BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1601
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1601 (Hill) - As Amended: February 4, 2010
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 5-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes a court 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)Authorizes a court to order permanent revocation of the
driver's license of a person previously convicted of three or
more separate DUI violations. Upon receipt of a certified
abstract from the court showing the court has ordered
permanent revocation of a driver's license, the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall permanently revoke the person's
driver's license. When making this order, the court shall
consider all of the following:
a) The person's remorse.
b) The period of time 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 public safety.
f) The person's ability to install a certified ignition
interlock device (IID).
2)Eliminates the 10-year limit during which previous DUI
convictions may be used to enhance penalties for subsequent
DUI penalties, increasing misdemeanor penalties to felony
penalties.
AB 1601
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Major annual increase in state prison costs, potentially in
excess of $10 million, based on almost 2,500 persons committed
to state prison for DUI in 2008. By eliminating the 10-year
washout for prior DUI-related offenses, this bill will result
in additional DUI priors that will result in increased prison
commitments. A 10% increase in the number of persons committed
to state prison for DUI in 2008, based on per capita costs,
would exceed $11 million.
2)Major one-time cost for prison construction of about $100,000
per bed. Based on a 10% increase over 2008 DUI commitments,
the capital costs would exceed $28 million. Given current
prison overcrowding (180% of design capacity) and federal
court orders to reduce the inmate population, inmate housing
is at a premium.
3)Onetime costs of about $150,000 to DMV, which receives about
8,000 convictions per year for three-time DUI offenders, for
programming to set up a permanent revocation process.
4)Unknown moderate nonreimbursable increased local incarceration
costs, offset to a degree by increased fine revenue, for
misdemeanor convictions of driving with a revoked license.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends the threat of permanent license
revocation will deter repeat drunk drivers.
2)Current law provides that a person convicted of a second DUI
within 10 years of the first DUI faces up to one year in jail
and/or a fine of up to $1,000 in fines plus assessments, a
two-year driver's license suspension (the license will not be
reinstated until a treatment program is successfully
completed), vehicle impoundment, and installation of an IID as
a condition of probation. The penalties are more severe if the
DUI resulted in injuries.
A person convicted of a third DUI within 10 years of the first
two DUIs faces up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000
plus assessment, vehicle impoundment, designation as a
AB 1601
Page 3
habitual traffic offender for three years, license revocation,
and a 30-month treatment program.
A DUI within 10 years of three or more separate specified DUI
convictions is 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 and/or a fine of up to $1,000 and revocation of his
or her driver's license.
3)Does permanent revocation create a treatment disincentive ?
Upon DUI conviction, a defendant may be ordered to attend a
treatment program. If a license is suspended, the DMV will not
reinstate the license until proof of completion of a treatment
program is provided. According to the California Association
of Drinking Driver Treatment Programs, this 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. The studies demonstrate that programs
work well along with license suspension and temporary
revocation, or even less stringent licensing sanctions such as
restriction and probation.
"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.
Since the programs, when combined with measured licensure
sanctions, are the most effective way to reduce recidivism, we
need to encourage more people to enter programs. By
permanently revoking one's driver's license, this bill does
the opposite of this. It is an unfortunate fact that there are
drivers who will violate the law and drive with suspended or
revoked licenses, regardless of laws or sanctions. Hence, this
bill would not prevent this tragedy. However, the difference,
and 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'."
4)This bill does not provide a court the discretion to ever
restore a revoked license . Should there be a process by which
a person could petition the court to restore a license,
AB 1601
Page 4
perhaps after a period of years, successful treatment and
rehabilitation?
As noted in the Assembly Public Safety analysis of AB 1601,
"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)Opponents , including the ACLU, CA Attorneys for Criminal
Justice (CACJ), and the CA DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA),
contend this bill would actually reduce public safety by
removing the incentive to get a driver's license back, which
generally involves successful completion of treatment
programs. Studies show many offenders with suspended or
revoked licenses drive anyway, and under this bill, would have
no incentive to complete treatment.
"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."
6)Impact on Budget, Prison Overcrowding and Court Ruling to
Reduce Inmate Population . Federal courts have ruled inmate
overcrowding is a primary factor in what the courts have
determined to be unconstitutional levels of prison medical
care. This year the court ordered California to reduce its
inmate population by about 40,000 inmates to achieve an
overcrowding level of 137.5% of capacity. Last year the
Legislature considered measures designed to reduce the inmate
population by about 37,000 and $1.2 billion in 2010-11. The
result of those deliberations is currently a projected savings
of about $780 million in 2010-11 and a population reduction of
AB 1601
Page 5
about 14,000, including parole reforms, inmate program
reductions, and increased sentence credits. The governor's
budget proposes an additional reduction of about $1.1 billion
for 2010-11, including a population reduction of about13,000.
7)Prior legislation , AB 4 (Bogh), 2005, which required permanent
revocation after three DUIs, was held on this committee's
Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081