BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
9
2
AB 1928 (Torlakson) 8
As Amended April 7, 2010
Hearing date: June 22, 2010
Vehicle Code
MK:mc
VEHICLES: COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE
SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION
HISTORY
Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Prior Legislation: AB 1165 (Maze) - Chapter 749, Stats. of 2007
AB 2520 (Assembly Transportation Committee) -
Chapter 574, Stats. 2006
Support: Los Angeles District Attorneys Association; California
District Attorneys Association; Riverside Sheriffs'
Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; California State Sheriffs' Association;
Mothers Against Drunk Driving California State
Organization
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageB
SHOULD THE LAW CLARIFY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(DMV) SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEW AND SUSTAIN THE SUSPENSION
OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR A PERSON WHO REFUSES TO BE TESTED FOR
ALCOHOL AND IS SUSPECTED OF DRIVING WITH A BLOOD-ALCOHOL
CONCENTRATION OF 0.01% WHILE ON PROBATION FOR A PREVIOUS DUI?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE LAW CLARIFY THAT DMV SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEW AND
SUSTAIN THE SUSPENSION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR A PERSON FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN DRIVING A VEHICLE THAT REQUIRES A COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S
LICENSE WITH A 0.04% OR MORE BY WEIGHT OF ALCOHOL IN HIS OR HER
BLOOD?
SHOULD THE LAW CLARIFY THAT DMV SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEW AND
SUSTAIN THE SUSPENSION OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR A PERSON FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN DRIVING A VEHICLE WITH A BLOOD-ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF
0.01% OR MORE WHILE THE PERSON WAS ON PROBATION FOR A DUI?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to clarify that the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) shall administratively review and uphold
license suspensions when a person has been found to have been
driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01% or more
while on probation for a DUI, or driving a commercial vehicle
with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent or more.
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who has
a 0.08 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in his or her blood
to drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152 (b).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person who has
0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood
to drive a commercial vehicle. (Vehicle Code 23152 (d).)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person while
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageC
having 0.08 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in his or her
blood 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. (Vehicle Code 23153.)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for any person under
21 years of age to drive with a blood-alcohol concentration of
0.01 percent or greater on a preliminary alcohol screening
device. (Vehicle Code 23136.)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for person under the
age of 21 years who has 0.05 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (Vehicle Code
23140.)
Existing law provides that it is unlawful for a person who is on
probation for driving under the influence (DUI) with a
blood-alcohol concentration level of 0.01 percent or more as
measured by a preliminary alcohol screening device or other
chemical test. (Vehicle Code 23154.)
Existing law provides that a person may not operate a commercial
motor vehicle unless that person has in his or her immediate
possession a valid commercial driver's license of the
appropriate class. (Vehicle Code 15250 (a).)
Existing law provides that the DMV shall immediately suspend or
revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon
the receipt of an abstract of record of a court showing that a
person has been convicted of Vehicle Code section 23152.
(Vehicle Code 13352.)
Existing law provides for the license suspension of a person who
refuses to take a chemical test or submit to a preliminary
alcohol screening device when suspected of DUI. (Vehicle Code
13353 and 13353.1.)
Existing law provides that DMV shall administratively review the
cases of people whose license was suspended because of a refusal
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageD
and shall sustain the suspension or revocation if all of the
following are true:
The peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the
person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of
Vehicle Code sections 23136, 23140, 23152 or 23153.
The person was placed under arrest or lawfully detained.
The person refused to comply with the chemical test or
tests being requested by the peace officer.
The person was told that his or her driving privilege
would be suspended or revoked if he or she refused the
tests. (Vehicle Code 13557(b)(1).)
This bill provides that the suspension or revocation shall also
be sustained if a peace officer had reasonable cause to believe
that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of
Vehicle Code section 23154.
Existing law provides that DMV shall administratively review the
cases of people whose license was suspended under Vehicle Code
section 13352 for driving under the influence and shall sustain
the suspension or revocation if all of the following are true:
The peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the
person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of
Vehicle Code sections 23136, 23140, 23152 or 23153.
The person was placed under arrest or lawfully detained.
That the person was driving a motor vehicle under any of
the following circumstances:
o When the person had a blood-alcohol
concentration of 0.08 percent or more.
o When the person was under 21 years of age and
had a 0.05 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in
his or her blood.
o When the person was under 21 years of age and
had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or
greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol
screening test, or other chemical test. (Vehicle Code
13557(b)(2).)
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageE
This bill provides that the suspension or revocation shall also
be sustained if a peace officer had reasonable cause to believe
that the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of
Vehicle Code section 23154.
This bill provides that suspension or revocation shall also be
sustained if the person was driving a motor vehicle under the
following circumstances:
When the person was driving a vehicle that requires a
commercial driver's license and the person had a 0.04
percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.
When the person was on probation for a DUI violation and
had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or
greater as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test
or other chemical test.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageF
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageG
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
(More)
----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
This bill seeks to close loopholes that previous bills
in the identified areas related to DUI offenses created.
It simply clarifies the Vehicle Code language in
Section 13557 to make the code clear and consistent
throughout. It does not change the intent of current
law-simply clarifies it with technical clean-up
language.
2. Suspension of Driver's Licenses
This bill clarifies that DMV shall uphold a suspension of a
driver's license when a person is found to be driving either
with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) 0.04 percent while driving a
commercial vehicle or driving with a BAC of 0.01 percent or more
while on probation for DUI. Other sections in the Code make it
clear that a person's driver's license is to be suspended under
these circumstances, but the provision dealing with DMV's
administrative hearings do not specifically reference them
because of drafting errors. The issue regarding the discrepancy
for a person driving a commercial vehicle was addressed by an
appellate court in Rehman v. DMV:
(More)
AB 1928 (Torlakson)
PageI
Considering the administrative suspension process is
intended to provide the public with added protection
because the criminal process takes too long to resolve
guilt (see Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 454-455
[65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 860, 940 P.2d 311]), it is
inconceivable the Legislature would enact a statute
allowing the criminal conviction of a commercial driver
with proof of a blood-alcohol content of only 0.04
percent or more ( 23152, subd. (d)), and the suspension
of a commercial license upon a determination of this
fact ( 13352, subd. (a)), but not intend for an
administrative suspension to go into effect absent proof
of the higher blood-alcohol content that is generally
applicable to ordinary drivers. To avoid this absurd
result and give effect to the manifest purpose of the
statutes, we construe subdivision (b)(2)(C)(i) of
section 13557 as including a provision that allows the
department to sustain an order of suspension imposed
under subdivision (a)(3) of section 13353.2 on a person
for driving a vehicle that requires a commercial
driver's license with a blood-alcohol content of 0.04
percent or more where there is proof by a preponderance
of the evidence that the person's blood-alcohol content
was 0.04 percent or more. (Rehman v. Department of
Motor Vehicles, 178 Cal. App. 4th 581, 858 (Cal. App. 3d
Dist. 2009).)
***************