenses. Vehicle Code Section 23540 was added in
1981 (originally Vehicle Code Section 23165) and specified a
seven-year washout period. The washout period was seven
years until 2004 when SB 1694 (Torlakson), Chapter 550,
Statutes of 2004, increased the washout period to 10 years.
Originally, SB 1694 eliminated the washout period as this bill
proposes. The Senate Public Safety analysis noted the
AB 1601
Page 11
following concerns regarding the elimination of the DUI
washout period, "It is unusual to have a misdemeanor act as a
sentence enhancement for another misdemeanor although past
criminal behavior can always be taken into consideration for
sentencing purposes. This would make DUIs different than most
misdemeanors and most offenses in that a prior will always act
as a prior. If the argument is that DUI offenders reoffend
but may go years before they do so, this is contrary to
studies which have shown that a DUI offender who goes seven
years without reoffending is only slightly more likely to
reoffend than a person who has never had a DUI. (Peck and
Helander, "Repeat DUI Offenders-An Analysis of Research Needs
and Countermeasure Development Strategies" Paper sponsored by
Committee on Alcohol, Other Drugs and Transportation,
Transportation Research Board. Presented at University of
California, Irvine, August 19 and 20, 1999.) By removing the
washout entirely, it is more likely that a district attorney
or a judge will in the future find cases where they believe an
enhanced sentence is inappropriate. Even more likely is that
the threat of the use of an old prior will be used to obtain a
plea in a weak current case. It is unclear what the
re-introduction of the use of discretion will have to the
existing DUI system in California which has a relatively low
recidivism rate."
11)Concerns for Prison Overcrowding : The elimination of the
washout period will increase felony DUI convictions as
district attorneys will charge felonies where defendants have
multiple DUI convictions despite the year of conviction. The
California Policy Research Center (CPRC) issued a report on
the status of California's prisons. The report stated,
"California has the largest prison population of any state in
the nation, with more than 171,000 inmates in 33 adult
prisons, and the state's annual correctional spending,
including jails and probation, amounts to $8.92 billion.
Despite the high cost of corrections, fewer California
prisoners participate in relevant treatment programs than
comparable states, and its inmate-to-officer ratio is
considerably higher. While the nation's prisons average one
correctional officer to every 4.5 inmates, the average
California officer is responsible for 6.5 inmates. Although
officer salaries are higher than average, their ranks are
spread dangerously thin and there is a severe vacancy rate."
(Petersilia, Understanding California Corrections, CPRC, May
2006.) California's prison population will likely exceed
AB 1601
Page 12
180,000 by 2010.
According to the Little Hoover Commission, "Lawsuits filed in
three federal courts alleging that the current level of
overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ask that
the courts appoint a panel of federal judges to manage
California's prison population. United States District Judge
Lawrence Karlton, the first judge to hear the motion, gave the
State until June 2007 to show progress in solving the
overpopulation crisis. Judge Karlton clearly would prefer not
to manage California's prison population. At a December 2006
hearing, Judge Karlton told lawyers representing the
Schwarzenegger administration that he is not inclined 'to
spend forever running the state prison system.' However, he
also warned the attorneys, 'You tell your client June 4 may be
the end of the line. It may really be the end of the line.'
"Despite the rhetoric, thirty years of 'tough on crime' politics
has not made the state safer. Quite the opposite: today
thousands of hardened, violent criminals are released without
regard to the danger they present to an unsuspecting public.
Years of political posturing have taken a good idea -
determinate sentencing - and warped it beyond recognition with
a series of laws passed with no thought to their cumulative
impact. And these laws stripped away incentive s for
offenders to change or improve themselves while incarcerated.
"Inmates, who are willing to improve their education, learn a
job skill or kick a drug habit find that programs are few and
far between, a result of budget choices and overcrowding.
Consequently, offenders are released into California
communities with the criminal tendencies and addictions that
first led to their incarceration. They are ill-prepared to do
more than commit new crimes and create new victims . . . . "
[Little Hoover Commission Report, Solving California's
Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out, pg. 1, 2 (2007).]
On January 12, 2010, the Three Judge Panel issued its final
ruling ordering the State of California to reduce its prison
population by approximately 50,000 inmates in the next two
years. [Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ
S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.] Although this order is
stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court,
careful consideration must be given to any proposal that
AB 1601
Page 13
exacerbates prison overcrowding. The Legislative Analyst's
Office predicts incarceration costs per inmate at $49,000 per
year.
12)Argument in Support : According to the California State
Sheriffs' Association , "We are pleased to support AB 1601
which would repeal the arbitrary 10-year look back period
state law requires the DMV to use on repeat DUI offenders and
authorizes judges to repeal licenses for drivers who receive 3
or more DUIs.
"By repealing the arbitrary 10-year look back period state law
requires the DMV to use on repeat DUI offenders; AB 1601 makes
the DMV look at a driver's entire record so that penalties are
consistent with the crime. Each DUI should be treated as a
DUI regardless of how many have years past between the
offenses.
"Current statute states DUI drivers have to hurt of kill someone
before their license can be revoked; AB 1601 addresses this
issue by allowing a judge to revoke a driver's licenses from
drivers who have had 3 or more DUI offenses. Innocent
Californians shouldn't have to wait for perpetual DUI
offenders to hurt of kill someone innocent for the offender to
get his or her license revoked."
13)Argument in Opposition : According to California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice (CACJ) and California DUI Lawyers
Association (CDLA), "CACJ and CDLA are concerned about two
provisions in the bill. AB 1601 would impose repeat offender
sentences on all individuals who violate Vehicle Code 23152
twice any time during their lifetimes. Current law limits
these elevated penalties to drivers who commit multiple
offenses within a ten-year period. The effect of AB 1601 is
to punish a driver who has obeyed the law for 35 years with
the same enhanced penalty as a driver who commits two DUI's
within a month.
"The second problematic provision of AB 1601 is vesting the
courts with the authority to permanently revoke a driver's
license. Taking this approach ignores a fundamental key to
rehabilitation, namely, rewarding sobriety. Current law
already allows for revocation but also provides an avenue for
a rehabilitated individual to petition for reinstatement.
Unfortunately, AB 1601 eliminates an effective tool of
AB 1601
Page 14
rehabilitation.
"The California Legislature has decided to impose harsher
penalties upon a narrow segment of DUI offenders; those
individuals who commit repeat offenses within a relatively
short period of time. The objective was to impose elevated
sentence to someone who was neither deterred nor rehabilitated
by the imposition of traditional penalties.
"The proponents of an aggravated sentence settled on a 5-year
period believing this would capture those individuals who have
an ongoing problem with drinking and driving. Eventually, the
Legislature extended this period to 7-years. In 2005, the
period was increased to 10-years.
"The further this threshold is extended the less it remains tied
to the original objective of imposing an aggravated term on an
individual who has an on-going propensity to drink and drive.
"AB 1601 does away with this period altogether which contradicts
the original intent of the prior period. The effect of this
deletion will be to treat individuals who may have decades of
lawful activity between offenses, as habitual, ongoing
offenders. For example, a person who was convicted of a DUI
offense in 1975 and received a second offense in 2011 will
incur the same jail sentence and license suspension as a
driver who has two convictions, only weeks apart, in 2011.
"There are no studies indicating the proposed change is
necessary to curb repeat offenders. In fact, it appears that
current statutes and administrative penalties are taking hold.
According to the DMV's most recent report, the percentage of
repeat DUI offenders has dropped by 1/3 since 1989.
"CACJ and CDLA also oppose the provision of AB 1601 which will
deny a rehabilitated person the opportunity to obtain
reinstatement of his/her driving privileges. Specifically,
this bill will permit the court to permanently revoke a
person's driver's license after a third offense during one's
lifetime.
"Revocation and reinstatement of driving privileges has become a
critical tool to ensure individuals achieve sobriety. A
litany of studies indicates holding out such a reward can
serve as a highly motivating factor for someone addicted to
AB 1601
Page 15
alcohol to take participate in necessary treatment programs.
"In 2005, the California Association of Treatment Providers
underscored the importance of preserving a reinstatement right
when it opposed AB 4 which is substantially similar to AB
1601. In relevant part the CAOTP opposition read, '[t]his
bill contradicts all research showing what works best for
reducing DUI recidivism. There have been numerous studies
done by the DMV and others which consistently show that
drinking driver treatment programs have been significantly
effective in reducing DUI recidivism. . . . While the
inclination is understandably to create more onerous
sanctions, studies have routinely shown that this approach is
the least effective way to reduce DUI recidivism. . . . By
permanently revoking one's driver's license, this bill does
the opposite of this . . . the problem with this bill versus
current law, is that those with suspended licenses are
receiving treatment while those with a permanently revoked
license will have no incentive to receive any treatment, even
if it is required.' (Assembly Committee on Public Safety,
Analysis AB 4, 2005.)
"As was the case with AB 4, AB 1601 fails to provide any
mechanism for a person who has achieved sobriety to reinstate
his/her license. Habitual offenders need greater incentives
and access to treatment programs. Unfortunately, AB 1601
moves us in the opposite direction.
"Under current law, a driver who receives a third DUI offense is
designated as a 'habitual offender' and has his/her license
revoked. Vehicle Code 23550.5(d) Pursuant to this section
a person is required to immediately surrender his/her license
to the court. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) must
then determine when, if ever, to reinstate driving privileges.
This decision is in part based on the person's successful
completion of a 2 year alcohol program. AB 1601 would
eliminate this critical incentive for a driver to enroll,
participate, and complete this alcohol program. California
needs to take steps to increase successful treatment, not
reduce it."
14)Prior Legislation : AB 4 (Bogh), of the 2005-06 Legislative
Session, permanently would have revoked the drivers' license
of a person convicted of a third or subsequent violation of
AB 1601
Page 16
specified DUI provisions, eliminated the 10-year washout in
which a person convicted of a DUI would no longer be subject
to increased penalties for having suffered one or more prior
convictions for DUI or other related offenses, and required an
IID be installed for a person convicted of a DUI with BAC of
0.16% if he or she had been convicted of a DUI within 10
years. AB 4 failed passage in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Crime Victims United
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California DUI Lawyers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744